David Gregory, laying the trap for Eric Cantor on this weekend’s “Meet the Press”. Having first insisted that “many on the right” are engaging in “crazy talk” in calling for the release of Obama’s birth certificate (Chris Matthews, on the other hand, is given a pass, because his reasoning for calling for the release is the good and righteous kind), Gregory then goes on to try to wring an admission out of Cantor — namely, that to question the motivations of this president is to demonstrate a crazy, wild-eyed fringe mentality:
MR. GREGORY: Because, because I think a lot of people, Leader, would say that a leader’s job is to shut some of this down. You know as well as I do, there are some elements on the right who believe two things about this president: He actively is trying to undermine the American way and wants to deny individuals their freedom. Do you reject those beliefs?
Cantor, like a good little mark, immediately retreated to the safety of pragmatism:
REP. CANTOR: Let me tell you, David, I believe this president wants what’s best for this country. It’s just how he feels we should get there, that there are honest policy differences.
MR. GREGORY: Fair enough.
REP. CANTOR: That’s it. And, and so the question will be, over the next two years, whether he will demonstrate that he no longer wants to adhere to more spending, to more sort of trying to achieve equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity, that he really does believe America was built on those striving to–for opportunity, willing to take their own responsibility to achieve their success, and not rely on Washington to sort of determine winners and losers. Now, that, that to me is what America’s about. That’s how we get to a better place in this country and continue to lead. And, and the question will be–and I think that most Americans are like that. And so the question is, does the president now embrace what the electorate said, which is, “We reject your agenda, Mr. President. We understand the results have not been there. Let’s try it a different way.”
Listen: Obama learned at the feet of socialists and embraced their ideology. His agenda in office has been demonstrably aimed at increasing the scope and power of the federal government at the expense of a private sector he routinely punishes; he has empowered the bureaucratic arms of the government to regulate where his attempts to legislate failed; he has spent to the point where the currency is being devalued; he is trying to force upon us a mandate that we must purchase a product, health insurance — while insisting that we can’t use certain kinds of bulbs, or toilets, etc.
And so yes, he wants to limit our freedoms: ObamaCare makes that obvious; drilling moratoriums make that obvious; back-channel cap-and-trade makes that obvious. Too, because the “American Way” has never been associated with an expansive nannystate and a full-frontal attack on the private sector, replacing real free market forces with crony capitalism and government takeover of certain industries, yes, it is fair to say that Obama is actively trying to undermine the American Way, and in fact has explicitly told us as much: after all, if, as the “transformative” President, you aren’t trying to actively change the American Way, what is it that you are so eager to “transform”?
Just like the phony “civility” campaign, this new tack by the media to force TEA Party conservatives to reject conservatism — to pretend that we accept, as a matter of course, the left’s framing of what our country is and isn’t — is simply a ramping up of Obama’s 2012 campaign.
Don’t be cowed. Don’t allow the left — or those on the “right” who are so routinely either fearful of the left, or else are in agreement with them on what constitutes legitimate criticism — to bully you into silence.
We fell for that in 2008.
Well, not we we, but you get the idea.
I think the proper response would have been to list what Obama has done and let the listener decide. Most people don’t know what’s been going on quietly behind the scenes, because the MFM agrees that it shouldn’t be covered.
Obama and other leftists really DO think that what they are doing is “good for America” as leftists see it: taken down a notch, punish capitalists and redistribute more wealth around to unions and their pet money wasters, like “green jobs” so that they can economically punish the oil industry etc etc. Honest lefties like that shit.
Cantors answer avoids Gregorys attempt to get Cantor to *denounce* some on the right wing, which would then be used by the left and other State Run Media as a wedge to try and split independent voting TPers from the right by painting segments of it as beyond the pale. Cantors alwser also makes it clear that he thinks the policy isn’t ther directjion we need to go and that that proper direction is towards libery, not control. He also nicely avoids gregories attempt to make Cantor ‘RESPONSIBLE FOR THBE WORDS OF OTHERS.
One must remember that the purpose of these interviews by Obamas media acolytes is to try and smear conservatism and conservatives, not inform the public.
Cantor turned the question from, “What are you going to do about these dangerous crazies that follow you” to talking about reversing Obamas policy.
Well, the question was loaded, and to answer it properly would have been to get deep into the weeds, which I fear many would have not understood by the audience.
t: He actively is trying to undermine the American way and wants to deny individuals their freedom. Do you reject those beliefs?
Cantor, like a good little mark, immediately retreated to the safety of pragmatism:
REP. CANTOR: Let me tell you, David, I believe this president wants what’s best for this country. It’s just how he feels we should get there, that there are honest policy differences.
I would have preferred he stated that the president wants what HE BELIEVES is best for this country. Because, you know a socialist believes that socialism is best. To refuse to answer the question Gregory asked.
Then conservatives shouldn’t go on the shows, SGT Ted.
And we’ve been through this before: Obama thinks he’s doing what’s good for his vision of America, not for the America the Constitution circumscribes.
The left is always going to use what we say against us. Who cares? Just say it. And be forthright about it. Cantor didn’t turn the question around; he essentially marginalized many of the arguments being made by the TEA Party and actual conservatives and classical liberals. To believe Obama wants to change the “American Way” — and to state dispassionately that he is taking away our freedoms — is being cast as fringe kookiness.
Don’t let it happen.
I accidentally hit send on the above, so pardone’ the typoes, etc.
To end my post, this is still about the leftwing/State Run media using the Tucson Shooting strategy, just using different right wingers to try and peel off independent voters and supporters from the Tea Party by painting it as extremist and dangerous.
Well, I am not seeing how he is marginalizing anything with that particular paragraph. He simply avoids Gregories attempted own-goal as I see it. Maybe I need to see the whole interview. :P
Voters turned away from squishes, not from the TEA Party message.
Sell the message and the policy; don’t fret about the tone, as you’re told you need modulate it. Because look at who’s telling you to watch your tone…
I also see it as part “good cop/bad cop” strategy. Take the high tone road while letting Beck and Limbaugh and other point out the obvious.
We can’t say a self-described “transformative” President doesn’t want what’s best for the “American Way” – nor can we say he wants less individual liberty and more federal control over decision making. We have to concede that he’s trying to transform America into what it always was; and we have to say that he’s taking away our liberties accidentally. Otherwise we’re fringe.
That’s what is being established here.
We don’t need any more good cops. McCain and Colin Powell will do just fine, thanks.
Well, in the end, it is going to be about the policies, because is was the passage of and direction in those policies which has driven the rise of the Tea Party Movements opposition to them.
Cantor took Dicks question, which was targetted at getting a denunciation from Cantor aimed at a tiny portion of the right and made it into a disagreement about policy. Which makes Gregory look petty and Cantor look thoughtful.
The high tone? You mean like, Republicans and Democrats sitting together at the state of the Union, all bipartisan and comitous?
But I do see your point.
I heartily agree JeffG.
And for the life of me, I can’t understand how Cantor lives with the dissonance that must exist in his person in order to reconcile the first of his remarks quoted here by you to his second.
That is, if he truly believes that what he stated in his second remark is representative of the “American way”, and that Obama’s entire agenda has run counter to it the last two years, then in fact he has been trying to undermine America by undermining the “American way”.
I realize that perhaps he wouldn’t have been given time to do so, but instead should have replied to Gregory’s first question by illustrating how Obama’s efforts had run counter to some of the tenets of “The American way” he spoke of in his second remark.
Virginians should be ashamed of his lily-livered response to Gregory’s loaded question.
No Ernst, thats not what I mean.
I think the Ayn Rand interview posted by Darlene should be used as study material for anyone who is going to be interviewed.
Whenever Wallace asked a question based on a fraudulent premise, Rand immediately rejected the premise.
He actively is trying to undermine the American way and wants to deny individuals their freedom. Do you reject those beliefs?
I do not. The American Way is based on the rights of the individual, and the President is much more focused on the rights of groups. The American Way is based on capitalism, and the President is a socialist. The American Way is based on the rule of law; when the President’s wishes are denied by law, he ignores the law, whether it is taking over our energy economy through the EPA or taking over the internet with the FCC.
Cantor is keeping it on policy and not on personality. He avoids giving sound bites to the SRM and their fellow travellers.
And so, rather than seeing endless clips of Cantor saying “Obamas a socialist, dangerous to the direction of the country and anti-American” which would only be discusssed as “Why is Cantor such a loonatic, fringe hater? Is he also a racist?” and not an honest look at the policies what causes Cantor to say what he said, we have a harmless wonkish “policy, not personality” answer which gives the left no ammunition.
Just trying to point out that the end result is the same, SGT Ted.
Not necessarily Ernst.
If Cantor feels the need to modulate the TEA Party message, he shouldn’t speak on its behalf.
As for how Cantor’s remarks are being framed, do a quick search. He “refused to call birthers ‘crazy’!” is the headline. Guess he didn’t modulate enough, eh?
I can’t keep teaching this lesson over and over again. If you are so worried about what the left will say that you find yourself tempering the truth, you’ve already lost.
Period. Full stop.
Lordy, I thought the debate about whether Obama is a good man was over.
Cantor should have made Gregory define what he means by “the American way”, before answering the question. That’s the only way to counter the word games the left loves to play. Make them define their terms.
Coulda been funny, watching Gregory trying desperately to come up with examples of “the American way”… that don’t sound at odds with what Obama is doing.
My dream show would be seeing one of these Repub-heads saying something along the lines of, “It is clear that President Obama does not respect the Office of President, whether he’s shipping back gifts from our allies, bum-rushing the Dali Lama out the back door of the White House or bringing a ho to an MOH ceremony. So, until there is someone in the White House who respects the office, no respect will be given to the office. We have a job to do and we will not be undermined by fear of David Gregory having a frickin’ bad hair day over our mean tactics. Obama and Reid and Pelosi have taken this country right into the shitter, and we’re the ones to pull it out.”
Maybe next Sunday?
Damned if he does, damned if he don’t is my point in all of this. Enough people are pointing out the truth of Obamas policies that I don’t need Cantor as filtered by the SRM to tell me the obvious. I don’t think others do as well.
Why do you think independents can’t handle the truth, SGT Ted?
I say that if they can’t, fine. But at least let’s not try to hide it from them in order to maybe win them over.
You’ve got to go where the eyeballs are if you’re going to get your message out. You can’t be the House Majority Leader and not do these Sunday shows. MTP, pathetic as it may be, ain’t going anywhere, and if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. Gregory comes off the asshole in the exchange, and if you’re paying any attention at all, you can see him trying to work the trick. Here’s Crazy Larry O’Donnell trying the same ruse to no effect.
And speaking of crazy people and violence, here’s an assassination attempt on the Governor of Missouri that you probably have never heard about.
You’re the House Majority leader, call a press conference. Nobody is watching these shows. Least-wise, no “independents.” Instead, they are used today to mine for out-of-context sound bites that will drive the left’s narrative spin and create the news cycle.
Want to change things? Make the press come to you.
Yep, that’s my read. If Gregory wants to talk Birthers all the live long day, let him. Cantor need not play that game or encourage it.
If you attack the guy, you lose. If you attack the socialisms, you look like you’re doing your job.
Facebook!
To whom? Who is going to call it a loss if you go after a dishonest member of the press for being dishonest?
I’m not sure the press’s approval rating is as high these days as is that of the grass roots movement that just led to an electoral landslide.
But that’s just me.
“I don’t need Cantor as filtered by the SRM to tell me the obvious.”
I need Cantor to show me he see’s the obvious.
Geez, it’s like the Emperor is wearing clothes or something.
What a load of horseshit.
And?
How’d that Milibanks call for the media to avoid Sarah Palin work out for the media’s standing?
young guns having some fun meet the press keeps them on the run
BTW, the four of them are drawing 10 million viewers. I’d suspect that the majority of those viewers aren’t quote mining.
Not the press, the President. If Cantor had left the set twirling Gregory’s spleen on a pencil, I’d approve.
This is the standard pattern.
How hard would it be to come up with some standard snark lines to slap down these morons when they lead with this shit?
– Well, I can see you’re going to be playing this down the middle today, Greg.
– Okay, so you’re the progressive guest. Who’s the host?
– Before I answer that, let me ask: Do you reject the very low opinion that the majority of Americans hold about the mainstream press, Greg?
And say it with an innocent smile.
I don’t have to go on television every other day but if I did? I’d try and have some obvious lines ready.
So attacking your political opponent is a losing proposition?
McCAIN/POWELL IN 2012!
Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly draw those numbers (and more, in some cases) nightly. And they don’t have the luxury of having the NFL or Tennis or the NBA coming on right after.
Shows like MTP and TW with CA are used to extract quotes and push the MSM political news cycle for the week. That’s where they do their best “work.”
I agree with LB @ #22.
Christie does that kind of thing in interviews with journos. Making them define terms or explain how past liberal policies were good for America using his sighing, frustrated, “how do you not friggin’ get this? Can you not add?”, wits end tone. Said journo immediately comes off to most watching as a hackish, petulant, spoiled child with Christie the educated, mature, responsible leader.
This could be quite easy for the GOP were they to collectively adopt a simple platform cut from a P.J. O’Rourke column, and repeat it over and over on every show and at every stump like field stripping a weapon.
We should never say to voters, “We can lower your taxes.” Conservatives should say to voters, “You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.
“We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation’s culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.
“We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone’s pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people’s pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.
“And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out.
I’d suggest following it up with, “And if you don’t get that, you’re too stupid to vote.”
I don’t think thats what we are saying Jeff. What we are saying is that in this particular instance, Cantors answer was the best given the circumstances:
“he won’t denounce the birther crazies” has play in the leftwing circles because thats their obsession in trying to paint all TPers as paranoid birther types, but I don’t see the impact on independents; indeed there was very little impact as evidenced by the midterm elections. That attempt was a spectacular fail.
What would have a greater propaganda impact favorable to the left is to have the SRM running above the fold 6 inch headlines about “CANTOR CALLS OBAMA EXTREMIST AND DANGEROUS TO AMERICA!” with the subheads, “Is cantor racist or just crazy?” and “Whatever happened to civility?” and “Someone will attempt to kill Obama and Cantor will have blood on his hands.”
Ok it isn’t “what WE are saying” Just what I am saying. My multiple personality left after I demanded rent. Cheap fucker. I needed the money too.
So you think it’s a good idea to plan your responses around how the left is likely to frame them?
Okay then. I have nothing more to add.
No, I don’t think that. I think you have to play it a bit more subtle than beating the same gong as everyone else at the same volume. Others are playing offense. Cantor made Gregory look like an obsessed dickhead without having to address Gregories smear attempt.
I do see your points and agree with them overall. In this instance, I think Gregory tried to steer Cantor and Cantor avoided the trap.
“What would have a greater propaganda impact favorable to the left is to have the SRM running above the fold 6 inch headlines about “CANTOR CALLS OBAMA EXTREMIST AND DANGEROUS TO AMERICA!” with the subheads, “Is cantor racist or just crazy?” and “Whatever happened to civility?” and “Someone will attempt to kill Obama and Cantor will have blood on his hands.”
The point Sgt. Ted is that this is the sub-text in everything they write about Republicans REGARDLESS of how mealy-mouthed the Republican interviewee. All conservatives are being interviewed by opponents, by journoleftists, not journalists, and they should constantly, constantly attack the left-wing assumptions of the questioning.
You never win playing your opponents game.
Better to attack the policies than the people. How’d that work out in November?
No, nor is it a good idea to pick their frame up yourself and put your head in it.
Yes, that. Much better.
Cantor was in the leadership when Team R was in the majority and spending like whorey whorey whores. America took their majority away.
After Team R won it back, they decided that what the voters wanted was to see the exact same failshit Boehnertards fecklessly prancing around some mores except this time on an annualized basis, which is a more aesthetically pleasing sort of prancing I think we can all agree.
What would have a greater propaganda impact favorable to the left is to have the SRM running above the fold 6 inch headlines about “CANTOR CALLS OBAMA EXTREMIST AND DANGEROUS TO AMERICA!” with the subheads, “Is cantor racist or just crazy?” and “Whatever happened to civility?” and “Someone will attempt to kill Obama and Cantor will have blood on his hands.
Ah, winning propaganda battles against the SRM and the great quest for favorable headlines.
RA…oh, you were just fucking with us.
Jan 24, 2011
Court says Rahm Emanuel ineligible to run for Chicago mayor
Facebook!
“In this instance, I think Gregory tried to steer Cantor and Cantor avoided the trap.”
Whew! Dodged that one!
Lucky to escape with no stench of disapproval of the president lingering on Cantor. That could be problematic.
Unless it’s Bush or the idea of Palin being President, then full on mocking is very stylish.
How about just asking questions back. Like.
I know I posted the link before but I like these questions.
Yeah!
Well…erm…hmmm.
Every single Republican leader could — if he chose — master the information in Stanley Kurtz’s book Radical-in-Chief, then carefully propound that information at every opportunity. Or if not at every opportunity, how about on 50% of such opportunities? Ok, how about not every single Republican leader, but let’s say half of them.
But have they used even one such opportunity to date? Not that I’ve seen. So.
They haven’t chosen this path at all? None? Not one? Why not? What are they afraid of? The truth? Don’t that beat all?
The left is ALWAYS trying to turn it into personalities because they get to shape the views on that by how they have presented or misrepresented the people speaking the ideas, rather than address the policies/ideas on substance. Leftists always lose the battle for ideas unless they can Alinsky the opponent into becoming the Devil, which then allows them to appear the “reasonable” ones.
The Tea Party won in November because ultimately the ideas that the left has always tried to hide were exposed for what they were: Government control of our daily lives.
The TP sucessfully named and framed the Democrats ideas accurately, IDed the proponents of those ideas and made them the targets in the last election. Rather than address the charges, which were valid, the Dems predictably tried to Alinsky all opposition as Nazis, racists, homophobes and hicks. It didn’t work, despite the massive propaganda efforts of the SRM supporting Democrats. It also succeeded despite the “pragmatism” bullshit of those who are on nominally on our side. So, the ones who looked unreasonable in that election were the Democrats, reduced to calling businessmen attending town hall meetings “brown shirts”. It was all pretty much done without having some Republican badmouthing Obama needlessly.
Thats how you defeat the opposition. And if Cantor and Boener can’t get with the program, send them packing next election. I don’t care what they call the president. I only care about what they do to reverse his policies.
You’ve got to go where the eyeballs are if you’re going to get your message out.
But not where they get the final edit.
Live or nothing. And bring your own videographer.
They’re afraid of being called RAAAAACIST! I cannot see another reason why they are such wussies.
And everyone of those counter questions will end up on the cutting room floor. You know that right?
David Kahane, he gets it:
MTP is live on the East coast.
And everyone of those counter questions will end up on the cutting room floor. You know that right?
You are right and Dicentra is right: a conservative should never agree to an interview without having an independent record of the whole interview on tape for later Web posting.
And this was done by telling the truth about what we’re facing. Whereas the 2008 election was an object lesson on where “civility” and “symbolism” take us.
If the truth hurts, too bad. Next time wear a cup.
An answer to an earlier question emerges:
I think that’s very shrewd and wise
I’m not making the “civility” arguement, especially the type of “civility” the Dems want, which is just another word changed to mean “censor yourselves and submit”.
But it didn’t take Cantor or Boener to make the arguements or allow them to be framed in bullshit SRM propaganda hit pieces to win last Nov, did it?
Cantor took the latest leftwing attempt to make it about how he refuses to denounce the crazies and made it about policy differences with the President. Cantor made the point that the press are the ones pushing this birther issue to get a Republican denunciation and “name calling” on clip to be selectively edited and used later, saying that its a fringe issue pimped by the press to use as a club against Republicans. I am glad he didn’t buy into it and pointed out Gregories bullshit to him.
here is more about the Party of the Tea
that seems like a worthwhile goal to pursue I think
That’s cute Rubio. I think you’d best concern yourself with what you are going to do with the power the TEA party gave you, which wasn’t to make sure no one pulls off some hypothetical coupe of the TEA party, resulting in lack of effectiveness in the future.
You know good and well why the TEA party supported you, don’t act all confused and worried now. Start the work of pruning back government, for AMERICA, and you won’t have to worry about the TEA party for even a minute.
“the latest leftwing attempt to make it about how he refuses to denounce the crazies “
Yeah, he needs to put an end to it and proudly proclaim to be one of “the crazies”, if “crazy” means believing Obama is “actively trying to undermine the American way and wants to deny individuals their freedom”
Or, as we crazy people put it, “telling the truth”.
I don’t think Rubio owes the Tea Party (to the extent that such a thing can be said to exist, as an entity to whom debts are owed) anything at all. He’s overtly a Republican. He’s got a background as a Republican politician. To the extent that his publicly-avowed values overlap with those of the Tea Party (again, to the extent that “Tea Party” can be said to have any common values at all) he’s just as useful to them as they were to getting him elected.
Which, I don’t think they were, very much. Charlie Crist could have won the nod as a Republican, just because there are that many gullible people in the state of Florida. As an Independent, though, he confused those who hadn’t already recognized the guy as a political weathervane.
Of the people who had a chance at all of getting elected to Senate from Florida, Rubio was head and shoulders the best choice. It doesn’t make him Tea Party, though, nor does it make him beholden to Tea Party interests, such as they are.
In fact, this whole business about being a slave to party interests sort of runs contrary to my whole picture of the Tea Party to begin with. It kind of offends me that it may piss people off that Rubio won’t caucus with them.
Let people make their own fucking choices. If you don’t like them, vote with your feet.
If the truth hurts, too bad. Next time wear a cup. Who was that aimed at?
Them wear a cup, or us wear a cup? ‘Cause the common sense Classical Liberal/ Conservative Libertarian/ Tea Party voter has taken more national cheap shots to the nuts than the entire cast of Jackass. Dems, media, academia (same-same, I know). Anyway, by now we are all disciplined, Shaolin Kung Fu Monks in that regard. Immune to the effect of such laughable nard punches, and, thus, able to conduct our own political Monkey Steals the Peach .
The GOP we voted for? Yeah, not so much. You’d think the national revolt in November would’ve given the cowardly lion some courage. Guess not.
I mean we weren’t really expecting “The Party of Brass Balls”. Or the party that’s “All Out of Bubblegum”. But, for Chris’sakes. You’re on MTP and there’s an “R” after your name. It ain’t gonna be “fair” and you ain’t gonna be liked, or win new voters. Whatever GOP pol appears on these shows, I’m fine with the new “civility”, as far as you may start your response with “With all respect to the President”, or “With respect to my distinguished colleague across the isle”, or whatnot. But after that? Either slice like a hammer or GTFO of the way.
In short, if you are a politician appearing on any network Sunday show other than Fox and have a “R” after your name, consult this guy first . Then just lay wood, and let the chips fall where they may.
I do kind of like the idea of ju-jitsuing the question back at the asker… “define what you mean when you say ‘American Way'”. With Gregory that would make spluttering good fun.
That’s a great idea Colonel John.
heh
link
I’m starting to think that Cloward-Piven is not something to be feared, but maybe to be accellerated. The thing is contingent on the left being able to harness a rebuild after societal collapse. If there’s already an opposition, it’d at least be a fair fight.
frank fox idiot can’t think 2 moves ahead while contemplating nation mag feedback and 18 year old mush heads.
these people are just nasty
Any bets that the Dem. moves over to sit on the Repub. side? No?
Sitting next to someone from the other party is one of the most patently silly, meaningless, vapidly symbolic gestures I can recall. show of hands, who thinks Durbin will quit being a cock gobbler just because he sat next to Kirk?
Statist bastards, the lot of them.
Projection.
Were it not universal, we wouldn’t know about it such as we do.
As Buckley spent many decades explaining, to no avail (yeah at 32 I’ve become cynical) save somebodys alive today and active, persuasion is paramount.
With the exception of Dicentra (honestly, even though she’s called me “ignorant” or some such thing, the idea she hasn’t been approached by someone who cares about conservatism and has money is disturbing to me, as her lapidary non-logorrhea is unique and valuable) the host and his followers have, in many ways, succumbed to pedestrianism.
Next time you lunch with Michael Medeved, e1, tell him to go fuck himself.
That extra “e” in Medved stands for emasculated.
There seems to be a common theme here, lust for power, for money, corruption and an encompassing ideological flavor.
Just out strolling on a winter morn.
Care to expand a bit on that “pedestrianiasm” assertion easyliving1?
Obama’s pillars of Styrofoam, so they can be easily repositioned wherever needed for the new day.
This message is brought to you by the Number 5. A time tested fave on the Left, Years, Plans, Pillars.
#88 – Maybe we could have our own Gosplan? We’d need a new name for it… O!plan?
So has the country.
We are what we eat, I guess.
Oh. And just so’s you know, you aren’t required to read here. So you’ve got that going for you!
Projection….the host and his followers have, in many ways, succumbed to pedestrianism.
That is a staggeringly brilliant work of art, easy. An insinuation that “others” are projecting, and are engaging in pedestrianism. An insinuation that is itself expressed in the most pedestrian manner, and which reveals a startling level of projection in its own right. And the deliciously nougaty center is a call for persuasion, in the midst of a condescending sermon. That’s a lot of meaning packed into a few short sentences. It is poetry!
I doff my cap to you, good sir.
Projection? Pedestrianism? And then nothing to back that assertion up? Am I smelling a pragmatic conservative?
He ran explicitly having attached himself to the TEA Party. It was good enough for him then, it should be good enough now. If he’s truly worried about politicians co-opting it, why not join it and make sure that doesn’t happen?
In the end, he can do what he wants. But my guess is, he’s running from the designation, because he doesn’t want to be tainted as an extremist. He has a long-term plan, and Jeb Bush is coaching him on how to achieve that plan.
Incidentally, I stand by this post, which I don’t think pedestrian in the slightest. Gregory WANTS Cantor to say that Obama is, essentially, a “good man” — that is, that he is doing what is best for America, which he then ties to the “American Way” — and yet Obama himself has talked about a desire to transform the US (to what? From what? And why?), while his wife wasn’t proud of the country until it elevated her husband (and herself, now that she’s a nutrition expert) to power.
He is, by dint of the phrasing of the question, trying to make it illegitimate to question Obama’s motives. Which in effect makes it illegitimate to call him a socialist, or suggest that his progressive agenda is anything other than consonant with the Constitution. Which Obama himself has argued is something of an outdated document.
If pointing out that attempt to circumscribe what comes to count as legitimate — and so “civil” — criticism of Obama and progressives is somehow “pedestrian,” well, then I’m pedestrian. We must define that word differently, though.
We cannot let this stuff (the post topic) slide without comment, Jeff. That’s how we got here in the first place.
He did? I’m not the most politically aware fellow in the world, but I share a state with the guy. You’d think I would have noticed.
I think he invited their support, but he’s not beholden to them.
Truly, I’m not getting the whole “pedestrianism” thing. I wish that person “easyliving1” would expand on what he meant, so that the rest of us would know whether he’s working from a different dictionary or something.
Yeah. Laura Ingraham show was juxtaposing the audio clips this morning, to wonderful effect.
Doesn’t mean he is beholden. Is a slap in the face, in my opinion.
I don’t pay much attention to talk radio, these days.
Newsweek did an article on Rubio almost a year ago:
Probably why you missed the juxtaposition of Rubio soundbites.
So he’s had it both ways, Slart.
How he votes will matter, ultimately. Just saying, I understand how many might consider his actions a slight. For what it’s worth, Mark Levin — whom I feel closely represents my political views — isn’t at all concerned about this.
That’s the title of a video clip, Jeff. There’s nothing in the clip that substantiates the use of that title.
There’s a guy, Tony Calatayud, who gets some space at about 2:40 in the video. Tony says: “We talk about the Tea Party and how it helped Marco. I believe in reality of Marco gave a lot of influence to the Tea Party. His message never really changed.”
Which is pretty much the case. Did Marco use the Tea Party, did the Tea Party use Marco, or a little of both? I think it’s a little of both.
It’s also relevant to note that the Tea Party Caucus doesn’t have any connection to the Tea Party itself. As if there were any there there to connect to. There isn’t any one thing that you can call “Tea Party”, and I think that’s a good thing. The minute you organize it and give it form, it’s going to start playing politics. Best to just have it be a means for a voice of the electorate to be heard, as well as a means for kicking the asses of those who ignore it.
IMHO, naturally.
Yes, I realize that. Just pointing out that Rubio had been heretofore connected to the TEA Party.
I can’t find the audio clips used on the Ingraham show. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist, nor does it mean I’m not presenting them accurately.
As for the rest, the TEA Party message of necessity is political. It’s members having backed a particular type of candidate — who then became a specific candidate — means they have some of their candidates now in power, in the sense that they expect those candidates to represent their interests.
I don’t see anything wrong with acknowledging that with a caucus, provided those in the caucus remain true to the message. Rubio doesn’t need to join; but to say that such a thing of itself compromises the spirit of the movement is hokum, in my opinion. The danger of it being compromised is there. But that’s something different entirely.
I don’t have a problem with that. I’m more worried about it getting annexed by the Republican Party as something new and shiny for folks to latch onto, that will give them the illusion of having done something new and different while, behind the scenes, continuing to conduct business as usual.
I think that in that way, Rubio is a good fit for the Tea Party. But Rubio is his own man, IMO, which also makes him a good fit. Personally, I am more leery of elected politicians who flock to the Tea Party. It’s always hard to tell whether they find it a good ideological fit, or if they find more attraction in the extra votes.
/Cynical me.
Using “pedestrian” is both vulgar and stale. I thought everyone knew that.
I’m not entirely sure what to make Rubio’s decision. Similarly, Ron Johnson, who was almost wholly birthed from the Tea parties, has made the same. He has a lower profile, of course, so is taking much less heat. Like almost none.
As it would be almost magical for him (Johnson) to be corrupted so soon, I think it’s reasonable to take him at his word. His word being:
“I sprang from the tea party and have great respect for what it represents,” said Johnson in a prepared statement. “The reason I ran for the U.S. Senate was to not only stop the Obama agenda but reverse it. I believe our best chance of doing that is to work towards a unified Republican conference, so that’s where I will put my energy.”
If he’s interesting in keeping the Republicans together — as a solid bloc opposed to Obama — and views an extremely small yet high profile caucus to work against that goal, that seems like a strategic difference, not a philosophical one.
Ruthless individualism in the tea party sorts ends with spitting Ruth out. Which, good. The better to stay true to their convictions. The flattery of the pols is a danger to the tea peeps they’ll do well to keep in mind, lest they succumb to it. Tea Party caucus? Hmmmm. Who’s leg pulling who there?
In other news, Rahm’s
offback on the ballot.