17 Replies to “"No guts, no glory: GOP should heed lesson of '91"”

1. A fine scotch says:

   March 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm

   Funny you used the expression “nut up” when the only politicians consistently displaying conservative principles are women.

2. Jeff G. says:

   March 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm

   Palin and Bachmann being the most prominent. And yet we’re afraid to allow either to represent us. Even as they best represent us.

3. rjacobse says:

   March 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm

   And yet we’re afraid to allow either to represent us.

   And why? On account of the self-proclaimed cool kids say mean things about them? Just like they said mean things about W and Reagan.

   And that turned out well for the cool kids.

4. Squid says:

   March 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm

   I’m still trying to figure out how all the butt-sniffers from Student Council and Chess Club and the Mock UN wound up with the status of “cool kids.” I mean, c’mon — Mock UN? That’s not an adjective — it’s an imperative!

   We’re enslaving ourselves to the nose-pickers who volunteered to advance the filmstrip so that the teacher could go outside for a smoke. It’s way past time to push back.

5. BJTex says:

   March 8, 2011 at 3:06 pm

   And why? On account of the self-proclaimed cool kids say mean things about them? Just like they said mean things about W and Reagan.

   and that turned out well for the cool kids.

   Sure, because cool kids need someone with rhythm … and cool but sensible car … and Axe … and no freakin’ idea what the tight and deep representations might be.

   Instead a bottle of Dead Guy Ale and a tight gym suit young thing.

   HOLLA!

6. mojo says:

   March 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm

   Stop being “Democrat Light”, you pussies! Grow a pair and say what you think!

7. Jim in KC says:

   March 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm

   As completely awful a president as dipstick has been, I just don’t see how he’s that hard to beat. He’s not an unknown community organizer any more; he’s a known collectivist dickhead without an original thought or a scintilla of leadership.

8. newrouter says:

   March 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm

   “nutup”?

   the hermanator last night in iowa

9. Old Texas Turkey says:

   March 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm

   York rambles on about 41’s defeat without even mentioning Perot. Ross was the tea party of his day. Clinton squeaked in because of him.

10. Darleen says:

    March 8, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Jim in KC

    Barry has a few things that still “count” in his column — it is a matter of “ethnic pride” that the vast majority of the melanin-enriched will vote for him even if he were caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy. And the “but he’s personally likeable” aka “he’s a good man, see how he loves his daughters?” schtick is still being played and run like a mantra. It’s another way to keep being called a racist or race-traitor. You can timidly disagree with him but you had better disclaim loud and often how good, intelligent he is caught by unfortunate circumstance (BOOOOSH!!) and he just really wants the best for America

    The savaging of the TEA Party, Palin, Bachmann, Scott Walker and anyone that dares go against The One serves as a constant reminder of what will happen to anyone that dares to dissent.

11. newrouter says:

    March 8, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    He answered his own question: “money would help, of course”. He forgot to add the knowledge that retribution would not be forthcoming. That the passengers would not be coming back for them. Because when you come right down to it, what makes it easy to be servile, even cravenly so, is the certainty that not only will you escape punishment for betraying those you have sworn to serve, but you will be severely handled by the thugs that you fail to serve. When society loses its ability to sanction while its enemies retain theirs, the incentives go all the wrong way.

    link

12. TmjUtah says:

    March 8, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    Old Texas Turkey –

    I respectfully submit that Perot was just sauce on the main course, which in reality was Media pounding home “No New Taxes/Read My Lips” for the Democrats after Bush believed Foley and Mitchell that they’d restrain spending in exchange for a tax increase.

    Pre internet and it worked wonderfully. Revisit the Tax Summit; there used to be a brief clip of a podium shot with Bush, Foley, and Mitchell standing together. I believe Mitchell even said something nice about “leadership” and “courage”.

    They got him to raise taxes. Then fucking stabbed him right in the kidneys.

    I’m glad I don’t follow politics day to day anymore. Just vote now and again.

13. McGehee says:

    March 8, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    During the 1984 campaign then-veep Bush came to Sacramento for what amounted to a controlled public Q&A. I came away thinking I liked him, and if I overlook some of the things he says about politics I think I still do. And in 1988 his campaign did a good job of convincing me he could be a decent president. I still think maybe he could have been.

    But having said, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” he should have stuck to it. It was a sign of Beltway Disease that he thought he could blow off what his base took as a clear statement of principle, in favor of a deal with people who’d lied to his predecessor on exactly the same issue. By making that deal Bush violated the “fool me twice, shame on me” rule, and supporting his re-election in 1992 was a hard thing to get through. I voted for him that year, and was pissed that Clinton won — but once that was over I didn’t have to pretend anymore that George H.W. Bush deserved re-election, and that was a huge relief.

14. Slartibartfast says:

    March 9, 2011 at 7:23 am

    nut up

    I’m chowing down on a handful of almonds right this second.

15. RTO Trainer says:

    March 9, 2011 at 7:52 am

    The impact of Perot on the ’92 outcome was about nil. According to exit polls (in a time when exit polls seem to have still been accurate) 38% of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton instead had Perot not been on the ballot. The number for Bush was identical. 6% said they have voted for some other 3rd option and 14% said they would not have voted at all.

16. RTO Trainer says:

    March 9, 2011 at 8:00 am

    I am happy that snows and corn remain, as yet, untrod. Any effort to shrink the campaign season back to some sane span of time is welcome. Edwards, solely for announcing his candidacy in January 2007, resulting in a stampede of others following suit, was revealed as a reprehensible schmuck–later events would simply be a matter of magnitude.

17. Jim in KC says:

    March 9, 2011 at 9:51 am

    The savaging of the TEA Party, Palin, Bachmann, Scott Walker and anyone that dares go against The One serves as a constant reminder of what will happen to anyone that dares to dissent.

    Granted, but against that is his verifiable record of failure. Certain parties will, of course, try to bury that turd, but at some point common knowledge overwhelms conventional wisdom, I’m thinking.

    Nevertheless, it will be important for candidates to attack his record of failure, his lack of leadership, and his half-honkiness or something, whatever makes them effective.

    Awful presidents deserve to be one-termers.

Comments are closed.