Exit citation: how many “independents” are really independent?
Yeah. That’s what I thought. But hey, maybe we can win them over by pretending that we should cheer on the good kind of fascism — like, say, when the carbon-neutral futuristic supertrains run on time…
Did Charles fall off his bike and hit his head? No one would oppose Obama if he was pursuing capitalist, free market, liberty-centered policies rather than the rush to statism.
Oh wait, am I now trashing Charles again? Well, he can’t ban me more than once so, hey spoke-head, get a clue!
There’s nothing reflexive about Romney or the people that support him, BumperStickerist. They’ve thought out everything they’ve done pretty carefully. Which is why every other candidate for the Republican nomination, even those who didn’t like McCain, despise them. Is the feeling justified? I don’t know. Is it something he can recover from? Probably going to take a lot more money than he’s willing to spend.
True, Jeff – but to paraphrase Churchill, “That he said it is regrettable, but it does not make him wrong.â€
Reflexive opposition is … bad.
That’s what’s funny. No one every argued for reflexive opposition. Should Obama get browbeaten out of trying to build a fascist government, I’ll be there for him.
Yeah, but Beck isn’t willing to sell my kids out to hideous bone crushing debt, can pick a position on guns and stick with it, and didn’t hang the worst health care plan in the history of organized stupidity on the people of Massachusetts…damn him.
We’re likely in agreement on this – my point, as such, was that objecting to Obama’s plans on the merits of his plans rather than because of the fact that he’s Obama is the crux of what Romney said about having the capacity to give Obama a nod.
… or something.
Hell, I’ve got a cold and about half a bottle of whiskey.
You know who’s got class. Simon Cowell. When someone’s bad, he tells them straight away. He protects them from future embarrassment. He would say, “Barack, that was a total mess. You should never be president again. Off you go.”
Point being that Charles erected a strawman argument to vanquish foes he doesn’t have while creeping closer to those he’s been at pains to, like, ban and shit.
No, what Romney is doing is filling that John McCain void for us. And he’s doing it without the compelling life story McCain had. God bless him. We’ll never win a national election again.
Point being that Charles erected a strawman argument to vanquish foes he doesn’t have while creeping closer to those he’s been at pains to, like, ban and shit.
Lot of that going around lately, it seems.
It has been amusing to watch all these bloggers come around to your argument Jeff, without actually, acknowledging it and stuff.
Lots of straw men though. It’s like the Three Little Pigs all over the fucking place.
It’s disappointing that Romney played the populist angle with the whole “Obama is doing a good job of standing up to the Auto execs” when that’s complete bullshit and he knows it. Standing up to the guys like Waggoner would mean saying “sorry dummy, we tried to help you but you don’t get it. Bankruptcy is your only option.”- and then let Waggoner drive the company in to the ditch.
And when people say it’s not Obama’s fault that they got bailed out I say bullshit to that to, because he voted for all the spending while senator, just because now he’s president he gets a free pass?
I really don’t get this big tent garbage. I’m under the tent that stands for personal liberty, capitalism and keeping the government as small and as far away from me as possible. There are no compromises for me and the people next to me under this tent. And there isn’t much that Obama has done so far that isn’t in complete opposite of these principles.
I don’t understand why people think this should be negotiated or compromised when that’s all conservatives have done for the last ten years.
If you objectively described fascism (Italian variation not German) and then polled the progressive population, what percent would agree with it? 85%? 90%?
I can see how that could be a really cool little experiment, bh.
I’m under the tent that stands for personal liberty, capitalism and keeping the government as small and as far away from me as possible. There are no compromises for me and the people next to me under this tent. And there isn’t much that Obama has done so far that isn’t in complete opposite of these principles.
The thing about fascism is that there are two versions of it: FASCISM!!!111!! of the liberal hyperbolic kind for anything they disagree with and fascism, which was an actual form of government that was once considered viable in which the state became intertwined with the private sector in order to produce certain efficiencies determined by the government.
Ironically, the Left is all about the latter fascism, as seen by O!’s embrace of it. Unfortunately, those efficiencies never seem to materialize and fascism eventually evolves into the FASCISM!!!111!!1! variety over time. Witness the loyalty oaths and door to door Permanent Campaigns we have going on now.
Barney Frank was right when he said Republicans are suffering from a psychological disorder. When a former GOP Presidential candidate starts cozying up to Obama and his lunatic fringe there is a mental malady floating around and most Repubs in DC have caught it. Maybe Bawney Fwank was on too something.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said Wednesday that Republicans shouldn’t oppose President Obama as a reflex and should praise him when he succeeds.
Sure thing, Mitt! That’s right proper. But are we talking “took three steps without falling on his face” success, or succeeding at doing something that completely fucks our little country up success? I really don’t want to encourage the latter.
If he does something that I really want done, you let me know, OK Mitt? I will definitely say a Hosanna or three with you.
Yeah. Absolutely. There is an important cultural aspect to fascism, it’s not all political and economic. It works hand in hand. So, it can’t be ignored.
That’s why it bugs me when people like Jeff notice it, point it out… and then are characterized as impolitic for doing so.
I am moved to reflection. Romney is a douche. When he runs I’m gonna go look up everything nishi used to say about him and add some of my own stuff too I think. You know who else is a douche is Charles Johnson. Romney is like a douchey ken doll and chuckie is like a douchey homer simpson I think. Similar, but different.
Back in the 60’s and 70’s I used to hear an old saw thwanging out of Washington every time a President left the country on an overseas trip: Politics stops at the water’s edge, it went. No one then ever thought that the President would be the one to bad mouth the country while he was gone. My how times change.
#26
Thats the problem isn’t it. How do you reach that middle that has been insulated from the realities of this disaster by the MSM. Up until the last election I thought that most americans were pretty savy politically. Boy. Was I wrong.
If you objectively described fascism (Italian variation not German) and then polled the progressive population, what percent would agree with it? 85%? 90%?
I’d be REALLY interested in seeing the results of that poll.
Yeah. Absolutely. There is an important cultural aspect to fascism, it’s not all political and economic. It works hand in hand. So, it can’t be ignored.
That’s why it bugs me when people like Jeff notice it, point it out… and then are characterized as impolitic for doing so.
That’s the ironic thing: When the Left calls conservatives fascist even though none of us wants the government having anything to do with the private sector at all, nobody says a word.
But if we point out how O!’s recent actions closely resemble fascist forms of government (and they quite literally do, if one were to look up the definition of fascism as a government entity), you’re like, impolite or something.
It really shows proves the point that many words have completely lost their meaning thanks to decades of Orwellian bullshit taught in our universities.
It really shows proves the point that many words have completely lost their meaning thanks to decades of Orwellian bullshit taught in our universities.
That 20 something thinks abortion is a right, but your salary not so much.
Maybe. But as of right now he’s making a lot more sense than Romney, or for that matter a lot of Republican bloggers. And isn’t sort of sad that a DJ can figure it out but all these highly principled well trained party operators can’t?
Barney Frank was right when he said Republicans are suffering from a psychological disorder. When a former GOP Presidential candidate starts cozying up to Obama and his lunatic fringe there is a mental malady floating around and most Repubs in DC have caught it.
Both sides of the aisle had some people with serious problems in this last go around. Y’all had Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden ferchrissakes! And Barack Obama! And Mrs. Clinton. Hey, at least Al Sharpton sat this round out.
Romney is trying to be niiiiiiiiice, because decorum is….like…Presidential. I think Mitt would still like to be POTUS. I’d refer him to Andrew Jackson and suggest that he get back to us if he finds himself inspired. Extra points if he adopts the Jackson hairstyle.
Those G20 pictures of our dirty socialist muppet with the foreign muppets is the gayest thing I’ve ever seen in a presidential international important summity like context.
If you objectively described fascism (Italian variation not German) and then polled the progressive population, what percent would agree with it? 85%? 90%?
It’s been said before, but who did so, I forget… There’s nothing about Nazism that liberals don’t like, except for the gas chambers.
I still don’t know what to do with my login over there. It would, in all likelihood, be something gloriously and painfully stupid, snuffed out and quickly forgotten.
I thought about using it to calmly, rationally, reasonably try to talk sense to some of them, but…well, you know.
It seems that with every passing day, the former edifice of “conservatism” crumbles at an increasing rate. I’m put in mind of the pragmatic Republicans who every day lecture us about “erecting a big tent” and being “inclusive.” The only people they seem to deny entry to the white bread, tone-deaf country club big top are those who value classical liberalism, liberty, and freedom. It’s definitely time… and as a party the GOP is a mere rump in national politics anyhow. I declare: I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.
You mean at that place with the footballs and whatever? That place is like trapped in the war on terror period. We’ve got bigger problems now and the dirty socialist muppets grow stronger every day. The muppets are winning, Charles. Whose side are you fucking on?
A repost of a comment made elsewhere, in response to a thread about Obastard’s high polling numbers. Seems apropos.
———-
I hate to tell ya, but we have to accept these numbers. Obastard’s gonna be riding high for the next eight years. The thing to understand is that the people of the Nation Below Canada are just plain, categorically, terminally stupid.
It’s not that anyone is afraid to criticize His Hooves. They actually believe he does a great job. Remember, these same people, whom you and I know as neighbors and relatives, are the very ones who made possible the old joke about programming a VCR. Most of these people can barely boot a computer. You don’t expect them to use it to read, do you? Downloading porn is a major intellectual effort for them. They think a “kernel panic” is a shortage of popcorn, or the hysterics of Army officers.
We’re not in a world of shit, we’re in a world of dumbshit.
They’re not stupid they just figure all these people they see on TV telling them all this stupid crap know what they are talking about and should be listened to. They’re beginning to figure it out… slowly.
they just figure all these people they see on TV telling them all this stupid crap know what they are talking about and should be listened to. They’re beginning to figure it out…
This won’t happen if they are relying upon MSM and the popular culture to explain it to them. If things are palpably worse in 2010, we all know what the MSM will say about it… It’s Chimpy McHalliburton’s fault! Barry The Good And Just inherited this mess! Burn the Republicans!! Who will dare incur the ire of his neighbors by gainsaying the high wisdom of a David Letterman or a Jon Stewart? No, the stifling orthodoxy of liberalism suffuses our culture and leads it like a lamb in a noose. When vast numbers of people can be driven into wrathful rage against a handful of “Wall Street fatcats” even though their remuneration counts as a fractional pittance against vast public deficits, the game is over. Too many people are dancing a jig over the idea of Mr. Fatcat getting his bonus confiscated… while it puts precisely nothing into their own pockets. And the very people who authorized incomprehensible quantities of public money to be spent upon said “fatcats” are the ones lathering up the rabble.
People do in fact get the government they deserve. And are we ever going to get it.
happyfeet at 68, I really liked the picture but once I posted it I realized I’d prefer to have dicentra’s post at the top of the page. So I deleted it.
They’re figuring it out, just very slowly. If a certain political party was more inclined to tell the truth than pass itself off as Obama-lite that would increase the learning curve, as would a news network that was willing to cover the press the way the press covers the rest, but all things considered people are picking up on what is going on. Will they do it quickly enough? We’ll see. I hope so.
Mormons don’t strap on bombs and blow up buses or pizza palors when their religion is offended.
Are we becoming a little country what is more likely to incubate domestic terrorists or what is less likely to incubate domestic terrorists? My answer to this changes throughout the day I think.
oh… that was *I worked really hard on mine one though* back at 75. I don’t think the underwear thing is cool to mock. It’s not like I don’t have a favorite pair.
Mormons don’t strap on bombs and blow up buses or pizza palors when their religion is offended.
So it’s “ok†to sneer at Mormons, Evangelicals and Catholics.
People with ambition to power are noticing this, around the world. I wonder who the next group will be, to understand that the key to defeating a prosperous, Western industrial society is a credible threat of low-level and unpredictable violence. The remarkable thing is that the West will not only refuse to fight, it will defend its assailants as victims. As ye sow, etc.
He bowed to the piece of shit Saudi fucker, our dirty socialist emphatically not muslim president did.
As far as the Saudtards go I think Mr. Soros mostly just wants Baracky to make sure that the percentage of American oil that’s domestically produced becomes an ever-smaller percentage of total consumption, but now I wonder if that’s the whole deal.
I actually agree with Mitt that when Obama does something good we should not attack him (we should praise him). But that is not what Rush, Jeff, or Michelle are talking about. And I am pretty sure Patterico and Johnson know that, but are pretending something else.
#87
Precisely. Unless Mitt is willfully obtuse and obsequious (a distinct possibility), he is well aware of what you say. Perhaps Mitty could explain all the wonderful things Obastard the Unicorn God has done lately that put him squarely in the realm of the potentially laudable. Stand up to “auto execs?” Get a bigger shovel, Mittney.
Pussies don’t like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn’t appropriate – and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves… because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don’t know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this: If you don’t let us fuck this asshole, we’re going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
Re Romney… relax fellas. Romney just staking out his plot for 2012, and all his die-hards are lining up. If he wants to stake out a losing position it’s his business. Cause that’s what he’s doing. People aren’t going to be looking for slick technocrats come 2012. They’ll want a messiah or the truth. Obama will have ruined the messiah act by then, I suspect, and Mitt seems to have trouble with the truth. Train going nowhere.
#93
You know, I think you have got Romney trapped right under your thumb. Freakin’ technocrat. I love how some “conservatives” like to talk about how he can turn around failing businesses… Unfortunately, the freakin’ government is NOT a business, does not run on business principles, and cannot be made into one. It exists with the sole monopoly upon legalized coercion, the printing of money, and the ability to tax. Not something any business can do. The problem with government is not that “it isn’t enough like a business.” It’s that government is the only facet of society we permit to steal from some to give to others… and whether we should permit even that.
you don’t like †life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?â€
Charles, Allah, Patterico, David Brooks, David Frum, et al. could do without it, apparently.
And this appealing to the middle stuff is just stupid. Independents have no choice but to vote for a Republican or a Democrat. And they always seem to vote for the authentic one. Chasing after them only makes the conservatives stay home.
#100: That was satire, I state in intentionalist fashion.
Unprincipled Repubs? No kidding. The whole point of having principles is to make sure you do the correct thing in dire circumstances as well as normal ones.
Re Romney… relax fellas. Romney just staking out his plot for 2012
Yeah, and it’s about 6’x3′.
This was the end of Romney’s presidential ambitions.
Suits me. I had more personal antipathy toward him than anybody except Huckabee. Dude reminds me of a used car salesman. A crooked one.
And no, it’s nothing to do with him being a Mormon. I like all the Mormons I’ve known just fine (except for that irritating habit of knocking on one’s door at inopportune times).
Civilized, honest, and hard-working people, almost without exception (the exceptions mainly being those who get into national politics, like Romney and Reid — I guess it’s proof that Mormons are human beings, too. :-)
Sugared Jeebus on a funnel cake… but I’m long-winded tonight. Nevertheless, I’m put in mind of how crucial our words have become to everything. We have all this talk of principles versus pragmatism. Principles… what the hell do conservatives even mean by that word? This isolated, linguistic issue is a perfect index of what Jeff has been shouting at the void for years. Let’s consider what we mean by the word “principle.”
What is it? Why have one? I presume as a starting premise that the only reason to have a principle is to guide one through a multiplicity of situations. A good principle is something that would apply in the broadest possible set of situations. In fact, if you can find a principle that is worth defending, it ought to be one that admonishes you to do something perhaps not intuitive, precipitous, or expedient in an extreme situation. While a course of action that violates a principle in extreme circumstances may feel right, or be the darling of peer pressure, if this proposed action creates undesired consequences afterwards then the principle that rejected it was worth keeping. In short, the whole point of selecting and keeping a principle is to prevent you from doing the wrong thing, especially in situations where it is not immediately obvious.
And here we crash into the lassitude and mediocrity of our age. I’m put in mind of an execrable Orange County Congressman Campbell heard on the execrable Hugh “I Heart MItt Romney In A Gay Way” Hewitt’s radio show late last year. Both of these tools defended the auto bailout Bush was pushing at the time. The philosophical excuse from Campbell (who used to be a big auto dealer, nota bene) was “My principles guide my thinking, but aren’t a substitute for it.” To which nonsense I thought “Then you haven’t chosen any principles worth thinking about.”
Our language has been debased in a perverse inversion of the Tower of Babel. The more precise we try to be, the more confused so many are by the precision, until we reach the point where what I mean by “principle” is the literal opposite of what some alleged conservatives means when they use the word.
Put it like this. For people like the “pragmatic conservatives,” a principle is an airy ideal, something to dream about in a land of wish fulfillment, but the closer that principle comes to encountering reality, the more it ought to be, must be abandoned in order to accomodate immediate concerns. For someone like myself, I find the most utility in principles that become more and more compelling the nearer they impinge upon reality. Otherwise, I do not need them. No particular principle is necessary to gain the support of a divided nation if I have no eye to the consequences. If the pragmatist argues that he wants to avoid unintended consequences as well, then he must explain why at one moment a principle applies yet at another it does not. That sounds like an ill-considered, poorly defined principle.
If engorged political ticks like Mr. Campbell were more honest, they would admit that their true principles consist of what keeps them in office the longest, what appeases the most people in the broadest fashion, and their least valued possessions are the old, musty ideas of classical liberalism. When the going gets tough, the pragmatist follows the path of least resistance. Or as in Campbell’s case, the path of the liberal Democrat.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said Wednesday that Republicans shouldn’t oppose President Obama as a reflex and should praise him when he succeeds.
I would note only that the term “pragmatic conservative” is but another victim of language decay. Today, it is more or less synonymous with “moderate conservative,” itself a euphemism for “moderate,” another word for “hapless tool and/or useful fool for the left.” They are those who seek compromise over cause every time, even at the cost of “splitting the difference” at 10-90 against their own professed side.
Yet it is certainly possible to be pragmatically conservative in the sense one’s actions aim for the best practical outcome for ideals on the losing end of a fight. Nixon presents the classic example. His policies most adamantly opposed by conservatives included the EPA and wage and price controls.
No one argues these policies were not bad from the conservative point of view. Nixon faced, in both cases, a heavily Democratic Congress with a frightened Republican minority rife with the sort of “pragmatists” who would “grow in office” enough to side with the Democrats. In both cases, Nixon’s actions preempted pending congressional measures which would have had drastically worse effects.
Similarly, who would question Nixon’s bona fides as an anti-communist Cold Warrior? Again, when he realized he could not force a Democratic Congress to spend enough on defense to maintain our military advantage for long, he developed a diplomatic strategy designed to simultaneously appease, becalm, and beguile the two great Communist powers, China and the USSR. This bought us time by increasing the mistrust between them which began under Khrushchev, and diverting resources to their border which might otherwise have gone to their nuclear arsenal and positions near Western Europe.
It bought just enough time, too. In 1979, for the first time ever, the respected independent military analyst magazine Jane’s Review rated the USSR’s overall military strength greatest in the world, ahead of the USA. But the time Nixon bought also brought three events he could not have specifically foreseen: the elections of Karol Józef WojtyÅ‚a as Pope John Paul II in 1978, Margaret Thatcher as British Prime Minister in 1979, and Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1980.
I submit that Nixon’s pragmatic actions in these cases, while seemingly diametrically opposed to his conservative principles, actually improved the position of the conservative argument over the longer term.
If a term like “pragmatic conservative” can be applied to both those like Nixon and the jackasses who currently wear the label, our language has indeed deteriorated.
The philosophical excuse from Campbell… was “My principles guide my thinking, but aren’t a substitute for it.â€
I remember that interview. I think what he meant was that doesn’t apply principles reflexively but rather considers all factors. IIRC, Hewitt is for bankruptcy, not bailout, but I’m not absolutely sure.
Anyway, the problem is that if you adopt more than one principle, you will run into situations where the principles will come into conflict. For example, “always tell the truth” is a good policy 99% of the time. However, when the Stasi asks if you’re harboring Jews in your attic, you lie, lie, lie.
Because besides adopting good principles, you also need to arrange them in a hierarchy, so that when they come into conflict you’ll know which one to apply.
Romney’s only semi-specific example, Obama’s ostensible commitment to “finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan”, disproves his argument. According to this gallup poll, Republicans agreed at a higher rate than Democrats did with Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. So what are the decisions Obama has made that Republicans are disagreeing with that they shouldn’t be?
To follow up, it seems to me Republicans have shown themselves perfectly willing to express agreement with Obama in the very few instances when his actions are amenable to Republican views. So why have people like Ed Morrisey, David Horowitz, and Mitt Romney been at pains to exhort Republicans not to disagree with Obama when he’s right? Couldn’t these guys at least lay out some actual examples where this has been the case? And no, a solitary, anonymous e-mail doesn’t really do it.
WASHINGTON — When President Obama briefed Congressional leaders at the White House last week on his plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, Senator Harry Reid offered some advice: Whatever you do, he told the president, don’t call it a “surge.—
Expecting Pres Obama to learn and understand the ways of British Royalty long American tradition is a bit like expecting Muslims to know what we mean and to understand us when we us words like “the clash of civilizationsâ€, “assimilationâ€, “secularâ€, “moderateâ€, “jihadiâ€, “freedomâ€, etc.
To agree with Mr Seiple, it’s asking a bit too much, no? I mean, he’s so young and innocent after all.
speaking of battle lines… if google buys twitter I don’t think it’s something I want to get just too too involved with, google being big dirty socialists and all. Troubling. But I may have to anyway cause were building it into a social media project thingy here at the place I go during the day. Nothing gold can stay.
oh. *we’re* building it into a social media project thingy… I’m kinda hoping it works out but in a totally surprising way not how it reads in the proposal…
… law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying citizens — who, over the past decade, have despaired as their country’s sovereignty has been dissipated, its freedoms compromised and ancient institutions diminished by a tribe of political pygmies …
Economists say the job market may not get back to normal — meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate — until 2013.*
There you go. It’s never too early to cover your dirty socialist hungarian muppet’s ass I don’t think. Hey! You got propaganda in my journalism! Yeah well you got your journalism in my propaganda! oh. Tastes great I think, Jeannine Aversa! There’s no wrong way to be a dirty socialist tool.
hmmm. From the AP’s propaganda – there’s a change in the boilerplate…
And last week a report showed that consumer spending — an engine of the economy — rose in February for the second month in a row — after a half-year of declines.
For forever and ever that’s where they say consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States… You think maybe government spending has fucked up that ratio or is Jeannine just having an off day?
“I lost time I think. Peering into the abyss and all.â€
Cheer up ‘feet! It’s Friday, and I just got word that someone’s hired me for the summer as a landscaper/handyman!
Cleaning gutters tomorrow will be icky, but I’ll smile all the while, knowing that not one cent of what I earn will go into “skeezy socialist president” pockets!
I think Americans should support Obama, if he’s ever right. It could happen. I have better odds of winning the lottery, but it is possible. So put me down in the “not reflexively opposed” column. I’m mostly opposed, on principles.
Also I saw the coolest thing where a guy was cleaning gutters by just standing on top of the roof and hitting the gutters with a leaf blower. Not sure if it was plugged in or gas. But it looked very efficient. Dangerous, but efficient.
Adjoran… Quite interesting. My only comment is the interview between Hewitt and Campbell suggested something very different than what dicentra heard. I’m not talking about competing principles, or political triage. The argument at the time was strictly with respect to the auto bailout, Bush was still President, and I approach this from the premise that it was never a good idea, ever. Campbell and Hewitt were both for the bailout, and not because it was an alternative to something more statist, but because, as Hughie the Backslapper put it, “the auto industry is the lifeblood of the country.” ‘Cause you know, they’re just too important to fail. He’s also said that about housing. And probably any other industry that sponsors his show. I call bullshit. Bush should not have spent the fourteen-odd billion on that mess. We see where that led. May I point out that the efforts on the part of Republicans, prior to January 20, to pour public money into private failures, resulted in Obastard’s notorious remark that he wasn’t the one who began this bailout business. Bush was the real socialist. I call that playing into your enemies’ hands.
My aim is in this case to show that last fall’s Bush auto bailout was not a response to stave off greater interference in the economy, but the opposite. Remember when Bush said he had to abandon the free market in order to save it?
I could have swallowed the Campbell/Hewitt nonsense if their argument was “what we propose is awful, but is less worse than what those in power will do otherwise.” But this was not the case. Bush was still President, and did not have to permit the bailout to happen. It’s called a veto pen. And Campbell should have been agitating for a veto. Instead he argued that this “no time to be doctrinaire.”
Frankly, what prompted my long windy blurb was the sudden realization that the idea of principle means one thing to David Brooks and another to William F. Buckley, and in the former case principle is the first thing to be watered down. A Brooksian priniciple is more properly called a daydream.
Furthermore, If your principles compete, perhaps you have not chosen wise ones. Principles well-chosen don’t compete. To tell the truth is a good principle, but in no way does it demand that you tell a mugger chasing a woman for her purse which way she went. Principles form a coherent whole, and most of us here subscribe to that whole known as classical liberalism. Another principle in that whole says that one’s person and property are one’s own, and it’s not good to help others violate that right. So you tell the mugger “she went that away,” pointing in the direction of that cop around the corner. And maybe you trip him as he turns to run.
To conclude, I addressed a case where a pair of so-called conservatives were all too ready to abandon free market principles and burden the public with private failures simply to appease the rabble in DC, and to kowtow to the hysteria about the whole economy falling apart like this was a freakin’ Mad Max movie. And you know what? If Bush had done the right thing, as someone like Thomas Sowell would have advised and let GM head into bankruptcy court, we would be much better off right now. Because that’s where we are anyway, with Obastard. And the UAW issues would have been that much closer to resolution, as well as billions left back in the Treasury.
The Monks taught me it was a matrix. Right/wrong on one axis and good/evil on the other.
The example: Killing is evil. But there are conditions where killing is also right. We don’t get the luxury of all of our decisions falling into the Right AND Good box, but the goal is to stay away from the Wrong AND Evil ones.
Republican Conservatives criticizing Mormons for beliefs that don’t matter, like what they believe about Jesus’ visiting the New World as a Resurrected Savior, is stupid. They are so far the most consistently conservative Republican voters in the United States surpassing even Southerners. That is slowly changing as Atheist and Evangelical Christian sides of the Republican Party continue to make fun of them. During a time when the Western United States (where a lot of Mormons live) has become increasingly important as a voting bloc, turning nasty against an important group is political suicide. The older generation of Mormons still hold strong to the Conservative brand of the party, but the younger ones are getting sick of the attacks and might become less strong.
The above isn’t about not criticizing Romney and Reid, or even Beck. It is about mocking a group that has traditionally been a strong and efficient supporter.
What I don’t understand is why a politician’s religious beliefs matter (unless those beliefs say they must kill all infidels or something). As long as the person in question doesn’t try to turn the country into a theocracy, it’s irrelevant what they believe.
Unprincipled Repubs? No kidding. The whole point of having principles is to make sure you do the correct thing in dire circumstances as well as normal ones.
Otherwise your principles are *not* principles but commodities. Thus in bad times–like now–certain people are willing to sell their not-principles-but-commodities. Such people are defined properly defined as sellouts.
I think this is too simple a concept for some to grasp.
Exit citation: how many “independents” are really independent?
Yeah. That’s what I thought. But hey, maybe we can win them over by pretending that we should cheer on the good kind of fascism — like, say, when the carbon-neutral futuristic supertrains run on time…
We love that man. Love him, love him.
That’s the Mormon talkin’ Mitt!
But I’ll praise Obama, just to try it: He’s come a long way for an idiot.
And we hope desperately he’ll employ us one day so that we don’t have to deal with trash like you people any more.
Did Charles fall off his bike and hit his head? No one would oppose Obama if he was pursuing capitalist, free market, liberty-centered policies rather than the rush to statism.
Oh wait, am I now trashing Charles again? Well, he can’t ban me more than once so, hey spoke-head, get a clue!
True, Jeff – but to paraphrase Churchill, “That he said it is regrettable, but it does not make him wrong.”
Reflexive opposition is … bad.
as opposed to instinctive opposition, which is good.
Reflexive opposition is … bad.
Not when you’re talking about touching a hot stove.
There’s nothing reflexive about Romney or the people that support him, BumperStickerist. They’ve thought out everything they’ve done pretty carefully. Which is why every other candidate for the Republican nomination, even those who didn’t like McCain, despise them. Is the feeling justified? I don’t know. Is it something he can recover from? Probably going to take a lot more money than he’s willing to spend.
Charles Johnson’s smugness made me gag, and he only wrote, like, two sentences.
That’s what’s funny. No one every argued for reflexive opposition. Should Obama get browbeaten out of trying to build a fascist government, I’ll be there for him.
I’d like to point out that both Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney believe Jesus used to hang out in North America.
Oh. Darleen already said it.
Let me add this, then: arguing that we need reflexively to give this guy the benefit of the doubt ignores his entire career leading up to this moment.
Yeah, like Barackolypse believes Mohammed spoke to Allah. So, it’s a wash.
Yeah, but Beck isn’t willing to sell my kids out to hideous bone crushing debt, can pick a position on guns and stick with it, and didn’t hang the worst health care plan in the history of organized stupidity on the people of Massachusetts…damn him.
We’re likely in agreement on this – my point, as such, was that objecting to Obama’s plans on the merits of his plans rather than because of the fact that he’s Obama is the crux of what Romney said about having the capacity to give Obama a nod.
… or something.
Hell, I’ve got a cold and about half a bottle of whiskey.
You know who’s got class. Simon Cowell. When someone’s bad, he tells them straight away. He protects them from future embarrassment. He would say, “Barack, that was a total mess. You should never be president again. Off you go.”
Point being that Charles erected a strawman argument to vanquish foes he doesn’t have while creeping closer to those he’s been at pains to, like, ban and shit.
Lot of that going around lately, it seems.
No, what Romney is doing is filling that John McCain void for us. And he’s doing it without the compelling life story McCain had. God bless him. We’ll never win a national election again.
It has been amusing to watch all these bloggers come around to your argument Jeff, without actually, acknowledging it and stuff.
Lots of straw men though. It’s like the Three Little Pigs all over the fucking place.
It’s disappointing that Romney played the populist angle with the whole “Obama is doing a good job of standing up to the Auto execs” when that’s complete bullshit and he knows it. Standing up to the guys like Waggoner would mean saying “sorry dummy, we tried to help you but you don’t get it. Bankruptcy is your only option.”- and then let Waggoner drive the company in to the ditch.
And when people say it’s not Obama’s fault that they got bailed out I say bullshit to that to, because he voted for all the spending while senator, just because now he’s president he gets a free pass?
I really don’t get this big tent garbage. I’m under the tent that stands for personal liberty, capitalism and keeping the government as small and as far away from me as possible. There are no compromises for me and the people next to me under this tent. And there isn’t much that Obama has done so far that isn’t in complete opposite of these principles.
I don’t understand why people think this should be negotiated or compromised when that’s all conservatives have done for the last ten years.
I WANT YOU TO FAIL OBAMA. THE FASTER THE BETTER.
lgf liberal fascism lite. Buongiorno chuck
Is there some kind of “make me an idiot” juice being passed around in the higher reaches of Washington?
How in the f**king hell does anyone with a working mind think that the equation Obama=USA is true.
Even a box of hammers would see that is an enormous inequality. The things are not even in the same classes.
What is Mitt trying for, the Albert Speer chair?
fwiw, up until the election I thought “mitt Romney” was a way to order a bratwurst in Munich.
~ badump bump ~
If you objectively described fascism (Italian variation not German) and then polled the progressive population, what percent would agree with it? 85%? 90%?
What percentage of the moderate middle would?
oh hell the back story on buongiorno:
?
I can see how that could be a really cool little experiment, bh.
IDEOLOGICAL PURIST!!1!eleventy!!1!
Hell, If Obama came out in favor of teaching Creationism, Charles would be going through his Mannlicher-Carcano catalog as we speak.
25
Shit set up a DK registration name and take a poll. I am thinkin more like 80 percent myself.
The thing about fascism is that there are two versions of it: FASCISM!!!111!! of the liberal hyperbolic kind for anything they disagree with and fascism, which was an actual form of government that was once considered viable in which the state became intertwined with the private sector in order to produce certain efficiencies determined by the government.
Ironically, the Left is all about the latter fascism, as seen by O!’s embrace of it. Unfortunately, those efficiencies never seem to materialize and fascism eventually evolves into the FASCISM!!!111!!1! variety over time. Witness the loyalty oaths and door to door Permanent Campaigns we have going on now.
31
Also the Pravda type shit I see when I turn on TV and hear them sound like they are having orgasms when talking about Obama.
Barney Frank was right when he said Republicans are suffering from a psychological disorder. When a former GOP Presidential candidate starts cozying up to Obama and his lunatic fringe there is a mental malady floating around and most Repubs in DC have caught it. Maybe Bawney Fwank was on too something.
Sure thing, Mitt! That’s right proper. But are we talking “took three steps without falling on his face” success, or succeeding at doing something that completely fucks our little country up success? I really don’t want to encourage the latter.
If he does something that I really want done, you let me know, OK Mitt? I will definitely say a Hosanna or three with you.
@32
Yeah. Absolutely. There is an important cultural aspect to fascism, it’s not all political and economic. It works hand in hand. So, it can’t be ignored.
That’s why it bugs me when people like Jeff notice it, point it out… and then are characterized as impolitic for doing so.
I am moved to reflection. Romney is a douche. When he runs I’m gonna go look up everything nishi used to say about him and add some of my own stuff too I think. You know who else is a douche is Charles Johnson. Romney is like a douchey ken doll and chuckie is like a douchey homer simpson I think. Similar, but different.
Back in the 60’s and 70’s I used to hear an old saw thwanging out of Washington every time a President left the country on an overseas trip: Politics stops at the water’s edge, it went. No one then ever thought that the President would be the one to bad mouth the country while he was gone. My how times change.
#26
Thats the problem isn’t it. How do you reach that middle that has been insulated from the realities of this disaster by the MSM. Up until the last election I thought that most americans were pretty savy politically. Boy. Was I wrong.
I’d be REALLY interested in seeing the results of that poll.
That’s the ironic thing: When the Left calls conservatives fascist even though none of us wants the government having anything to do with the private sector at all, nobody says a word.
But if we point out how O!’s recent actions closely resemble fascist forms of government (and they quite literally do, if one were to look up the definition of fascism as a government entity), you’re like, impolite or something.
It really shows proves the point that many words have completely lost their meaning thanks to decades of Orwellian bullshit taught in our universities.
It really shows proves the point that many words have completely lost their meaning thanks to decades of Orwellian bullshit taught in our universities.
That 20 something thinks abortion is a right, but your salary not so much.
Beaver,
Maybe. But as of right now he’s making a lot more sense than Romney, or for that matter a lot of Republican bloggers. And isn’t sort of sad that a DJ can figure it out but all these highly principled well trained party operators can’t?
I’m posting this so that ProteinWisdom’s cookie (mmmmm … cookies …) remembers my blog’s URI.
On another note, I’d like to propose a Constitutional 80/20 Rule: 80% approval to pass laws & 20% approval to revoke them.
Both sides of the aisle had some people with serious problems in this last go around. Y’all had Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden ferchrissakes! And Barack Obama! And Mrs. Clinton. Hey, at least Al Sharpton sat this round out.
Romney is trying to be niiiiiiiiice, because decorum is….like…Presidential. I think Mitt would still like to be POTUS. I’d refer him to Andrew Jackson and suggest that he get back to us if he finds himself inspired. Extra points if he adopts the Jackson hairstyle.
Ann has bigger balls
mighty loser
yea like 2006? fucking poseur.
Those G20 pictures of our dirty socialist muppet with the foreign muppets is the gayest thing I’ve ever seen in a presidential international important summity like context.
If you objectively described fascism (Italian variation not German) and then polled the progressive population, what percent would agree with it? 85%? 90%?
It’s been said before, but who did so, I forget… There’s nothing about Nazism that liberals don’t like, except for the gas chambers.
You know who this helps? Hugh Hewitt.
Pardon me while I apply some Blistex to my lips. It’s been a long day at the White House.
I still don’t know what to do with my login over there. It would, in all likelihood, be something gloriously and painfully stupid, snuffed out and quickly forgotten.
I thought about using it to calmly, rationally, reasonably try to talk sense to some of them, but…well, you know.
happyfeet, great catch!
I think that calls for a caption contest in the pub.
Question: Is it okay to yank that picture and put it up and the pub? It has the AFP stamp right on the picture? Is that kosher?
margret liked them for blacks
And now, a musical interlude courtesy of the Sleepy Tigers.
It seems that with every passing day, the former edifice of “conservatism” crumbles at an increasing rate. I’m put in mind of the pragmatic Republicans who every day lecture us about “erecting a big tent” and being “inclusive.” The only people they seem to deny entry to the white bread, tone-deaf country club big top are those who value classical liberalism, liberty, and freedom. It’s definitely time… and as a party the GOP is a mere rump in national politics anyhow. I declare: I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.
Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
You mean at that place with the footballs and whatever? That place is like trapped in the war on terror period. We’ve got bigger problems now and the dirty socialist muppets grow stronger every day. The muppets are winning, Charles. Whose side are you fucking on?
oh. 56 was at 51. I lost time I think. Peering into the abyss and all.
[…] o’ the hat to happyfeet) Posted by B. Hard @ 3:08 am | Trackback Share […]
A repost of a comment made elsewhere, in response to a thread about Obastard’s high polling numbers. Seems apropos.
———-
I hate to tell ya, but we have to accept these numbers. Obastard’s gonna be riding high for the next eight years. The thing to understand is that the people of the Nation Below Canada are just plain, categorically, terminally stupid.
It’s not that anyone is afraid to criticize His Hooves. They actually believe he does a great job. Remember, these same people, whom you and I know as neighbors and relatives, are the very ones who made possible the old joke about programming a VCR. Most of these people can barely boot a computer. You don’t expect them to use it to read, do you? Downloading porn is a major intellectual effort for them. They think a “kernel panic” is a shortage of popcorn, or the hysterics of Army officers.
We’re not in a world of shit, we’re in a world of dumbshit.
George,
They’re not stupid they just figure all these people they see on TV telling them all this stupid crap know what they are talking about and should be listened to. They’re beginning to figure it out… slowly.
I’d like to point out that both Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney believe Jesus used to hang out in North America.
1) Central America. Get it right.
2) I’m a Mormon, too. You got a problem with that?
3) So what?
i with you: moveon here we come
update: do a jane fonda in south florida $199.00/day. splash it big time in cuba
I got an e-mail survey today about the state of the RNC.
You can find the online survey here.
I gave them a piece of my mind. I suggest you do the same.
Make that here.
“I’d like to point out that both Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney believe Jesus used to hang out in North America.”
Calling other people’s religious views silly doesn’t really get one very far in a religious discussion.
Where did the caption thingy go? I thought of mine one.
Or in a non-religious one. Mostly.
they just figure all these people they see on TV telling them all this stupid crap know what they are talking about and should be listened to. They’re beginning to figure it out…
This won’t happen if they are relying upon MSM and the popular culture to explain it to them. If things are palpably worse in 2010, we all know what the MSM will say about it… It’s Chimpy McHalliburton’s fault! Barry The Good And Just inherited this mess! Burn the Republicans!! Who will dare incur the ire of his neighbors by gainsaying the high wisdom of a David Letterman or a Jon Stewart? No, the stifling orthodoxy of liberalism suffuses our culture and leads it like a lamb in a noose. When vast numbers of people can be driven into wrathful rage against a handful of “Wall Street fatcats” even though their remuneration counts as a fractional pittance against vast public deficits, the game is over. Too many people are dancing a jig over the idea of Mr. Fatcat getting his bonus confiscated… while it puts precisely nothing into their own pockets. And the very people who authorized incomprehensible quantities of public money to be spent upon said “fatcats” are the ones lathering up the rabble.
People do in fact get the government they deserve. And are we ever going to get it.
I’m going to call thetans silly and I really don’t care how far it gets me.
oh. Scientology doesn’t count I don’t think. It’s like global warming or Atkins.
happyfeet at 68, I really liked the picture but once I posted it I realized I’d prefer to have dicentra’s post at the top of the page. So I deleted it.
dicentra
Mormons don’t strap on bombs and blow up buses or pizza palors when their religion is offended.
So it’s “ok” to sneer at Mormons, Evangelicals and Catholics.
And Jewish Jews, too.
That’s okay. I worked really hard on mine though one cause for the longest time I just stared at it. It’s wrong in so many ways.
No, not necessarily. Show me your magic underwear and we’ll talk.
George,
They’re figuring it out, just very slowly. If a certain political party was more inclined to tell the truth than pass itself off as Obama-lite that would increase the learning curve, as would a news network that was willing to cover the press the way the press covers the rest, but all things considered people are picking up on what is going on. Will they do it quickly enough? We’ll see. I hope so.
Mighty Beaver, you realize you’re being a giant dick, right?
I don’t have any magic under wear, but I’ve seen John Kerry’s magic hat is that good enough?
Mormons don’t strap on bombs and blow up buses or pizza palors when their religion is offended.
Are we becoming a little country what is more likely to incubate domestic terrorists or what is less likely to incubate domestic terrorists? My answer to this changes throughout the day I think.
hf,
Depends on how stifling the economic and intellectual climates become. We’ll see.
oh… that was *I worked really hard on mine one though* back at 75. I don’t think the underwear thing is cool to mock. It’s not like I don’t have a favorite pair.
Mormons don’t strap on bombs and blow up buses or pizza palors when their religion is offended.
So it’s “ok†to sneer at Mormons, Evangelicals and Catholics.
People with ambition to power are noticing this, around the world. I wonder who the next group will be, to understand that the key to defeating a prosperous, Western industrial society is a credible threat of low-level and unpredictable violence. The remarkable thing is that the West will not only refuse to fight, it will defend its assailants as victims. As ye sow, etc.
#77
From your lips to God’s ears.
He bowed to the piece of shit Saudi fucker, our dirty socialist emphatically not muslim president did.
As far as the Saudtards go I think Mr. Soros mostly just wants Baracky to make sure that the percentage of American oil that’s domestically produced becomes an ever-smaller percentage of total consumption, but now I wonder if that’s the whole deal.
Patterico and Johnson and Romney are the future. The rest of us just suck.
I actually agree with Mitt that when Obama does something good we should not attack him (we should praise him). But that is not what Rush, Jeff, or Michelle are talking about. And I am pretty sure Patterico and Johnson know that, but are pretending something else.
#87
Precisely. Unless Mitt is willfully obtuse and obsequious (a distinct possibility), he is well aware of what you say. Perhaps Mitty could explain all the wonderful things Obastard the Unicorn God has done lately that put him squarely in the realm of the potentially laudable. Stand up to “auto execs?” Get a bigger shovel, Mittney.
#31 and 41
I do not think the majority of Americans know the definition of fascist beyond what the Left has changed it to be or the MSM tells them it is.
As noted, they are fast to call it, but woefully inept at seeing themselves for what they are. Projecting, me thinks.
Didn’t like Mitt anyway. Seems swarmy and will tell whatever audience whatever they want to hear for whatever it will get him.
It was all said simply back in #13:
arguing that we need reflexively to give this guy the benefit of the doubt ignores his entire career leading up to this moment.
Oh, and what the hell is Jacque Chirac doing in that picture?!
My caption: “Zut Alors! Sait vrais! Il est comme un muton!”
Re Romney… relax fellas. Romney just staking out his plot for 2012, and all his die-hards are lining up. If he wants to stake out a losing position it’s his business. Cause that’s what he’s doing. People aren’t going to be looking for slick technocrats come 2012. They’ll want a messiah or the truth. Obama will have ruined the messiah act by then, I suspect, and Mitt seems to have trouble with the truth. Train going nowhere.
#93
You know, I think you have got Romney trapped right under your thumb. Freakin’ technocrat. I love how some “conservatives” like to talk about how he can turn around failing businesses… Unfortunately, the freakin’ government is NOT a business, does not run on business principles, and cannot be made into one. It exists with the sole monopoly upon legalized coercion, the printing of money, and the ability to tax. Not something any business can do. The problem with government is not that “it isn’t enough like a business.” It’s that government is the only facet of society we permit to steal from some to give to others… and whether we should permit even that.
you don’t like ” life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”
you are right. fuck gov’t. IT CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH
you don’t like †life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?â€
Charles, Allah, Patterico, David Brooks, David Frum, et al. could do without it, apparently.
And this appealing to the middle stuff is just stupid. Independents have no choice but to vote for a Republican or a Democrat. And they always seem to vote for the authentic one. Chasing after them only makes the conservatives stay home.
The problem isn’t Republican principles the problem is unprincipled Republicans. Preach it ‘zo
Cross post from the Pub…
The Pragmatic Republican battle cry resounds… “I had to support Obama in order to destroy him!â€
#100: That was satire, I state in intentionalist fashion.
Unprincipled Repubs? No kidding. The whole point of having principles is to make sure you do the correct thing in dire circumstances as well as normal ones.
apparently without a clue bbw. hi meghan!
Re Romney… relax fellas. Romney just staking out his plot for 2012
Yeah, and it’s about 6’x3′.
This was the end of Romney’s presidential ambitions.
Suits me. I had more personal antipathy toward him than anybody except Huckabee. Dude reminds me of a used car salesman. A crooked one.
And no, it’s nothing to do with him being a Mormon. I like all the Mormons I’ve known just fine (except for that irritating habit of knocking on one’s door at inopportune times).
Civilized, honest, and hard-working people, almost without exception (the exceptions mainly being those who get into national politics, like Romney and Reid — I guess it’s proof that Mormons are human beings, too. :-)
tweet: charles and brookesie like me
oh my allah hates me meg 100 to go
do i look fat
Mormons don’t strap on bombs and blow up buses or pizza palors when their religion is offended.
Yet.
Show me your magic underwear and we’ll talk.
Only the pure in heart can see it. Everyone else sees Helen Thomas in a glittery gold thong. Still game?
Y’all saw the Michell Malkin piece on Obama bowing down the King of Saudi Arabia, right?
Another 200+ year old custom down the drain.
Yo, Blowbama: the President of the United States does not bow down to royalty. Ever.
Sugared Jeebus on a funnel cake… but I’m long-winded tonight. Nevertheless, I’m put in mind of how crucial our words have become to everything. We have all this talk of principles versus pragmatism. Principles… what the hell do conservatives even mean by that word? This isolated, linguistic issue is a perfect index of what Jeff has been shouting at the void for years. Let’s consider what we mean by the word “principle.”
What is it? Why have one? I presume as a starting premise that the only reason to have a principle is to guide one through a multiplicity of situations. A good principle is something that would apply in the broadest possible set of situations. In fact, if you can find a principle that is worth defending, it ought to be one that admonishes you to do something perhaps not intuitive, precipitous, or expedient in an extreme situation. While a course of action that violates a principle in extreme circumstances may feel right, or be the darling of peer pressure, if this proposed action creates undesired consequences afterwards then the principle that rejected it was worth keeping. In short, the whole point of selecting and keeping a principle is to prevent you from doing the wrong thing, especially in situations where it is not immediately obvious.
And here we crash into the lassitude and mediocrity of our age. I’m put in mind of an execrable Orange County Congressman Campbell heard on the execrable Hugh “I Heart MItt Romney In A Gay Way” Hewitt’s radio show late last year. Both of these tools defended the auto bailout Bush was pushing at the time. The philosophical excuse from Campbell (who used to be a big auto dealer, nota bene) was “My principles guide my thinking, but aren’t a substitute for it.” To which nonsense I thought “Then you haven’t chosen any principles worth thinking about.”
Our language has been debased in a perverse inversion of the Tower of Babel. The more precise we try to be, the more confused so many are by the precision, until we reach the point where what I mean by “principle” is the literal opposite of what some alleged conservatives means when they use the word.
Put it like this. For people like the “pragmatic conservatives,” a principle is an airy ideal, something to dream about in a land of wish fulfillment, but the closer that principle comes to encountering reality, the more it ought to be, must be abandoned in order to accomodate immediate concerns. For someone like myself, I find the most utility in principles that become more and more compelling the nearer they impinge upon reality. Otherwise, I do not need them. No particular principle is necessary to gain the support of a divided nation if I have no eye to the consequences. If the pragmatist argues that he wants to avoid unintended consequences as well, then he must explain why at one moment a principle applies yet at another it does not. That sounds like an ill-considered, poorly defined principle.
If engorged political ticks like Mr. Campbell were more honest, they would admit that their true principles consist of what keeps them in office the longest, what appeases the most people in the broadest fashion, and their least valued possessions are the old, musty ideas of classical liberalism. When the going gets tough, the pragmatist follows the path of least resistance. Or as in Campbell’s case, the path of the liberal Democrat.
Well. Would you look at where the fasces shows up.
The Mercury Dime issued in 1916, during Woodrow Wilson’s time.
It’s also on the National Guard Bureau seal.
OK. waiting for that “succeeds” part to happen.
Well argued, Orwell.
I would note only that the term “pragmatic conservative” is but another victim of language decay. Today, it is more or less synonymous with “moderate conservative,” itself a euphemism for “moderate,” another word for “hapless tool and/or useful fool for the left.” They are those who seek compromise over cause every time, even at the cost of “splitting the difference” at 10-90 against their own professed side.
Yet it is certainly possible to be pragmatically conservative in the sense one’s actions aim for the best practical outcome for ideals on the losing end of a fight. Nixon presents the classic example. His policies most adamantly opposed by conservatives included the EPA and wage and price controls.
No one argues these policies were not bad from the conservative point of view. Nixon faced, in both cases, a heavily Democratic Congress with a frightened Republican minority rife with the sort of “pragmatists” who would “grow in office” enough to side with the Democrats. In both cases, Nixon’s actions preempted pending congressional measures which would have had drastically worse effects.
Similarly, who would question Nixon’s bona fides as an anti-communist Cold Warrior? Again, when he realized he could not force a Democratic Congress to spend enough on defense to maintain our military advantage for long, he developed a diplomatic strategy designed to simultaneously appease, becalm, and beguile the two great Communist powers, China and the USSR. This bought us time by increasing the mistrust between them which began under Khrushchev, and diverting resources to their border which might otherwise have gone to their nuclear arsenal and positions near Western Europe.
It bought just enough time, too. In 1979, for the first time ever, the respected independent military analyst magazine Jane’s Review rated the USSR’s overall military strength greatest in the world, ahead of the USA. But the time Nixon bought also brought three events he could not have specifically foreseen: the elections of Karol Józef WojtyÅ‚a as Pope John Paul II in 1978, Margaret Thatcher as British Prime Minister in 1979, and Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1980.
I submit that Nixon’s pragmatic actions in these cases, while seemingly diametrically opposed to his conservative principles, actually improved the position of the conservative argument over the longer term.
If a term like “pragmatic conservative” can be applied to both those like Nixon and the jackasses who currently wear the label, our language has indeed deteriorated.
The philosophical excuse from Campbell… was “My principles guide my thinking, but aren’t a substitute for it.â€
I remember that interview. I think what he meant was that doesn’t apply principles reflexively but rather considers all factors. IIRC, Hewitt is for bankruptcy, not bailout, but I’m not absolutely sure.
Anyway, the problem is that if you adopt more than one principle, you will run into situations where the principles will come into conflict. For example, “always tell the truth” is a good policy 99% of the time. However, when the Stasi asks if you’re harboring Jews in your attic, you lie, lie, lie.
Because besides adopting good principles, you also need to arrange them in a hierarchy, so that when they come into conflict you’ll know which one to apply.
If his record and background are any indication, Romney would have done the same fascist crap. But the press would have gone apeshit on him.
Accuweather is jealous and displacing it.
Scientology doesn’t count I don’t think. It’s like global warming or Atkins.
Atkins is not like scientology. It’s more like Branch Davidianismvism
Have to remember that the fasces is an ancient Roman symbol, and that it took Mussolini to change it into a symbol of fascism.
Yo, Blowbama: the President of the United States does not bow down to royalty. Ever.
Spies, my daddy told me no American bows his head to any man. But, he was a Marine.
–
If nothing else, the upcoming White House Easter Egg roll should be fun.
I mean, there’s nothing inherently *Christian* about Easter, right?
/
What can you say people voted for this crap. Too bad our very own Pravda will not highlight anything that is troubling but instead will fawn over them to the point I want to puke.
http://townhall.com/blog/g/862bf188-45fb-47a4-81ea-ab23b70e4517
Romney’s only semi-specific example, Obama’s ostensible commitment to “finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan”, disproves his argument. According to this gallup poll, Republicans agreed at a higher rate than Democrats did with Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. So what are the decisions Obama has made that Republicans are disagreeing with that they shouldn’t be?
To follow up, it seems to me Republicans have shown themselves perfectly willing to express agreement with Obama in the very few instances when his actions are amenable to Republican views. So why have people like Ed Morrisey, David Horowitz, and Mitt Romney been at pains to exhort Republicans not to disagree with Obama when he’s right? Couldn’t these guys at least lay out some actual examples where this has been the case? And no, a solitary, anonymous e-mail doesn’t really do it.
“#Comment by happyfeet on 4/2 @ 9:07 pm #
oh. 56 was at 51. I lost time I think. Peering into the abyss and all.”
Was it staring back?
Republicans agreed at a higher rate than Democrats did with Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.
So where is the criticism of the reflexive opposition by the Democrats?
Via Hot Air:
“The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?
WASHINGTON — When President Obama briefed Congressional leaders at the White House last week on his plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, Senator Harry Reid offered some advice: Whatever you do, he told the president, don’t call it a “surge.—
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/politics/02web-baker.html?_r=2
Romney’s comments are disappointing and “unhelpful.” Pathetic how irrelevant to the times our Republican leaders are.
Expecting Pres Obama to learn and understand the ways of
British Royaltylong American tradition is a bit like expecting Muslims to know what we mean and to understand us when we us words like “the clash of civilizationsâ€, “assimilationâ€, “secularâ€, “moderateâ€, “jihadiâ€, “freedomâ€, etc.To agree with Mr Seiple, it’s asking a bit too much, no? I mean, he’s so young and innocent after all.
The Olympics are coming up –
I wonder if Obama will have the American flag dipped in salute to the host countries during the parade.
I mean, hell, all the cool countries are doing that.
speaking of battle lines… if google buys twitter I don’t think it’s something I want to get just too too involved with, google being big dirty socialists and all. Troubling. But I may have to anyway cause were building it into a social media project thingy here at the place I go during the day. Nothing gold can stay.
and who nibbles on sponge cake? Nobody. Just eat the damn cake already.
oh. *we’re* building it into a social media project thingy… I’m kinda hoping it works out but in a totally surprising way not how it reads in the proposal…
… law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying citizens — who, over the past decade, have despaired as their country’s sovereignty has been dissipated, its freedoms compromised and ancient institutions diminished by a tribe of political pygmies …
Quote of the Day
Economists say the job market may not get back to normal — meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate — until 2013.*
There you go. It’s never too early to cover your dirty socialist hungarian muppet’s ass I don’t think. Hey! You got propaganda in my journalism! Yeah well you got your journalism in my propaganda! oh. Tastes great I think, Jeannine Aversa! There’s no wrong way to be a dirty socialist tool.
hmmm. From the AP’s propaganda – there’s a change in the boilerplate…
And last week a report showed that consumer spending — an engine of the economy — rose in February for the second month in a row — after a half-year of declines.
For forever and ever that’s where they say consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States… You think maybe government spending has fucked up that ratio or is Jeannine just having an off day?
“I lost time I think. Peering into the abyss and all.â€
Cheer up ‘feet! It’s Friday, and I just got word that someone’s hired me for the summer as a landscaper/handyman!
Cleaning gutters tomorrow will be icky, but I’ll smile all the while, knowing that not one cent of what I earn will go into “skeezy socialist president” pockets!
Any republican that uses that dicks/pussey speech will have my vote at “sometimes dicks fuck assholes”.
Real leadership. Maybe we need an actor to be president.
I think Americans should support Obama, if he’s ever right. It could happen. I have better odds of winning the lottery, but it is possible. So put me down in the “not reflexively opposed” column. I’m mostly opposed, on principles.
Nice! That’s not being part of the problem in a genuinely meaningful way I think. Just be sure to get you some sunscreen.
Also I saw the coolest thing where a guy was cleaning gutters by just standing on top of the roof and hitting the gutters with a leaf blower. Not sure if it was plugged in or gas. But it looked very efficient. Dangerous, but efficient.
Adjoran… Quite interesting. My only comment is the interview between Hewitt and Campbell suggested something very different than what dicentra heard. I’m not talking about competing principles, or political triage. The argument at the time was strictly with respect to the auto bailout, Bush was still President, and I approach this from the premise that it was never a good idea, ever. Campbell and Hewitt were both for the bailout, and not because it was an alternative to something more statist, but because, as Hughie the Backslapper put it, “the auto industry is the lifeblood of the country.” ‘Cause you know, they’re just too important to fail. He’s also said that about housing. And probably any other industry that sponsors his show. I call bullshit. Bush should not have spent the fourteen-odd billion on that mess. We see where that led. May I point out that the efforts on the part of Republicans, prior to January 20, to pour public money into private failures, resulted in Obastard’s notorious remark that he wasn’t the one who began this bailout business. Bush was the real socialist. I call that playing into your enemies’ hands.
My aim is in this case to show that last fall’s Bush auto bailout was not a response to stave off greater interference in the economy, but the opposite. Remember when Bush said he had to abandon the free market in order to save it?
I could have swallowed the Campbell/Hewitt nonsense if their argument was “what we propose is awful, but is less worse than what those in power will do otherwise.” But this was not the case. Bush was still President, and did not have to permit the bailout to happen. It’s called a veto pen. And Campbell should have been agitating for a veto. Instead he argued that this “no time to be doctrinaire.”
Frankly, what prompted my long windy blurb was the sudden realization that the idea of principle means one thing to David Brooks and another to William F. Buckley, and in the former case principle is the first thing to be watered down. A Brooksian priniciple is more properly called a daydream.
Furthermore, If your principles compete, perhaps you have not chosen wise ones. Principles well-chosen don’t compete. To tell the truth is a good principle, but in no way does it demand that you tell a mugger chasing a woman for her purse which way she went. Principles form a coherent whole, and most of us here subscribe to that whole known as classical liberalism. Another principle in that whole says that one’s person and property are one’s own, and it’s not good to help others violate that right. So you tell the mugger “she went that away,” pointing in the direction of that cop around the corner. And maybe you trip him as he turns to run.
To conclude, I addressed a case where a pair of so-called conservatives were all too ready to abandon free market principles and burden the public with private failures simply to appease the rabble in DC, and to kowtow to the hysteria about the whole economy falling apart like this was a freakin’ Mad Max movie. And you know what? If Bush had done the right thing, as someone like Thomas Sowell would have advised and let GM head into bankruptcy court, we would be much better off right now. Because that’s where we are anyway, with Obastard. And the UAW issues would have been that much closer to resolution, as well as billions left back in the Treasury.
dicentra,
The Monks taught me it was a matrix. Right/wrong on one axis and good/evil on the other.
The example: Killing is evil. But there are conditions where killing is also right. We don’t get the luxury of all of our decisions falling into the Right AND Good box, but the goal is to stay away from the Wrong AND Evil ones.
Republican Conservatives criticizing Mormons for beliefs that don’t matter, like what they believe about Jesus’ visiting the New World as a Resurrected Savior, is stupid. They are so far the most consistently conservative Republican voters in the United States surpassing even Southerners. That is slowly changing as Atheist and Evangelical Christian sides of the Republican Party continue to make fun of them. During a time when the Western United States (where a lot of Mormons live) has become increasingly important as a voting bloc, turning nasty against an important group is political suicide. The older generation of Mormons still hold strong to the Conservative brand of the party, but the younger ones are getting sick of the attacks and might become less strong.
The above isn’t about not criticizing Romney and Reid, or even Beck. It is about mocking a group that has traditionally been a strong and efficient supporter.
[…] course, on the plus side — and this is for you, Mitt, and you, Charles — I will say this: that sure was one genuinely obsequious looking […]
What I don’t understand is why a politician’s religious beliefs matter (unless those beliefs say they must kill all infidels or something). As long as the person in question doesn’t try to turn the country into a theocracy, it’s irrelevant what they believe.
Comment by George Orwell on 4/2 @ 10:54 pm #
Unprincipled Repubs? No kidding. The whole point of having principles is to make sure you do the correct thing in dire circumstances as well as normal ones.
Otherwise your principles are *not* principles but commodities. Thus in bad times–like now–certain people are willing to sell their not-principles-but-commodities. Such people are defined properly defined as sellouts.
I think this is too simple a concept for some to grasp.