February 14, 2011

Everything (m)old is new again

“Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America'”, says Michael Medved. And he’s not a socialist, and nothing in his past — from his career as a community organizer to his relationships with Ayers, Wright, Alinsky, et al., — should suggest to us he is anything less than a good man who happens to make bad decisions on occasion.

The real political problem America faces today is of course those who try to paint him as a dangerous ideologue out to fundamentally transform the US — relying on nothing more for proof of their suspicions than his actual pledge to transform the US, followed on by a series of policies that have conspired to raise the price of fuel and food, decrease jobs, and vastly expand both the public sector, and those becoming dependent on the government.

Conspiracy theorists, the lot of them. And unhelpful.

Keep all this TEA Party shit up, people, and the GOP will wind up a regional party. Mark Michael Medved’s words….

(thanks to Bob Reed)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:05am
144 comments | Trackback

Comments (144)

  1. Inconvenient truths and stubborn facts are decidedly unhelpful. Better instead we ascribe the most pure of motives to all of the President’s words, deeds, and legislative initiatives.

    I mean, the MBM might accuse us all of being even more terrible h8ters of women, children, minorities, and…FREEDOM!

  2. In Mr. Obama’s case, it’s particularly unhelpful to focus on alleged bad intentions and rotten character when every survey shows more favorable views of his personality than his policies.

    Heavens forfend we should criticize his character! Why, people might start thinking of the man himself in the same way they do his policies!

    While I share Mr. Medved’s feelings that criticism of bad policies are probably more helpful that musing on the motivation behind such policies, I still think he’s a tool. Not to mention just how blatantly he ignores the political price paid by the Dems when they focused 24/7 on Chimpy McHitlerburton’s evil genius/ignorant cowboy antics.

  3. CIVILITY NOW!

    Or so the folks at AP-Obama care calling for in the wake of that CPAC reich wing Hate-A-Palooza™

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama? Weak, a socialist and a liar. Liberals? Monsters and a cancer. Former Vice President Dick Cheney? Called a war criminal, “murdering scum” and a draft dodger — by people in his own party.

    Just a month after the Arizona shooting rampage led to bipartisan calls for toned-down political discourse, incivility suffused the year’s largest gathering of conservatives. Just like at most partisan get-togethers on either end of the ideological spectrum.

    The brief political time out is over — if it ever really existed.

    ( http://tiny.cc/exw17 )

    Because, you know, every word out of every leftist’s mouth has been sweetness and light since the Tucson shooting…

  4. SURVEYS TELL US TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TELLING THE TRUTH, SQUID!

  5. my favorite was when he destroyed the domestic offshore oil exploration industry

  6. For years I’ve been bitching about Sean (fucking) Hannity on the radio, as a huge let-down following El Rushbo. Then my station (Philly) went all-local except for Rush, replacing Hannity with local douche Michael Smerconish.

    Luckily, there’s a second talk radio station in town… which runs Medved in that timeslot. Medved makes Hannity seem like… someone I’d actually listen to.

  7. There is evidence that he’s just stupid. Mika is taken aback by it and taken to school by Niall Ferguson.

    That must be the first time I’ve watched a Morning Joe clip and wanted to stand and applaud.

  8. His motivations were pure as the driven snow happyfeet. He’s gonna get all those roughnecks “green” jobs instead, and we’ll all bicycle everywhere.

    It’ll be quaint, like in Vietnam, Thailand, or Amsterdam.

  9. Uh oh. Mitch Daniels pissed off Limbaugh by suggesting we need to move forward by getting beyond those silly talk show people and their talk show audiences.

    Guess we need to appeal more to independents and moderates.

    DANIELS/McCAIN – 2012!

  10. Limbaugh is also saying that C-PAC was conspicuously devoid of conservatism this time around — that it seemed almost coopted by the GOP.

  11. Michael Smerconish

    I can’t believe this pansy squish is a Philadelphian. I depised the way he was continuously trotted out to shill for Obama in 2008.

  12. surely the Limbaugh coalition what defeated Obama in 2008 has only gotten stronger

  13. Even really smart people can be wrong on occasion.

  14. For years I’ve been bitching about Sean (fucking) Hannity on the radio, as a huge let-down following El Rushbo.

    My local Clear Channel outlet replaced Jerry Doyle with Hannity in and I haven’t tuned in since. Over-the-top cheerleading ain’t my thing…

  15. Rush is being unhelpful.

    The comments to that piece were good too. I’ve got a good one copied on my blog.

  16. Medved is thoroughly in the tank for the liberals. Nothing he says is of any value other than as a marker that indicates where liberal “thinking” is these days.

  17. Limbaugh is also saying that C-PAC was conspicuously devoid of conservatism this time around — that it seemed almost coopted by the GOP.

    And don’t forget the Muslim Brotherhood.

  18. Mitch Daniels morphs into John McCain and the little yellow cartoon falls right in line?

    Heh.

  19. It takes words (out of context) Rush uttered 8 months ago. Shesh. Get a grip, Michael.

    Also, did you catch the piece in WSJ about high speed rail? I’ve got a companion piece with a local/detroit angle if anyone is interested. The Michigan View.

  20. Uh oh.

    I was just listening to that Jeff. I guess that wasn’t the CPAC he knew.

  21. surely the Limbaugh coalition what defeated Obama in 2008 has only gotten stronger

    The Limbaugh coalition was the problem in 2008? Really?

    And what, the 2010 midterms had nothing to do with a conservative/classical liberal — as opposed to a GOP cheerleading — revival?

    Okay.

    Hey, everybody. What’s say we have another thread that’s all about happyfeet?

  22. I don’t see how you can find fault with someone saying they need to appeal more widely than to a buncha talk radio listeners … Mr. Daniels isn’t talking about mere electability – he’s talking about building a consensus to do the horrifically difficult things what need to happen if a fiscal disaster is to be averted here in America.

    Mr. D is acknowledging that it’s very very all too easy to imagine Team R electing someone who will be unable or unwilling to lead such that a way forward is found for America that doesn’t involve insolvency and hyperinflations and drastically declining living standards.

  23. I was just listening to that Jeff. I guess that wasn’t the CPAC he knew.

    Well, Lt.Col. Alan West’s keynote speech seemed awfully staunch to me…

  24. Hey, everybody. What’s say we have another thread that’s all about happyfeet?

    Pass.

  25. I reiterate:

    Heh.

  26. Oh, yeah. There was plenty of staunch, Spiny. But the admixture was…strange, from what I’ve heard.

  27. Mr. Daniels isn’t talking about mere electability – he’s talking about building a consensus to do the horrifically difficult things what need to happen if a fiscal disaster is to be averted here in America.

    Hard to build a concensus when right off the bat you’re telling a significant chunk of the base to shut up and go away.

    Mr. D is acknowledging that it’s very very all too easy to imagine Team R electing someone who will be unable or unwilling to lead such that a way forward is found for America that doesn’t involve insolvency and hyperinflations and drastically declining living standards.

    Focusing on electability is a sure way to make that happen.

  28. I don’t see how you can find fault with someone saying they need to appeal more widely than to a buncha talk radio listeners

    As Limbaugh said, that’s fine. But there’s no need to “diss” (Limbaugh’s word) the people who listen to those shows in the process.

    But then, you spend all your time doing just such a thing here, so it’s really no wonder what side you’d fall on. You like the idea of conservatism — and even then, only part ways. Conservatives? Not so much.

  29. . . . telling a significant chunk of the base to shut up and go away.

    Huh?

  30. Moreover, the current insistence in seeing every misstep or setback by the Obama administration as part of a diabolical master plan for national destruction disregards the powerful reverence for the White House that’s been part of our national character for two centuries.

    Is he talking about some other America with an Obama administration? Because if he’s talking about this one, it’s hard to believe that he believes that horseshit.

  31. We must be the vanguard of recovery, but we cannot do it alone. We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities. We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean. Who surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter. Who, if they’d ever heard of CPAC, would assume it was a cruise ship accessory.*

    that’s a dis Mr. intentionalism?

  32. If a foreign power advanced an army to the border of our land, everyone in this room would drop everything and look for a way to help. We would set aside all other agendas and disputes as secondary, and go to the ramparts until the threat was repelled. That is what those of us here, and every possible ally we can persuade to join us, are now called to do. It is our generational assignment. It is the mission of our era.

  33. sdfer, my paraphrase of the generalized subtext (social conservatives are unhelpful with their socialy divisive issues).

    It’s the old argument: Do we appeal to the mushy middle with pablum of our own, or do we encourage them to “solid up,” so to speak.

    Big gov’t isn’t a problem just because it’s unaffordable. It’s a problem because it’s immoral.

  34. It just seems to me your paraphrase couldn’t be farther from what he said is all.

  35. Is intentionalism synonymous with literalism, Mr Griefer?

    Funny how you can decipher all sort of things just by looking at Sarah Palin’s hand gestures or listening to her inflections, but you pretend that a pointed suggestion that conservatism needs to expand its appeal beyond conservatives is just a harmless, insignificant bit of speech filler, with no previous intertext available to place it in rhetorical context.

  36. I am not going to listen to anything Medved has to say about politics.

    He is a shameless Huckabee shill who refuses to acknowledge Huckabee’s bigoted, ignorant “questions” about Romney’s Mormon faith. I’m not a big Romney fan, but I stopped listening to Medved because of his Huckabee sycophancy and his patent dishonesty on the subject. The last time I listened to Medved, this is what I heard:

    Caller: Michael, I can’t understand why you’re such a Huckabee apologist.
    MM: I’m not, because Mike Huckabee doesn’t have anything to apologize for.

    Ain’t he clever?

  37. Fair enough sdferr (got it right that time). My concern is that if the fiscal issue gets foregrounded to the point of exluding all else, we’re going to end with a repeat of the ’86 tax deal.

  38. I did not get expand beyond conservatives from that. I got expand beyond those that are already informed and active.

  39. Also, if you want to take your uninformed and frankly silly intentionalism digs at me do it somewhere else. I’m not sure if you understand intentionalism or not. What is clear, though, is that you hope that others who don’t will sign on to the “optics” of your feeble barbs.

  40. Ehhh, I think it’s fairly clear now that Daniels isn’t a viable candidate.

    At the same time, as we’ve seen spending go up and up and up, I’d say we could make a fairly strong argument that fiscal conservatism has never been focused on to the exclusion of other topics. Or even focused on at all.

    The Tea Partiers are serious about it now at least. Seems the way forward is to figure out which candidate can roughly follow their coalitional make-up.

    Of course, they seem to focus more on the fiscal and constitutional issues more than the social issues so are they going to run into the same problem?

    I certainly hope not.

  41. Could be the ’86 tax deal (which to the extent I remember its substance, wasn’t all that bad, though certainly not revolutionary) is where we end up, though that doesn’t seem to be the starting point for Daniels. Maybe I’m wrong though, or mistake him.

    When he says “An affectionate thank you to the major social welfare programs of the last century, but their sunsetting when those currently or soon to be enrolled have passed off the scene.” I take him to be suggesting not just patches to preserve old outmoded systems, but to be suggesting we need to drop them altogether to be replaced by something much (vastly) smaller in scope and utterly unlike in design (i.e., absolutely no Ponzi constructs whatsoever). How far we can go in the direction of smaller and more rationally designed “help” systems for the truly needy — excluding those who aren’t — is the question, and in part will be determined by how large an army of revolutionaries can grow, hence how strong the mandate for social welfare revolutionary overturning will be.

  42. In another part, Daniels compared us to suicide bombers, that’s already past McCain, in the ‘my friends’
    department, remember the ’86 tax reform, that reduced the deductability of real estate interest, regardless of the fact that S&L portfolios were precariously propped up by said properties

  43. but you pretend that a pointed suggestion that conservatism needs to expand its appeal beyond conservatives is just a harmless, insignificant bit of speech filler.

    I don’t think it’s insignificant filler – he led directly into this idea…

    The worst [outcome] would be to win the election and then prove ourselves incapable of turning the ship of state before it went on the rocks, with us at the helm.

    So we must unify America, or enough of it, to demand and sustain the Big Change we propose. *

    this seems altogether condign to me… avoiding the rocks is key, no?… I think Mr. Daniels has gone much further than other candidates in spelling out quite articulately what the 2012 stakes are, and I think he has it right in much the same way Mr. Ryan does.

  44. I did not get expand beyond conservatives from that. I got expand beyond those that are already informed and active.

    In light of the last election and a huge, grassroots TEA Party movement, JD? Didn’t conservatism just enjoy a decidedly active and informed landslide?

    Your reading is a bit too charitable. And increasingly, it seems to me like special pleading.

    Again, I have nothing against Daniels. But I’m here to point out what I see. You disagree? Fine. But don’t pretend it’s because I’m being implausible — or that in doing so, I’m violating some hermeneutic paradigm you either don’t like or don’t understand.

  45. Political conventions are so pre-Singularity.

  46. I suggested none of the above. I suggested that I, and some other, got a different message from the same words. YMMV.

  47. What are those “rocks,” happy? And why would “we” not be able to turn it around, when “we” are more representative of the electorate than those who were able to sail us into those rocks?

    That is, the left, by winning elections, was able to enact its programs. So why would the right not be able to do the same thing — by running and winning as conservatives?

  48. heh, there’s a sincere sense in which shortbaldwonkishmidwestern dudes need them some special pleading (or lift heels). Standing surrounded by a crowd of ordinary folks no one would even know they’re there.

  49. the rocks are Bad Things, Mr. Jeff. To avoid the rocks we will need a great deal of consensus – we have to turn the wheel hard to starboard for to avoid the rocks, for they are too close for any usual sort of firm and gentle pressure on the wheel to afford us the berth we will need to avoid the hitting of them.

  50. The TEA partiers are decidedly not uniformed or inactive. He went on to characterize those that he was speaking of, the ones that skip past politics on their way to ESPN. But I am pleading.

  51. oh. I suppose you turn the wheel hard to port actually if you need your boat to head to the right, no?

    Mitch would know.

  52. I suggested none of the above. I suggested that I, and some other, got a different message from the same words. YMMV.

    You suggested that he was calling for a more active and informed electorate. I find that a strange call on the heels of a grassroots movement of active and informed conservatives.

  53. Daniels strikes me as the kind of plain vanilla ‘clean toga’ boy who will let Grandma get fed to the ‘Bugblatter beast of Trall’ ie; death panels, and say it’s a good things for the children of course. There’s no guarantee he won’t throw any other factions to the sharks, to save on the dry cleaning bills.

  54. Until we find some folks who can stand up and say things such as “yes, we’re de-funding Headstart completely”, we’re fucked.

    Shit, even the “conservatives” on Chris Wallace’s show couldn’t even stand up for that.

  55. bh, my problem with the fiscal label is that it’s too often a beard the big government republicans hide behind

    sdferr, in ’86 we had a bi-partisan compromise $1 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts. We got real tax increases and imaginary spending cuts.

    No thanks. I’ll pass on going down that road again.

  56. Daniels strikes me as the kind of plain vanilla ‘clean toga’ boy who will let Grandma get fed to the ‘Bugblatter beast of Trall’ ie; death panels, and say it’s a good things for the children of course. There’s no guarantee he won’t throw any other factions to the sharks, to save on the dry cleaning bills.

    See, when people say stuff like this — when the person in question quite clearly expressed the opposite opinion — what’s one to do?

    Let it slide? Then it becomes part of the narrative. Rebut it? Then one seems like a single candidate sycophant.

    What exactly are we to do?

  57. He went on to characterize those that he was speaking of, the ones that skip past politics on their way to ESPN. But I am pleading.

    If you aren’t concerned about the trajectory of the country by now, I don’t need you awakened. I’d prefer you sit home, watch TV, and not vote.

  58. Also, if we’re going to wake people up? You can do worse than have them listen to Levin, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hewitt, Beck, et al.

  59. bh, my problem with the fiscal label is that it’s too often a beard the big government republicans hide behind

    I hear that.

    It’s what I was talking about with trust the other day. Daniels speaks as though people trust him. They don’t. Don’t trust any of them really.

    This is a perception problem on his part (he’s not reading the base correctly or something else I don’t quite understand maybe) and if he wants to be a viable candidate, he has plenty of work to do.

  60. I thought the ’86 deal was credited for setting the country on a 24 year era of prosperity Ernst? Certainly the fiscal situation now is vastly worse than the situation then though, and hence cutting weighs far greater in the scale. Daniels, though he didn’t address cutting by way of stressing it in the cpac speech outside the implications of entitlement change (which is the key, however) has in other places and times recently stressed that cutting away Government now (what Ryan is on the path to do) is a priority over tax reform and receipts from same.

  61. I am going to stick to songs. I am not pleading there. I just do not get where this is a diss, or a call to go all McCain.

  62. This is a perception problem on his part (he’s not reading the base correctly or something else I don’t quite understand maybe) and if he wants to be a viable candidate, he has plenty of work to do.

    I’ve considered this, as well. He’s either entirely misreading conservatives, or else he really is moving toward a hybrid Establishment GOP/fiscal conservative candidacy.

    I think it’s the latter. I see the Bush clan pushing it. I see the establishment GOP making a pushback. And I think it’s in the party DNA to believe they need to water down the message and “appeal to the middle” to win elections.

    Reagan proved otherwise. He brought the middle to him. And as the country is a center-right country, people are more inclined to move slightly right than to move left.

    There’s a reason Obama ran as a pragmatic centrist — and why the media continues to try to put him over as such. If it’s between a young, historic black centrist and an hoary milquetoast centrist who smelled like an anointed successor to Bush, who did the GOP think people were going to vote for?

  63. Also Ernst, it isn’t clear to me that Daniels is aiming at what you term bi-partisan compromise. In fact, I think he isn’t. He’s aiming at the obverse of Obama’s change program, having majorities large enough to push through the necessary change without any need for Democrat participation at all. Thus to get the whole enchilada.

  64. I just do not get where this is a diss, or a call to go all McCain.

    So I can see the plausibility of your reading — and reject it for reasons I’ve noted — but you “just do not get” how it can be viewed another way by those who have for years watched putative conservatives reach power, only to govern as “centrists”?

  65. I, for one, will listen to anyone who has the courage to say that Obama is an idiot, who was elected due to guilt-marketing, deception, omission of facts, and mainstream media cheerleading. And now that all this has happened, his idiocy is still being covered for by the media. So, if you belong to the “Obama is an Idiot” party, I’m a supporter. If you belong to “Obama is a charismatic speaker extrordinaire” – El Paso.

  66. In fact, I think he isn’t. He’s aiming at the obverse of Obama’s change program, having majorities large enough to push through the necessary change without any need for Democrat participation at all. Thus to get the whole enchilada.

    And to begin that process, he tweaked Limbaugh and talk radio. At least as Limbaugh saw it.

    LEADERSHIP!

  67. Limbaugh can be wrong too. He said so himself just a few minutes ago.

  68. Limbaugh can be wrong too. He said so himself just a few minutes ago.

    Who’s saying he can’t be wrong? And what does that have to do with anything?

  69. Yes, Jeff, I get where the distrust comes from.

  70. I suppose I’d guess more towards the former, Jeff.

    But, to a certain degree, I don’t really need to get inside his mind. He’s proposing a strategy for moving forward. I’m seeing a large number within the current coalition reject it outright. So, it’s not going to work.

    It’s sorta like when I was talking about using Indiana as a reference point the other day. That we didn’t need to get theoretical to see the outcome of some of his policies. Well, same here. He made the pitch. I’m seeing lots of people saying, “No sale.” So, it’s not theoretical anymore.

    Can’t win the general if you can’t win the primary. Fin.

  71. And I believe Romney is the one who will push the envelope on calling Obama out on his stupidity. Would love to see that debate.

    OK Romney-haters. Do your worst.

  72. Ok. I’ll beg off and turn the site over to you all.

  73. And what does that have to do with anything?

    If Limbaugh mistook what wasn’t a tweaking for a tweaking, would his change of mind on that score make any difference? If not, I guess Limbaugh coming to change his mind wouldn’t matter, and my suggestion wouldn’t have any relevance.

  74. Romney makes beautiful babies… this is a key difference between him and Mr. Huckabee

  75. And Bolton. Bolton would just come out and say “Mr. President, the reason nothing you do works is because you’re not smart. And you do everything wrong”

    “One minute to respond Mr. President”

    “I……..uhhh….ummm…….I freed Egypt………I…..uh….thought I’d get some applause on that one.”

  76. A country could do worse than having all handsome people.

  77. Jeez, Medved, grow a pair would ya?

    “…disregards the powerful reverence for the White House that’s been part of our national character for two centuries.”

    Sure, just Ask Darth Cheney or ChipyMcHitlerburton and their illegal war dreamed up on a ranch in Texas to steal oil and kill brown people about that reverence – maybe you could get back up from the Lucy Ramierez, Dan Rather and the press folks covering Cindy Sheehan back in the day.

  78. OK ugly people. Do your worst.

  79. Romney, the one who said Mubarak must go now, who congratulated Obama on his early handling of the Iranian deal, the auto scion, who cheered the sacking of the GM board, surely you gest, and don’t call
    me Shirley.

  80. Limbaugh allowed that he supposes Daniels could have meant the political junkies. Hardly the same as walking back what he clearly saw as a tweak.

    And of course, I don’t need Limbaugh to point out a pointed remark. There is a kind of memetic kit one uses to “say” things obliquely they don’t wish to state outright, replete with familiar tropes. Singling out talk radio has a history. Either Daniels was unaware of that history (in which case he comes across as a bit tone deaf); or else he was signaling to the pragmatists that he understood their concerns, as well as the concerns of the fiscal conservative set.

    Now, I’ll retreat. Again.

    I just hope that when I come back my site isn’t littered with reader polls.

  81. sdferr, in ’81 we slashed rates. Top marginal rate fell to 25%. In ’86, to get those quaint runaway deficits back under control, the top rate went to 28%. That was “the biggest tax increase in history” that the liberals like to talk about when they say that “Reagan raised taxes.” Taxes have continued to creep back up since Bush “went wobbly” and deficits are worse than evah.

    As to Daniels. I’m not sure what he’s thinking. I’d guess, if push came to shove a bi-partisan compromise (say 300+ votes in the house and 70+ in the senate) would serve his concensus purposes as well as a Reagan-like landslide electoral victory. Obviously you’d get a better result from the latter, but when it comes right down to it, the purpose of a governor is to govern. (Not referring to any specific office, just that government is governed by governors).

    I have no doubt that he’s sincere about getting the nation’s finances off of this unsustainable track we’re currently on. But like Jeff says, it matters how you get there.

  82. Don’t worry about Daniels winning anything though Ernst. He won’t. But though he won’t win, I at least hope his ideas about the fisc and prosperous growth have some purchase on the minds of the eventual shining star the conservatives attach themselves to.

  83. OK. Reader Poll:

    1. Titties

    2. Beer

    Please choose one and phrase your response in the form of a question.

  84. Daniels is wrong because he seems to believe he has actual friends in the conservative movement who would simply assume he likes the talk show gang, rather than secretly despises them. Serves him right to be rejected on grounds of naivete alone.

  85. Reader polls are for sissies.

  86. I haven’t even got a favourite yet. I just know whom I won’t be voting for. I do know, though, I won’t enjoy holding my nose whilst pulling the lever again.

  87. Hardly the same as walking back what he clearly saw as a tweak.

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Limbaugh has changed his mind in fact. Rather, that he might change his mind if he was in error. There’s a difference that counts.

  88. Devil: “What will you give me for your titties and beer? I suppose you noticed this little contract here?”
    Frank: “Gimme that contract, bet your ass I will sign! ‘Cause I need a beer and it’s tittie-squeezin’ time!”
    — Frank Zappa, “Titties and Beer”

  89. “How many beers would I have to buy to get eyes/hands/lips on your titties? Specify brand if it makes a difference.”

  90. sdferr, Daniels would certainly help his cause if he were to tell us how he’s going to go about appealing to those sports-center junkies who never tune in to talk radio. As it is, it seems to me that there’s a studied ambiguity about exactly that, how we induce “every possible ally we can persuade to join us” to actually join us, and to which I chose to remain dubious. If you want to assume the best, more power to you. I hope your right.

  91. OK. Reader Poll:

    What are two great tastes that taste great together?

  92. it seems entirely unlikely to me that he will run, now. And I did not want him too, so maybe this is a good thing.

  93. I think he is telling us Ernst. He’s saying the country is in the midst of an existential crisis, likened to the Civil War, World War II and the Cold War. If he isn’t jumping up and down shouting his hair is on fire, that’s only because he doesn’t have any hair.

  94. I think he’ll run and I think he’ll do very well in the primary debates to where he will help Team R and then everyone will say hey Mitch is great we want him to be our president and then America will begin to take the steps required to win the future

  95. Im 100% tea party. 98% sports talk radio.

  96. I know all about mitch daniels and Mike huckabee. Cain!

  97. I want people to understand that the GOP and Conservatism are two, often entirely contradictory things. We should have a driver’s test for pundits and political writers. If they can distinguish between the two, comprehending that Conservatism, until the Tea Party, used the physical apparatus of the GOP to display itself but, like a party at the K of C, was only renting the place (so as to say) and wasn’t necessary fully on board with everything the people who owned the place did, thought and said. The corollary holds as well: the GOP, to keep itself valid and vibrant, used the enthusiasm of Conservatives, and its deep wellspring of policy and philosophical thought, to obtain its goals.

    What’s odd is that most people here, varying shades of Conservative all, understand fully the shades and differences between the Democratic party and its liberal and progressive wings.

    Lots of pixels are spilled internally among Conservative websites establishing that the likes of Mitt Romney and John McCain are really GOP as opposed to Conservatives or correcting MSM mistakes to that effect. I for one don’t care at all what they are–and am astounded that anyone even brings up Romney’s religion, doubly so that its Huckabee–just as long as they are understood to be GOP.

    The Tea Party, I am thinking, changes everything. Conservatives now have their own hall.

  98. I disagree with Mr. Medved on compromising principles. Ironic that Rush Limbaugh gave Michael Medved his start in conservative radio. Rush is generally right on these things. You do not have to be uncivil to be firm and uncompromising. That may be difficult for some people to understand, but if you are opposite Rush on a conservative issue it is good to really take a long time and see what you got wrong. The same for Mark Levin.

    I agree pursuing birther theories is a red herring and will be generally unhelpful to defeating Obama in 2012, standing firm on fundamental conservative principles is absolutely necessary.

  99. I’m with Pablo on Romney. There’s alot of ways to distinguish Romney care from the monostrosity that is Obama care. Romney has done a poor job pointing those differences out, plus the fact that he was running a primarily liberal state. If the people want something, they’ll generally get it and my understanding was Mass. wanted it. Obamacare, on the other hand, is only wanted by 30% of the people and Romney has been clear he’s against it and wants it repealed.

    We need someone who understands AND(most importantly) can explain economics to people who don’t understand economics. We also need someone who knows things need to be cut or removed and is willing to do that.

  100. We need someone who understands AND(most importantly) can explain economics to people who don’t understand economics. We also need someone who knows things need to be cut or removed and is willing to do that.

    Hopefully he can explain the latter as well as the former.

  101. Because if he’s talking about this one, it’s hard to believe that he believes that horseshit.

    He believes it. Medved is heavily invested in being The Resonable One, the one who counterbalances the crazies like Beck and Savage and Prager.

    He’s probably worried that we’re sounding like the Lefties did during Dubya’s 8 years, figuring that our objections are every bit as invalid as theirs.

    But he forgets Coulter’s Law: whatever the Lefties accuse you of, you can bet the farm that’s what they’re up to themselves.

    Medved seems overly affected by a normalcy bias, a belief that things can get only so bad but not worse: certainly not worse than we’ve seen in this country.

    Whereas the rest of us? We are able to think about the unthinkable and prepare for it, probably because we’ve personally experienced the 2×4 to the back of the head that life delivers on occasion. We know what it’s like for life to turn on a dime, and we aren’t inclined to dismiss warning signs so easily again.

  102. A thumbnail sketch of the 86 tax deal has pretty much been detailed by Ernst. In theory it called for equal amounts of tax increases and spending cuts. Reagan kept his part of the bargain by signing on to the tax deal; but he put himeslf in the position to be screwed when the Democrats on the hill reneged on the promise to follow the deal with the agreed upon spending cuts.

    That it was during the lame-duck portion of Reagan’s second term is important to remember, as well as the fact that it coincided with the run-up to the 1988 Presidential campaign.

    In double crossing Reagan, the Democrats thought they were only gaining the short term advantage of being able to engage in their usual “chicken-in-every-pot” pandeing populist campaining as well as beat their Rethug! opponents over the head, scolding them, as usual, for wanting to make the children, elderly, and minorities suffer.

    But it turned into the gift that keeps on giving, allowing them to excoriate Reagan as being a hypocrite for all time sonce he signed off on “the biggest tax increase of all time” as well as beinmg the erstwhile fiscal hawk who let the defecit spending jin out of the bottle; the one that plagues us to this day.

    And I think that explains why many, like myself, who vividly remember that colossal, nation be damned!, double-cross on the part of the Democrats are uneasy with the way Daniels, among others, speaks of needing to compromise, or reach a consensus, with the progressive left; to put all other issues and baggage aside in order to deal with the looming fiscal problem.

    I simply don’t trust the Democrats to keep their part of the bargain. Indeed, Obama has shown their hand today in presenting his budget, with it’s fantasy growth projections and all the usual chicanery, that he’s more than happy to mouth the usual mantra while essentially continuing the money party for some time to come.

    I like what Mitch has done in Indiana; actions speak louder than words, especially in a state that is not exactly deep red in rock-ribbed conservatives (John Mellencamp anyone? Or Lugar?). And there is no doubt that in regards to fiscal matters he’ll push the debate in the right direction.

    But I worry about any compromise that might give the progressive left the freedom to reneg on again.

    I prefer to appeal to the Tea-Partiers demonstrated desire to reduce the size of government and spending altogether, to elect eben more of them to Congress and do it without the Democrats if necessary. And I’d be concerned for tempering their ardor or losing their zealous support by acknowledging in advance a willingness to compromise, a priori, with the progressives; because the muddy middle won’t necessarily have the coat-tails to put local and national level Tea-Partiers in congress.

    Now let me be clear. I’m, not “dissing” or diminishing Daniels, his accomplishments, or his ideas, and agree that an important component of the next election will be the ability of the Rethug! candidate to communicate effectively to the electorate just how dire our fiscal situation is. But I worry about “dumbing down” or altering that message just to appeal to low information voters-because I suspect that they won’t turn out in droves this time to repeat their “historic”, racial-guilt-ridding, vote for Obama in 2012; and suspect instead that they may just sit on their couches like they have for all time prior.

    So we should keep the message sharp and clear, and speak to the electorate that actually cares like adults. And also leave no room for the progressives to double-cross us-like they have in the past.

  103. But he forgets Coulter’s Law: whatever the Lefties accuse you of, you can bet the farm that’s what they’re up to themselves.

    Or have used as a strategy in the past…

  104. My initial impression of Daniels’ talk radio reference was that he was saying we need to recruit from among the uninformed and asleep, thus to increase our raw numbers.

    But I’m also with Jeff in that I don’t like the “get out the vote” efforts among those who just don’t give a rip. They’re the most likely to be moved by last-minute demagoguery, so they’re of the least use to the Republic.

  105. Isn’t the Reagan ’86 tax deal a red herring though? Seems to me it is. At least, no such talk is forthcoming from Daniels.

  106. I’m not sure I get what you mean sdferr.

    I was only mentioning the 86 tax deal as an example of where a good faith compromise led to something it was never intended to, and of why I personally think talking of compromise before any plans are out there that can be compromised makes me uneasy.

    And I think that talking about compromising might be dissonant, a bit, when the problem to be surmounted is such a dire existential threat.

    Perhaps I’m just nit-picking at the rhetoric in what by-and-large was a pretty darn good CPAC speech.

  107. Ernst brought the ’86 compromise up Bob. I spoke of it briefly with him, you naturally commented on it, no biggie. Daniels, as I pointed out to Ernst, isn’t in the business of talking about that sort of compromise. What he did have to say about compromise I pointed out to Stephanie on Sat., contextually speaking.

  108. I recall that discussion sdferr, and agreed then that in the vein of his CPAC speech his mention of compromise was most likely talking about putting social issues on the back burner, in order to be more appealing, overall, to the folks who surf past the news to get to ESPN.

    I personally agree when he talk about us all putting our differences aside to face this existential fiscal crisis. I just worry about that kind of “partnership” leading to something like the 86 tax deal again.

    It’s probably just me seeing shadows where they’re not really cast, the shortcoming being on my part completely.

  109. that kind of “partnership”

    What kind of partnership is that Bob?

  110. If we take Daniels seriously for a moment — as a political thinker as opposed to as a candidate for office — he says as quoted above:

    If a foreign power advanced an army to the border of our land, everyone in this room would drop everything and look for a way to help. We would set aside all other agendas and disputes as secondary, and go to the ramparts until the threat was repelled. That is what those of us here, and every possible ally we can persuade to join us, are now called to do. It is our generational assignment. It is the mission of our era.

    Any partnership he is suggesting with middle grounders — non-leftist-non-classical liberals — the muddling middlers, who, persuaded to join with Daniels’s thinking on this question would along with the conservative voters make a huge majority to do . . . to do what in the face of an existential crisis? Compromise anyway any solution to that crisis? That simply is too incoherent a proposal to credit as a possible interpretation of his intentions. He means to put a stop to the ratchet effect he himself cites and to which JHo has been speaking all weekend. JHo at one point said that no proposal to stop the ratchet effect has been forthcoming. I think on the contrary, that what Daniels is proposing is precisely a solution to that problem, an enormous problem left unsolved to date to be sure.

  111. Republicans already face a formidable challenge in convincing a closely divided electorate that the president pursues wrong-headed policies. They will never succeed in arguing that those initiatives have been cunningly and purposefully designed to wound the republic. In Mr. Obama’s case, it’s particularly unhelpful to focus on alleged bad intentions and rotten character when every survey shows more favorable views of his personality than his policies.

    This presents the choice that is always there every time a Democrat is caught out publicly doing what they do. Are they merely stupid and made mistake after mistake or are they truly doing evil things because they wish to actually do them.

    Medved believes it is a better electoral strategy to say that the President is an idiot rather than declare him a genius of the evil variety. Next up is the blame the staff gambit.

  112. You don’t need to muddling middlers to do any of that, sdferr. You need the Senate and the presidency to go along with the House. The Dems have taught us that.

    And the TEA Partiers, galvanized and supported in large part by conservative talk radio, is whose support I’d be trying to gin up — because they’ve shown they can make a huge electoral difference, and they were only just getting started.

    What you don’t need is a bunch of people who will join your coalition, then start demanding you not cut what is specifically important to them. The message is the message. It ain’t like its exclusionary now. So why this need to adjust it to appeal to, say, hispanics, or blacks, or blah blah blah?

  113. I’m not sure where you see Daniels (if we’re talking about him that is) adjusting to appeal to hispanics or blacks, though maybe I’ve missed something. What I take him to intend is to sell the middle (for the sake of their numbers), not for the sake of their input on policy, since that’s what he’s selling already and to bring them along on those grounds. Persuade them that this it the problem and these are the solutions, obtain the mandate to overthrow the existing social welfare programs and then do it. That’s the deal, as I read it.

  114. this is the problem, meant to write there.

  115. Further, I guess, I take Daniels understanding of the situation to be more or less exactly aligned with the tea partier’s sense of the situation, so while preaching to the choir isn’t altogether a bad thing, it isn’t altogether the best allocation of ones limited energies either.

  116. What kind of partnership is that Bob?

    I was talking about how Reagan “partnered” with the Democrats in 86 to eliminate the deficits, sdferr.

    I was presuming that the middle-of-the-road folks would be on board, given they understood that the fiscal crisis is the existential problem that it really is.

    Like I mentioned, this may be something I myself need to come to grips with. Like the rest of us, I’ve seen too much of the continuous shift to the left of the entire basis of the discussion, as Jeff often mentions; and am still perturbed about the way that the Democrats felt free to violate the agreement they’d made with Reagan in 86.

    As a nation we need to have an adult discussion about the problem and solutions, and pull the basis of the discussion back from the leftward position where it now rests back to the center at the very least. And I think that Daniels being involved in this debate during the primaries will help do that.

  117. At the risk of using a dead horse to beat a dead thread:

    Here’s my problem. Daniel’s speech is hits all the right notes before it runs off the rails here:

    It is up to us to show, specifically, the best way back to greatness, and to argue for it with all the passion of our patriotism. But, should the best way be blocked, while the enemy draws nearer, then someone will need to find the second best way. Or the third, because the nation’s survival requires it. [emphasis added]

    Jeez, why does this feel like deja vu? Oh yeah:

    If the new law is not repealed by 2013, what could be done to reshape it in the direction of freedom and genuine cost control?

    Daniel’s is a pragmatist ( I don’t mean that disparagingly) from the conservative wing of the Republican establishment. To be sure, he wants the best deal he can get, but he will deal. That tells me that he’s prepared to lose more slowly if the alternative is losing quickly.

    You’re not going to beat the “red menace” by seeking detente

    Fuck that shit.

  118. Noted. No one wants Daniels. And the further we can twist him to demonstrate that the better.

  119. sdferr, the guy keeps serving up red meat and then topping it with bean curd. It is what it is.

    I get that you’re supportive (or at least not dismissive) and I respect that

    somethings up with my kid back in a bit

  120. Plus, he’s short and bald. That’s what really bothers me.

  121. sheesh. overtired first grade girls.

    Anyway, I was saying that while I respect your opinion sdferr, I don’t share it.

    And I don’t think I twisted his words. Twice now he’s started sounding like Churchill and then he goes all Marshal Petain in the middle (that’s an admitted exaggeration for effect). I want to know what’s up with that.

  122. Mitch is endeavoring to be forthright and say to people if America doesn’t do anything it won’t even be America anymore just a failshit brokedick joke… and there’s no particularly noble way to become a squalid slumstate … so Mitch is saying if plan A doesn’t work America better have a plan B. Because the stakes are truly that high, and anyone what tells you different is a pandering squack.

  123. Then it won’t be America anymore, because Mitch has just told the Democrats that “should the best way be blocked [by them] he’s prepared to deal. So plan B or C becomes tax increases on the “rich” because the Democrats think that’s the best way to go forward, and that’s the price of concensus because we’ll have failed to show “the best way back to greatness” despite, presumably, “argu[ing] for it with all the passion of our patriotism.”

    As far as I can tell, the man’s primary problem with Statism is that it’s too cumbersome and expensive, not that it’s inherently inimicable to the liberty and dignity of the individual.

    We should have learned by now that the managers get rolled by the ideologues. We keep electing managers and they keep rolling them.

    Fuck that shit.

  124. not that it’s inherently inimicable to the liberty and dignity of the individual.

    But if I drill to the bottom of the issue of why I hold the views that I do when it comes to important policy decisions, it is about the fundamental belief in the primacy of individual liberty and dignity. I suppose I got a lot of that at church early on and from the sources and influences I mentioned earlier.

    Government is there to protect the freedom of individuals so they can make of their lives what they can. There is presently a huge contrast between those who share this view and those that prevail in national political leadership at the moment. Some of us believe government exists to protect the important parts of life – enterprise, private associations, families, each individual – so they can flourish. People should be able to make of their lives what they wish, to get on and get ahead in life in accordance with their hopes and plans. When a government makes that harder for people in the name of some other set of objectives, it has overstepped its proper role.*

  125. Forgot to add that the reason he’ll deal if they refuse to be moved by our passionate patriotic arguments is “because the nation’s survival requires it.”

    Daniels is the one who invoked the red menace. As an unreconstructed cold warrior, I’m proud to proclaim:

    Better dead than red

  126. What’s say we have another thread that’s all about happyfeet?

    A Michael Medved Memorial St. Valentine’s Day Inconveniencing Dance would be good, too.

  127. Mr. Daniels is a fetus-loving lifeydoodle what hates civil unions much less gay marriage… he’s not supportive of embryonic stem cell researchings and yet it seems most social cons still hate him.

    That’s so odd.

  128. “Mr. Daniels is a fetus-loving lifeydoodle what hates civil unions much less gay marriage… he’s not supportive of embryonic stem cell researchings and yet it seems most social cons still hate him.”

    he blows big pharma cupcakes. hey sonny D for the drugs.

  129. Tether thy peskiness.

  130. how would repealing obamacare benefit big pharma exactly?

  131. “how would repealing obamacare benefit big pharma exactly?”

    mr. big mitchy pharma wants to take your health care aways. key word: OPTICS. baracky for the win.

  132. on the subject from rino central:

    A reporter asked him about Medicare reimbursement for end-of-life consultations with doctors (which was part of the “death panels” outcry), but he dodged it. This sort of rhetoric isn’t new for him, really: Last summer he knocked congressional Republicans for using Medicare as a weapon against ObamaCare, knowing that the more lip service we pay to the sanctity of socialized medicine now, the more difficult it’ll be later to explain to voters that the program’s been unsustainable for years and must change soon. It sounds like he’s advocating some form of “soft rationing” here, where Medicare patients and their families would choose among various options for deathbed treatment rather than the feds dictating any particular course of action. He’ll take a beating for it in the primaries, but as I said up top, merely forcing the discussion of how to pay for Medicare will be a productive use of primary time. And then of course it’ll all be forgotten in the general election, when Obama and the Democrats inevitably accuse the Republican nominee of wanting to take away granny’s medicine and he/she quickly backs down.

    link

  133. TWILIGHT ZONE

  134. “how would repealing obamacare benefit big pharma exactly?”

    mitchy loses medicare part d and obamacare for the win

  135. “TWILIGHT ZONE”

    a bush zombie going to the mat for barackycare yes to selling big pharma drugs

  136. TWILIGHT ZONE

    Might as well make you really sick, then.

  137. Personally, I like big pharma. What would Libby Dole do without them?

  138. Medved should be ecstatic now. he has gained the approval of Media Matters Eric Boehlert at their “CountyFair” site.

    Medved makes the excellent point that the Obama Derangement Syndrome strategy is a sure-fire loser if the ultimate goal is to block the president’s re-election next year:
    [...]
    And here’s another point Medved could have made: The strategy has already proven itself to be a political loser, yet Obama haters in the far-right press trudge on.

    Just look at Obama’s job approval rating. It has remained essentially unchanged for the last 18 months.

    And he has, within the Media Matters margin of error that is. MM&MM candy coated lies.

  139. Its a shame to see Medved succumb to liberal brain damage.

  140. The “consensus” was already formed by the Tea Party and the consensus was “Stop spending money NOW motherfuckers”. Now the Republican ruling class types are trying to pretend that it didn’t happen and its 2006.

    The Stupid Party indeed.

  141. Republicans already face a formidable challenge in convincing a closely divided electorate that the president pursues wrong-headed policies.

    What? WFT?!?! Was this column written in 2009? Or does Spock have a beard where he lives?

    Can I have a bag of what he’s smokin?

    Obamas policies have ALREADY convinces a significant portion of the electorate and the results show in the 2010 election.

  142. Pingback: Community Organizer In Chief

  143. Pingback: “Revealed — The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: The Chase Campaign by a Coalition of Unions, Community Groups, Lawmakers and Students to Take Down US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth & Power”

Leave a Reply