Both Stacy McCain and Tina Korbe raise the question.
To which the answer is suprisingly simple: we’ve been told since early on that Santorum isn’t first tier; and consequently, he’s never been treated as more than a foil in debates — often to Ron Paul, sometimes to the newly-minted fiscal conservatives who’d previously backed bailouts — even though his performance on substance has been routinely solid, from a conservative point of view (the same can be said about Michele Bachmann, incidentally, whose biggest mistake was that she was ever only going to be allowed one stumble, and her Gardisil moment solidified in the minds of those disposed to fear being tainted by her religiosity, the perception that she’d be easily smeared and dismissed as crazy by both the contemporary media and the GOP establishment). Therefore, he was ruled out before he could be ruled in: after all, he lost his own state, right? So how can he win a national election?
I’m less inclined than some to dismiss Gingrich this time around based on his past blunders, having determined myself that Gingrich’s biggest problem has always been that he’s too clever by half — and that he plays to positions he sees as ascendant. This kind of political opportunism is troubling, certainly, but if put to use on behalf of government reform, Gingrich certainly has the smarts and insider’s knowledge on how to attack the real soft spots of the power elite.
Having said that, Santorum’s character has never really been in question. Nor has his commitment to conservatism. And his social conservatism — while offputting to many in the GOP big tent (including many libertarians and classical liberals) — is to me a non-factor, legislatively speaking: if Santorum wants to push for legislators to act on behalf of strengthening the family or moving charity closer to the source and out of the hands of government, frankly, I don’t have a problem with his doing so. Nor do I believe his stance on abortion will do anything save perhaps move to get government out of subsidizing it entirely — again, not a non-conservative position.
In grading debates, I’ve had GOP boosters on Twitter chide me for saying things like “we should take a harder look at Santorum or Bachmann” — the response always being some variation on the same theme: “Good lord, why? They can’t win.”
And this is absolutely true — so long as no one will support them because they’re afraid others might not.
In previous posts I’ve noted that I think all our conservative candidates would benefit from the kind of Lincoln-Douglas-style debate Cain and Gingrich put on. Because not only does it allow the candidates to flesh out ideas, in a very public setting, but it allows us to get to know them that goes beyond the caricatured constructs that the media helps shape based on their questions and their time allotment.
But frankly, such is exactly what the GOP likes. Because conservatism is based around a strong principled message, one that it’s difficult to sell in 30-second soundbites emitted in response to vapid prompts. Whereas selling “compassionate conservatism” and it’s plastic centrism is easy to do, because it requires nothing more than appearing earnest while the same time pretending you’ll cut government even as you advocate for a more effective set of government programs.
So while I’m happy to see people starting to point to Santorum, I’m afraid we’re learning our lessons too late. As we always do, we’ve allowed a committed progressive press and our own kingmakers to determine the trajectory of this primary campaign.
And while conservatism has certainly made a strong push, it’s been a diffuse push, and the end result is that Mitt Romney is perhaps the least damaged of the candidates.
That’s how the establishment wanted it, and that’s precisely how they’ve orchestrated it. There’s a reason Jen Rubin has chosen now to point us Santorum’s way; she’s comfortable enough that he can’t win that she’ll use him to try to weaken Gingrich or Cain or some other candidate pushing the anti-DC message. Elevating him is meant to move conservatives to juxtapose Santorum with other conservatives and, in the last run-up to the early primaries, further diffuse the conservative vote. Which helps push a “sane” candidate like Romney — the least conservative of the field — over the finish line.
Yet again, we’ve been played. And this game won’t stop until we stop allowing it.
“Having said that, Santorum’s character has never really been in question. Nor has his commitment to conservatism.”
Santorum can talk a good talk but when push came to shove he didn’t help Pat Toomey beat Arlen Specter and it was so freaking close and heartbreaking to conservatives. He endorsed Specter. SPECTER. I interviewed Santorum in 04 and asked him if he expected Specter to be more conservative (he had run much more to the right than previous races because the race with Toomey was so tight) with his support and he said that he expected Arlen to be Arlen. Thanks, Rick! Specter, of course, went on to become a Democrat.
Also, while winning isn’t *everything*, I can’t abide a candidate who can’t win his own state.
Finally, https://www.google.com/search?q=rick+santorum+dead+baby&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a. I mean, seriously.
The thing is, at least for me, I’m willing to sacrifice *winning* in order to support a true blue conservative who I think would make a good president. I just don’t know who that is in this current field.
Karol —
I’m not endorsing Santorum. I’m answering questions raised by others as to why he hasn’t gotten that first look.
The Toomey thing bothers me. Losing the state, not so much. Hell, people in California routinely vote to allow themselves to be fucked in the ass until they bleed out. That Santorum was ever elected in PA in the first place is what’s remarkable.
The point is, we never looked at the real conservatives because we were told they were non-starters. And that’s our problem. As is allowing the media and the GOP establishmen to determine how our candidates are presented.
Pennsylvania.
My point is that some of them, like Santorum, *are* nonstarters. I really don’t know what he adds to the field. What does he bring to the table that the other candidates don’t already have and have better?
Please LET us elect someone like Santorum out here. We keep trying to run them and RNC keeps sending us Meg Whitmen.
Santorum is a nasty bigot what only gets put in the debates to make Team R look extreme I think. There’s a reason he has a nasty nasty google problem.
Yes, because Dan Savage is a degenerate and the gay mafia is relentless.
And ignorant twats like ‘feets believe the shit.
Happyfeets is a sheep, and follows where the flockin’ MSM leads him.
Wait, isn’t that Santorum guy the godbothery one? UNELECTABLE!! #Litmus
whatever he’s a weirdo
But Gingrich would be worlds away better than Romney I think. It’s so sad we’re reduced to picking the coffee beans out of the civet shit though.
I don’t understand Santorum on Pakistan. He wants to give them aid and says we should be their friends.
Santorum also stated that “I’ll get people together that will share my point of view. When I was in the United States Senate, I didn’t hire people who didn’t share how I approach the problem.”
That’s a formula for disaster if you ask me.
‘feets is what a sheep leaves in its wake.
no that is not true Mr. Crawford that is not true at all
just cause I’m not gonna jump on the santorum (ewww) love train doesn’t mean you gotta be hatin
Just because you’re not endorsing Santorum doesn’t mean you gotta be endorsing Dan Savage.
Mr. Pablo we’re talking about a joke candidate what has actually promised to bring back Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
I really don’t think you can fault Mr. Dan for being disgusted by such a rank pandering panderer who would so capriciously trifle with the lives of good soldiers what are serving our little country in the face of dangerous danger
Nobody cares, ‘feets. What stands out is your willingness to believe any smear perpetrated against any Republican, no matter how thin the evidence or despicable the accuser.
The problem is that happy’s right. Not that Santorum is a nasty bigot, but that he’s been defined as a nasty bigot from his first campaign. While Newt might be able to get out from under his reputation by force of personality, or Palin might be able to stay relevant because, gosh darn it, people just seem to like her, Santorum can’t. He’s a nice man, but a cold, dead, fish personality-wise. His problem isn’t that he only appeals to the base, but he only appeals to part of the base.
He’d be a great VP pick for a Newt or a Giuliani. A strong conservative conservative who can live in the shadow and not get hit by lightning if they walk into a church. Romney-feh-uglk-uglk (just threw up in my mouth a little) he’ll need someone with both personality and conservative bona fides, like say that guy from Illinois, Brock Otama or something? Heard he makes a good speech… and is more conservative to boot.
Cain doesn’t need a VP, he gets all his advice from a white girl named Solitaire and her deck of cards. At least that’s what Gawker tells me.
Being disgusted s fine. Being disgusting is another matter. Endorsing disgusting is yet another.
Rick Santorum is a creepy weirdo uber-Catholic, and I say that as a Catholic who was one of his constituents, although I didn’t vote for him. His Stepford-like family creeps me out. I remember the back and forth on talk radio in Pittsburgh when his wife was pregnant with the doomed baby boy and his making political hay out of her carrying the baby despite the fact that she developed a near fatal uterine infection and almost died because Santorum is all about the fetuses as long as they are in utero. He also has a preoccupation with the gays. I can’t stand him and the Specter endorsement was definately a bridge too far.
Well, were I making the distinctions, I’d say he has been very focused on the family being a primary social unit, and he believes strongly that a government that is more amiable toward families and that helps promote them is a government that ultimately has to do less in the way of entitlement spending and social engineering.
It’s his argument, not mine — where I stand on it is immaterial — but it’s out there, and it’s certainly worth considering. Too, his focus has been on re-invigorating the manufacturing sector of our economy. From a purely election standpoint, that kind of thing could appeal greatly to independents and Reagan Dems.
The thing to remember about Santorum’s role in the Spector/Toomey primary of ’04 is that Santorum was being a good team player, supporting the incumbent occupant of a Republican held seat. Ultimately it was stupid and self-defeating, not because (or not only because*) it hurt conservatives in the moment) but because there was no reciprocation from the RINOs when it was Santorum facing re-election in ’06.
That’s the problem with “Team” GOP. At the risk of making a lousy football analogy, Team GOP only plays well when the conservatives are the linemen and the establicans/rinos/moderates/pragmatists get to be the ball handlers. When the roles are reversed, the non-movement conservatives on the team don’t like to block.
*And really, expecting Spector to show the same loyalty shown to him was foolhardy on Santorum’s part. I mean, he’s Arlen Spector, he’s due that support. But who’s Rick Santorum to think Arlen Spector is going to stick his neck out for the likes of him.
JB —
I didn’t mean that Santorum was elected in CA. I meant that CA shows that electorates are willing to vote against their own interests, which is why I’m not bothered by Santorum losing in PA.
Because a he’s a warmongering neo-con, who is W part deux, without the charming interpersonal dominance trait that Bush possessed? How about that reason?
Though I would pay a good deal of money to see Paul demolish Santorum in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate – just like when Paul schooled Santorum in US involvement in Iran in the 1950s.
Your criticism of Gingrich is spot on. Pablo’s comment (#8) is also gold. Well played sir.
Ernst,
Unfortunately, that means he’ll make deals. Like letting Kennedy write No Child Left Behind, then being unable to pin it on him later.
How can we not take Dan Savage seriously?
How is that sort of trenchant political analysis anything but good for America? What would we do without deep thinkers like Dan Savage driving the narrative?
The guy who learned from Santorum’s example is De Mint. He knows the establishment would love to see him go down, so he doesn’t waste his time playing the part of “loyal soldier.”
Mr. Santorum wants the government to be amiable to the families he approves of and hostile to the ones what don’t conform to his ideals.
Not have to scrape as much feces from our jackets?
(Keep in mind, this is who ‘feets looks to for determining who is an acceptable Republican candidate. Now do you get my beef with ‘feets? He’s an ignorant thug who plays cute to keep his thug nature from being apparent.)
LMC,
You mean Santorum?
Dear Dan,
I’ll do it for an eight ball and reversies. Don’t forget to bring the cameras. Oh, and your dick too, if you can find it.
Very Sincerely yours,
Herman “the Godfather” Cain
So what, ‘feets? Is he wrong?
Are you mistaking neutrality/withholding approval for hostility?
And why should we trust your say-so, given your willingness to believe the lies spread by obviously deranged people like Savage?
The ones that upset the traditional structure and lead to the problems he identifies.
Again, you can disagree with him. But he’s making a legitimate argument, one that doesn’t go away simply because you can come up with ever new ways to call him a hateful bigot in the very way a hateful bigot would.
Mr. Crawford you can vote for Rump Ranger Rick if you want nobody’s stopping you least of all me
I really sorta just plan to maybe vote for whichever losershit R gets the nomination
it’s sad we couldn’t put forward any top tier candidates this time around
I had really thought Perry was one though. And then I convinced myself that Cain was. Now I’m thinking Gingrich is the least risible candidate out there, but honestly I think we need to seriously explore drafting Mr. Daniels or even Jindal.
Ernst,
Yeah. Bush did the “I’m a good guy” thing and got hosed, Santorum did the same, both times we got screwed.
yeah I don’t think government really should have a role in punishing and rewarding families based on what it says in the bible
especially not a broke-ass cowardly failshit government like America’s
So because he’s an enemy of the likes of Savage, you’re going to call him “gay”? What kind of homophobe are you?
no Rick isn’t gay Mr. C he’s just very obsessed with barracks showers
Who is Dan Savage and why should I care what he thinks about anything?
stepford-like indeed
yeesh
That American Girl doll is dressed just like the little cry baby. Creeeeeepy.
With Bush, we hosed ourselves by choosing to believe he was soft-selling conservatism when he was really hard-selling compassion. With Santorum, I tend to think he screwed himself (predictably so, he was doomed from the day Spector won the primary, and anybody paying attention knew it).
Why don’t you respond to Jeff’s comments on Santorum, ‘feets? It’s clear you’re in the tantrum, ink-cloud, heap-abuse-until-they-go-away mode of your ‘argument’ with me, so why not respond to him?
That guy talking about the meaning of republic standing in contradistinction to the private aspects of life, namely, the family, or, if we mention in public (re public, right?) what was intended to not be mentioned in public, let alone act out in public what was meant to be kept in private — sex, sex acts, sexuality and so on — well, that guy maybe has a point. At least one understood by the founders of the republic with regard to the republic. But heck, those guys, the founders, are all dead and besides, didn’t know all the great stuff like values and culture and the rest of the cool theoretical structure socialism brings with it that we’re supposed to know, so who gives a care for what they thought? They clearly didn’t understand politics. It’s sexy, after all.
Reminds of someone who frequently frequents this board.
Dan’s point that being gay isn’t any kind of choice at all is decently, if crudely, made. If being gay is a choice, you can choose it.
Likewise, if being gay is a choice, so is being straight. In other words, you can choose not to be straight.
I submit that anyone who agrees with thatargument is just a little bit gay to start with.
NTTAWWT.
[…] thinks Santorum will be a non-factor in Iowa is likely to be very surprised come Jan. 3.UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein says, “Yet again, we’ve been played” — although I hope he doesn’t include me in that “we,” as I’ve been […]
Exactly. It’s only a choice if you are bi-sexual. That being said, ‘feets and Savage aren’t going to convince many folks of that by slinging buckets of shit in their face.
Maybe it was enshrined in the Bible because it works, not the other way around .
I mean sure, we’ve evolved to the point where we’ll pay $6 for a Tabasco cupcake, but that doesn’t mean we know a whole lot more about social engineering than did societies that tried lots of disparate arrangements before us and maybe even took away some lessons from successes and failures they observed.
This is a point that I think we can agree upon, to some fine tolerance.
I already responded Mr. C at #37
limited government is limited government and a for reals one governs best what governs least
and Rump Ranger Rick doesn’t grok that at all… his desire to reimpose DADT is a nice example of that, as is his desire to use the government to force women to carry rape babies to term
I’m not real eager to vote for him. He’s like that kid what wouldn’t stay on his own rug during nap time and then you get in trouble for kicking him in the eye when you were just trying to tale a nap so you could have a productive afternoon of learnings.
but for what it’s worth I don’t think failshit brokedick America has any business subsidizing abortions, though I think the whole issue is a bit overblown
*take* a nap I mean
Now keeping what goes on between the sheets between the sheets is an “imposition?”
I’m not sure how accurate a representation of DADT that is, Ernst. For one thing, it doesn’t apply at all to straights.
Hardly. I’ve been all for people of all persuasions shutting up about their private lives for many years. It’s not just teh gays who are out and loud, it is young’uns, especially college kids who are getting laid for the first time and think they invented intercourse and need to share it with us all. It is oldsters who are past their sell by date who call themselves cougars and sugar daddies who put on the leer and make inasppropriate remarks because they think they are so darned charming and all.
The older I get and the older my kids get, the more small ell libertrian I become. I just want to be left alone and I don’t want to listen to how other people think I should live my life in a certain way because that’s what they want! And they want everyone to do it their way NOW!! Make no mistake, there are people on both the port and starboard sides of the spectrum who are truly two sides of the same coin. The Libertines and the Talibornagain are the same people in different war paint.
I’m spelling impared today.
Calvin Coolidge got it.
Mister, we could use a man like Calvin Coolidge again.
We’re not likely to find one.
It’s fairly plain that Newt isn’t a Coolidge. But I still wonder on the hedgehog — fox distinction, with Cain the hedgehog and Newt the fox.
Welcome to getting old. This happens with every generation. We’ve just been letting the last get away with being vocal about it.
Now, Jeff, that’s not a fair argument. Don’t you know that everyone in the past was ignorant and stupid and stuff?
One of my favorite tidbits from archaeology are the odd little lumps of dirt called “Poverty Point Objects” (PPOs — seriously). They’ve found them by the tens of thousands around northeast Lousiana and along the Mississippi, primarily associated with a single culture. They’re about the right size to fit in the palm of a small hand, and come in about half a dozen different shapes.
One day an archaeologist had an inspiration, and decided to make a few of his own. He shaped the dirt into the various shapes and put them into a fire. He took them out with a couple sticks and measured their temperatures, immediately and over the next few hours.
Turns out the different shapes give up their heat at different rates. It’s likely the PPOs were used for cooking, and they let the cook control the amount of heat and time of cooking just as carefully as a modern oven.
How many centuries of trial and error were involved in picking the shapes and the mixes for cooking different foods? How many failures, near-failures, and stunning successes contributed to that knowledge? How many generations contributed to the body of knowledge encapsulated in those little lumps of dirt? And this from people who didn’t have writing!
And how about those ancient stone markers in Japan that said “don’t build any closer to the sea than this”?
Now, how much wisdom was accumulated in the books known popularly as the Bible? How many centuries, millenia, of trial and error formed some of those prescriptions? It’s funny how people will nod sagely when you say the ban on eating pork was due to the risk of disease, clearly the result of observation and experience, right? But point out that the moral prescriptions are just as much the result of observation and experience, and you’re a hating hater who hates for the sake of hating.
Nah. Those idiots in the past didn’t have iPhones. What could they have known?
Sure, crawford (that’s my mom’s maiden name, btw). All generations are of the opinion that they invented everything and no one older than they could possibly know anything. Surely you have noticed how much smarter your old man got as you got older? You know, that old geezer who was so dumb when you were in high school? We seem to have sadly reached a point of reversing revering our elders and are now revering our youth. As if there is some received wisdom to be found in beer pong.
Jeff, “Well, were I making the distinctions, I’d say he has been very focused on the family being a primary social unit, and he believes strongly that a government that is more amiable toward families and that helps promote them is a government that ultimately has to do less in the way of entitlement spending and social engineering.”
We already have a Michele Bachmann for that. And she never endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. I have a grudge against Santorum, I do, but I think it’s a fair grudge. He sold us out. He doesn’t get to come back and pretend to be our conservative standard bearer. Where was he when it mattered?
Mr. Mitch is a very coolidgey person I think
but for he has forsaken us
Mitch has left me on the boulevard of broken dreams, happy. Now, my heart belongs to Rick Perry even though he’s no being dismissed as a long shot.
perry doesn’t hate mexicans passionately enough to win the nomination I don’t think
Team R has standards you know
This is not the Team R that I knew. This is the John Birch Society mixed with the Legion of Decency.
That’s just terrible advocacy, ‘feets. It’s so bad that Occam’s razor won’t even let me interpret it as actual support for Perry or Mexicans or as a dis on Team R.
how did it come to this I ask you plaintively
both of you
By a staggering overuse of hyperbole or an intentional conflation between fairly mainstream opinions and fringe John Birch Society opinions?
I think it’s more nuanced than that
Both?
leigh also
I blame it on lousy branding and poorer messaging. We started out with the “Big Tent” metaphor and then immediately started bitching about the camel’s nose under the tent. We have the patrician part of the party, the Establicans and the plebian part of the party, the TEA partiers. The Patricians want the TEA partiers to shut up and sit down, they’ll take care of things. The TEA partiers want the Patricians to get out of the way and stop hogging all the good seats.
Both parts of the party, if they can still be said to be the same party, distrust each other and are canceling out their messages by whipping out their microsopes instead of standing back and looking at the whole mosaic.
Ehhh, in my opinion, I think it’s worth the effort to try and understand others’ opinions in good faith and then accurately restate them rather than caricature them. It’s entirely possible to have conservative instincts on social matters without being a giant hater. It’s entirely possible to have law and order concerns about illegal immigration without being a giant hater.
We’re not really having discussions otherwise. We’re just name-calling and that’s a waste of time.
*microscopes* that is
The false equivalencies, they are legion.
I’m not name-calling, bh. The problem lies in the refusal to accept that the “other” has a valid POV. Change is hard. People resist it.
Hmmm…
I don’t mean to take a super strong stand on name-calling because it’s not always a waste of time. Lots of times it’s fun and entertaining. But, to do that with friends and allies, you need to wink often and obviously.
“Mr. Pablo we’re talking about a joke candidate what has actually promised to bring back Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”
When they start talking seriously about bringing back the draft because enlistments are way off ‘cuz of the gay showers, you’ll be asking for DADT too happyfeet.
As to branding and messaging, I wonder, What would Brian Boitano do?
Or, better marketing will save us all.
But of course, marketing I take as mostly a function of the progressive enterprise these days. So maybe not.
something terrible awful bad has happened to a Team R what botched the nomination process twice in a row when the stakes couldn’t have been higher
I’m starting to suspect that Team R is developing an aversion to nomination governors
you see
Governors have an almost palpable record of governing.
That’s becoming unacceptable to The Base.
Out of curiosity: how old are you? Republicans have been to varying degrees coopted by the so-called social conservatives since the early 1980s. It’s an ongoing struggle between those who want to impose their personal values just on their own families and choice of friends, and those who want to force absolutely everyone in the mold.
Even Jesus didn’t think you could save everyone. Stand or fall. Your idea of law isn’t going to make folks you think are degenerate stop being degenerates.
“I submit that anyone who agrees with thatargument is just a little bit gay to start with”
Call me queer if you want, but the only thing giving that argument weight in the first place is because there is still a stigma in the mind of the one being challenged. If this Dan Savage person had his wish, and all sexual stigma was miraculously removed, do you think the incidence of gay sex would remain where it is now?
Also, there are all kinds of people that “experiment”, everyone’s favorite being college girls. Where does bi-sexual behavior fit in with the argument?
it’s an ongoing struggle until one day one of the Team R factions will find all 7 dragon balls and then boy howdy will that Dan Savage get what’s coming to him
I’ll be 53 on Christmas Day. Unlike our Savior who shares my day of birth, quite a number of the people in our party think we all have to think a certain way. I’ve been called a libtard on this very blog and I’ve never voted Dem.
an aversion to *nominating* governors I mean
BBL. I have to go do some stuff.
see you later prog lady
Probably going to do some libtard stuff, I bet.
You think being gay is a choice? You think you chose being straight? Ok, maybe you are a little bit gay.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, here.
I’m not interested in moving the incidence of gay sex in any direction at all. But I rather think that if I were suddenly less stigmatized as a straight person, just to name a hypothetical, I might fondly imagine that would lead to more sex. And let anyone who thought that was just a horrible thing just fuck off, sideways.
I dunno. What’s your thinking: that you choose it, or that it chooses you? You don’t have to be gay to answer.
That should have had some kind of friendly, cheerful emoticon appended to it. Sorry for the omission.
;)
That’s a libtarded thing to say
he said, slyly.
Branding and messaging is how Dana Perino thinks instinctively (which only means *immediately* about every political matter), is all, not how the classical liberals themselves thought about political matters. It’s public relations knee-jerk sophism at its finest. And that sort of thinking was born in the pseudo-sciences, themselves built brick by sophistic brick following the articulation of the progressive dreams.
Then you remember it well, these last three decades or more of SocialCons meddling into the legislating of others’ morality.
Merry Christmas/Happy Birthday!
I rather doubt that Christ was born on Dec 25, anyway. If so: sheer accident that we got it right.
Lastly: I’m not belittling anyone’s faith, just the notion that you can legitimately tell others what to do. Usually that kind of thing was left up to God. Probably some people thought we were all one tribe and subject to one law, and forgot that we were this big melting pot of cultures and religiosities, and that you can’t really enforce any kind of tribal homogeneity.
Probably some people thought we were all one tribe and subject to one law, and forgot that we were this big melting pot of cultures and religiosities, and that you can’t really enforce any kind of tribal homogeneity.
Growing up surrounded by Orthodox Christians is a good inoculation against that sort of thinking. Plus: two Easters! It’s a wonder I still have my teeth…
That was irony or sarcasm, yes?
hard to keep one of ’em if you’re still observng Lent.
no my sense is that was not irony or sarcasm
social cons have extraordinary entitlement issues – they’re right up there with the global warmers in their smug certainty that there is a right way and a wrong way for their fellow Americans to live their lives
and to that I say fiddlesticks!
That because you’re incapable of irony, ‘feets, as evidenced by your invocation of extraordinary entitlement issues.
Pots and Kettles everywhere just turned red.
He hates ’em when they work for Mitt’s gardener.
As for standards, yeah: you must be able to remember your own platform when asked during a presidential primary debate.
I like how social cons, by definition, are playing defense, yet they are blamed for pushing their moral agenda, bigots!
DADT ain’t good enough for the real moralists among us…
Twitter tells me that Coulter just went for Romney.*
What took her so long? Chris Christie went for Romney weeks ago.
Heh.
In pw syntax, up is down, black is white, Coulter is Rubin.
Weird.
Governor Rick has trouble making the sentences is all. Nothing a month or two of a first-rate after-school program can’t take care of.
I have to agree with Lee. For a bunch of extraordinarily entitled coopting moral legislators out to impose their personal values on everyone, well, legislatively, so-cons sure as hell don’t have a lot to show for it.
Except for the smoking bans and transfats bans and the junk food near schools regulating….
“so-cons sure as hell don’t have a lot to show for it.
Except for the smoking bans and transfats bans and the junk food near schools regulating….”
thems be more a progg thing
so-cons in Texas made it to where the abortion doctor by law has to grab the pregnant hoochie by the scruff of her necks and jam her face into a sonogram monitor for a minimum of three minutes (180 seconds), after which he has to scream “no more wire hangers” in a falsetto until the hoochie runs out of the clinic or starts crying or both
so that was a big accomplishment for Team So-Con
Coulter telegraphed that she would back Romney weeks ago. Either around the time of Christie’s penultimate final answer or around the time of his ultimate final answer.
She drank the Dick Morris triangulation kool-aid.
thems be legislating morality newrouter.
it’s hardly unforgivable for people to back Romney given the ramshackle and disheveled nature of the other candidates’ candidacies
but sometimes it’s better to just not say anything at all
It’s sorta funny. I wasn’t very surprised by this but everyone else who has reacted to it has been even less surprised.
so that was a big accomplishment for Team So-Con
Good for them. A woman has a right to know what the surgeon is going to be doing when she undergoes the elective surgical procedure she’s chosen by right. Just exactly.
thems be more nanny bloomberg rather than phyllis schlafly
Ernst was being facetious, nr.
government intrusion into an individual’s health cares is wrong except for when it isn’t I guess
Coulter is Rubin
The difference being that in this case, Coulter is wrong, whereas Rubin is a false flag.
There is that lawyerly smell about them both though. A shared waft . . .
No bh, I was making a point about legislating morality.
But it’s all good I guess, so long as nobody threatens your right to FUCK.
“the abortion doctor by law has to grab the pregnant hoochie by the scruff of her necks and jam her face into a sonogram monitor for a minimum of three minutes”
The horror!
Three whole minutes considering who they are about to kill! Monstrous!
fucking is how the Duggar’s get all those wonderful and blessed parcels from heaven!
I googled it
Goggle “contraceptive” and get back to me.
Then I’ll tell you about “responsibility”…
ok but I’m turning safe search ON
HappyFeet, you got a gun I think you said.
Try and control your bullets when you shoot, OK?
I never said I had bullets
Maybe there oughterbe a law about that ‘feets?
“I never said I had bullets”
I bet you don’t have to have a sonogram to get your nuts removed…
everything I know about contraception I learned from Mama Duggar
“everything I know about contraception I learned from Mama Duggar”
You mean stick to one baby daddy who takes responsibility?
plus he has the coolest prayer closet in Arkansas
A prayer closet? I never heard of them before.
Heard of prayer rugs.
Anyway, I always thought the cool way to pray was like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof.
I got that. You were facetious in that transfats and the like aren’t normally considered so-con issues yet you didn’t flag or mark your pivot towards them.
I wanted to make sure newrouter understood bh.
the Duggar’s introduced me to the prayer closet concept I never seen one up close ever
Prayer closets are created by the promises you make to God when you’re hiding from an ax murderer.
You see it in movies a lot.
“I was making a point about legislating morality.”
more like legislating behavior no. morality is more like a fetus an individual? or is society decadent in allowing gay “marriage”? smoking bans not so much.
The Duggars are practicioners of a weird Baptisty kind of Christianity called the Quiverful Movement. One’s goal is to have as many kiddos as possible. I think this would be more expedient with multiple wives, but we frown on that unless you belong to those bad Mormons we aren’t supposed to talk about because the good Mormons get their feelings hurt.
“of a weird Baptisty kind of Christianity”
all of europe could use such a brand of christianity. ask mark steyn.
Mitt Romney is never in those movies, despite that he’s an ax murderer, on account of the hair. Too perfect: no one would believe their eyes.
They already have it, but those women wear bhurkas.
What! ….. What! Oh shit.
I heard Mitt on the radio today. He talks too fast.
he’s like a nervous little dog
A nervous little dog who just drank a double espresso.
Hit that link from Geoff at #145, folks. It’s delicious.
annie coulter rino tool
Link
You “Johnny-Come-Lately Conservative Purists.” Sit down and shut up.
Miss Coulter should go back and review her old film. Also, Annie? Get a haircut and trade in that black cocktail dress for a new look.
No! Informed consent is for Christer homos!
Newt will be appearing on Levin’s broadcast in a couple of minutes.
“those bad Mormons we aren’t supposed to talk about because the good Mormons get their feelings hurt”
You sound like someone with issues.
Not me. I was just kidding. Sorry.
lee that was rude, what you said
I tried to be gentle.
It’s okay. I worked with disadvantaged yoots for a lot of years and it takes a lot to get me upset. Thanks for sticking up for me, happy.
And yet, because of smoking bans, smoking now carries a moral connotation that it didn’t carry before, e.g. smoking is bad m’kay, so only bad people smoke.
Okay. So I’m watching the newz while we are eating supper and there is a report that someone took a potshot at the WH from 300 yards and then sped away in a car which was later found in Virginia with the shootin’ iron inside. Granted, it has been a few years ago since I was in DC, but you couldn’t drive anywhere near the WH because of all the concrete barriers that the Clintons had installed because they were paranoid.
Who else thinks this story is a bunch of hooey?
Ernst, I have actually had people tell me that smoking is morally wrong. I tell them to mind their own business.
Smoking is stupid, it’s the second hand smoke that’s immoral.
I mean, there could be a fetus in the room or something…
The biggest problem with the Coulter column is trying to sell the idea that the media is “terrified” of him, while simultaneously laying out exactly how it is the media plans to tear him down after they’ve succeeded in
building him upleaving him the last Republican standing.Yeah, the media is more terrified of Romney than they were of McCain.
Even though Romney probably won’t dare use Obamas full name either, if he knows what’s good for him.
“smoking now carries a moral connotation”
i don’t associate morality with trendiness. not wearing a seat belt while driving is not immoral regardless of that stupid buzzer says.
Terrified is not a word I normally use when thinking of Mittens.
I do think he and Perry will be the last men standing for the nomination. If Perry can learn to collect him thoughts.
“Terrified is not a word I normally use when thinking of Mittens.”
See there? This is precisely why he’s such an effective ax murderer: he can even snap sticks and rustle leaves as he creeps up on his victim, yet they catch a glimpse and it’s all like, oh, it’s only Mitt.
Yep, that’s definitely his M.O.
Damn. That makes perfect sense, guys. Normally I’m pretty good at puzzles, but that one had me stumped. I should have listened to my betters.
Everyone is more or less good at something. Mitt’s specialty just happens to be ax murdering Constitutions.
What? Too soon?
You know, I was perfectly prepared to pass over Santorum as a tall heaping pile of So What.
But reading a thread of Happyfeets’ obligatory faux-hip jagoff christophobia has me half-tempted to donate to the man’s campaign
We get it, ‘feets. The social cons scare the reductio ad Torquemadas right out of you.
Not too soon, sdferr. Mitt is the new face of the Slasher Republican Party, fo’ sho.
why do their narrative?
Cain: “I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy”
eff the rino talking points memo. we win you lose works.
that’s a tad overwrought I think Mr. Andrew
It all boils down to who do you trust to do the right thing.
Cain Yes
Perry Mostly
Mitt Probably Not
Newt maybe with hedged bets
Bachmann Yeah but i like the idea of her being the next speaker
Santorum ?
Huntsman Is he still running?
Paul is Paul
Newrouter, you just don’t understand the new morality.
I bet you even deny selling a hamburger without disclosing it has 385 calories and yellow die #13 in the bun is immoral.
Philistine.
I sometimes think it’s essentially a fool’s errand to try and understand one another here in blog comments.
He’s like Christian Bale in American Psycho, only without quite so much psychopath.
“that’s a tad overwrought I think Mr. Andrew”
That’s for sure. You should take that back, Mr. Andrew.
Nah, I think it’s wrought just about exactly enough.
Gee, McGehee, no one even brought up Mrs. Palin. The wrought was turned up to eleven.
“I sometimes think it’s essentially a fool’s errand to try and understand one another here in blog comments.”
What do you mean?
Heh. I actually had more, and then dialed it back.
Je ne regrette rien!
Well played, Lee!
“The wrought was turned up to eleven”
This?: “so-cons in Texas made it to where the abortion doctor by law has to grab the pregnant hoochie by the scruff of her necks and jam her face into a sonogram monitor for a minimum of three minutes (180 seconds), after which he has to scream “no more wire hangers” in a falsetto until the hoochie runs out of the clinic or starts crying or both”
Oh, no, you were talking about something else entirely, weren’t you?
Let’s turn the Slurpee up to eleven and the moonpie down to three.
It’s a tricky medium. I observe misunderstandings all the time. I’m misunderstood all the time. I misunderstand people all the time.
Unless someone goes on at length about even a brief thought and then preemptively answers every possible diction choice question or ruins a joke with thirty emoticons, there is a 50% chance someone else will just skim a comment and react to something not originally intended.
(My meta comment was stuck in at random. It wasn’t a reaction to your comment before it.)
Rick Santorum wants morer manufacturing in the USofA, but we ain’t got so many millwrights and wheelwrights and otherwrights so much any mores, so I’m inventing new ones, like snackwrights who’ll wrought out snacks, in combo even.
bh, that was a rhetorical question of high comedy.
Ya shoulda fuck’in known that…
Link
Oh, smiley face. *rolls eyes*
Totally your fault, Lee! Four or five smiley faces and an emoticon I call “head tilt” would have made that abundantly clear, you monster.
No apology necessary. Not everyone gets my humor.
Distressingly few really.
Sometimes I think it’s me, but then I sober up and realize no, no, it’s definitely you.
(I did catch the joke, by the way. Just wanted to hold forth on something that has been bugging me lately and you were kind enough to give me an in.)
I think if I had to vote right now I’d go Bachmann or Cain. Maybe Perry. Possibly Gingrich. Or Santorum. Electability isn’t my concern just now. This is the primary.
Too bad Palin wasn’t one of my choices. It’d be a no brainer at this point. For me, at least.
Like I said…
My preferences, from most to least: Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich.
I’d be relieved if the rest dropped out.
I do think this is decode-able.
Let’s see. “Shit happens, these people are down for my struggle so I’ll fuck up anyone who fucks with them.” ‘Bout right?
CNC has changed the whole machinist trade, but you knew that didn’t you. Millwrights though, as long as you have machines, someone has to be available to fix the buggers. At least for now, till the robots take that over too.
Not sure where I’m at with the current Presidential candidate rankings. Which is fine because my primary vote will never ever matter.
At the moment I’m still more concerned about who is going to challenge for Kohl’s open Senate seat. Get the right guy for that and I’ll work my ass off. We also have the Walker recall election to help us waste our free time around here. Yay, all politicking, all the time!
Yeah, I’d say so.
Sorry, dumb question maybe, what’s CNC, Geoff?
CNC. Watch American Guns and you’ll see one used for small scale work.
The spokeshaves are near four generations out of date, maybe more.
Thanks.
I used to visit the Amish folk in Southern Maryland to buy hardwood stock, and got a kick out of their wheelwright’s shop, with his diesel engine out back running a compressor to drive his multi-head reproducing lathe, among other things.
Just an aside, this is a classic of its type and well worth the purchase if you ever run into it.
Same here, Jeff. Sometimes I think the whole world’s just gone nuts.
I started writing about how stodgy the Amish were, but then I read some stuff about them and reconsidered. They’re still a little extreme for my tastes, but not as hopelessly out of touch with things as I’d thought.
[…] cover herself, she recently lent praise to Rick Santorum’s campaign, confident that having waited so long and stroking a conservative so far down in the polls that he […]