After the anticipated shit-storm of dirty tricks from Rahm “Twinkletoes” Emanuel and the Left this month, a note of hope from Jed Babbin at Real Clear Politics to provide balance on what might otherwise be a rather depressing day:
The Republicans should realize two things. First, as ABC’s political director Mark Halperin wrote a few days ago, Republican strengths are real. If Republicans start filtering the media-generated noise out of the election conversation, they will beat Democrats on issues. Second, the Democrats are spinning the issues not answering them….
…the whole liberal culture of the media is a glass house waiting for the Republicans to toss a funny bone or two to shatter. As I prescribed last August, the Republicans could generate a huge response from their base – and corresponding turnout in November – by taking on the media. Not just those involved in the Foley matter (who, as my pal Hugh Hewitt wrote, Hastert should take on directly) but all the politically-activist media.
Right. The unusually large shit-storm is in proportion as the Democrats are losing. The ecomomy is great, the Dow is at a record high, unemployment is down and wages are up, the deficit is down. All they can do is throw feces and run craven, McCarthyite witchhunts against homosexuals. All they can do is prove what the public already knows: they are power-grubbing con artists.
…the only important media event of this campaign to date was Bill Clinton’s narcissistic outburst on Fox News. Clinton jumped the shark and reminded America that the Democrats’ politics are only a means to achieve and maintain power.
And they have no idea what they’ll do once they get this power because they are clean out of ideas. Bush hatred is not a constructive philosophy. If elected, they have but one goal: to criminalize opposing political philosophies. If Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post is correct, we are on a collision course with trouble–trouble that may erupt at any moment–and the last thing we need as a nation is to take three steps backward, to weaken ourselves by targeting the wrong enemy. Self-destruction is the only thing the Democrats are offering. And, as far as their traditional bailiwick, the economy, goes they can only ruin an already great one.
They have absolutely nothing to offer. Are we really going to succumb to a campaign of ‘we aren’t as corrupt as you’?
So let’s straighten up our backbones and stop these clowns. Their victories are pyrrhic. Substance is on our side. The election is ours to lose. Write the White House and Hastert and the GOP and tell them to grow a pair and push back. It ain’t over yet.
Hmmm,
Take on the media? Yea, the media is the problem. I have a better plan for Republicans to win back the electorate:
1) Come out for smaller government
2) Come out for legal immigration
3) Come out for lower taxes
4) Be for the proposition that if a citizen pays no federal income tax, that’s unfair.
5) Be for truth in sentencing
6) Be for free speech and the Bill of Rights
7) Be against “nation building”
8) Be for a larger armed forces
9) Be for transparency in government
10) Be for term limits
Republicans seem to be against all of these measures. Sorta makes them no better than Democrats.
Wait, what was Rahm Emmanuel’s shitstorm?
Rahmbi-wan never told you about your father…
rafchu– Smaller government is gone and it won’t be back in our lifetimes, or at least not til the last baby doomer dies and drops off the benefits tit. Get used to it.
Oh I think its quite clear to the electorate that the GOP has no intent to do this, ever.
1) Come out for smaller government
I agree this would be a good thing. But a large enough section of the electorate on both ends is mentally dependent on government largess. We’ll have to wait for this one.
Score: 0
2) Come out for legal immigration
Start by enforcing the current laws. Then we’ll talk about legalization. Most people DON’T WANT amnesty, we don’t want foreigners here who don’t, can’t and won’t speak our language. We don’t want our borders leaking like a siv at a critical time when Terrorists could use them as an easy way in.
My problem is repubs are not STRONG enough in defending the immigration laws. Of course, on that tack, the democrats are worse. So..
Score: 1
3) Come out for lower taxes
Tax cuts? Hello? Congress will never initiate lowering taxes, in my opinion. The democrats want to raise them. At least the Repubs can be convinced to cut them.
Score: 2
4) Be for the proposition that if a citizen pays no federal income tax, that’s unfair.
I won’t give or take any points for this one. What the heck? If you mean, to be coming out for a simpler tax system with less loopholes, I’m okay with that. But if it involves removing tax exemptions for the middle class- things like mortgage related exemptions, then you have a NO from me. Those are important to the mainstay of the electorate, and they will be unless everyone is living in rented flats in the city. No points awarded, because that one doesn’t make sense.
Score: 2
5) Be for truth in sentencing
Not sure what this one is about. Sounds like a flashpoint for subjective judgements about what you want sentences to be.
Score: 2
6) Be for free speech and the Bill of Rights
Can’t see that either party really has a good track record overall on free speech; but its not dismal either. Being ‘for free speech and the bill of rights’ is just a shot at politicians. You sound like the bitter woman demanding that her distant husband say he loves her, even though it obviously isn’t true. Too vague; neither party could be considered better than the other in any quantifiable way for both.
Score: 2
7) Be against “nation buildingâ€Â
Sorry, but I like the idea of nation building.
Score: 3
8) Be for a larger armed forces
I’ll agree on this one; there has been stalling about this. They need more forces out there.
Score: 2
9) Be for transparency in government
Neither party is for it. Either party will only be for it if it benefits them politically. So neither can, at the moment, be trusted to support this. No points.
Score: 2
10) Be for term limits
Neither party is for it. They will never, ever, ever vote to restrict their power unless a party comes along that wants to restrict its own power (a true conservative party.) Can’t award any points.. again.
Score: 2
So, Republicans win. Its easy to make someone look bad if you attack them on a bunch of things that NOBODY does.
TW: What a Game.
Given that the lowest bracket of wage earners as a group get more on their returns than they pay in, while the highest bracket carry the majority of the load, I’m all for it. For the record, I’m slightly above the median (“middle class” in the eyes of the Repubs, “wealthy” in the eyes of the Dems).
Provide any evidence that they are against it.
Re-reading the tax thing posted by Crimso, I would agree with what he is saying. But the question remains which party has come forward wanting everyone to pay taxes? You would have to eliminate or reprovision exemptions… exemptions with a rule ‘cannot make you owe no taxes’ will encourage people to hold off on various investments, just as tax bracketing can have a negative effect on earnings, or at the very least, reported earnings.
I would LIKE it if the republicans came forward about those things… but not having done so does not gain the democrats anything.
So, in some ways, if all the democrats do is just attack on silly things and grapple for power, they weaken the discourse and paralyze the system. The opposing party’s job is to push the other into doing things that need to be done through simple competition.
TW: The right to bear arms… shall not be infringed!
Did somebody step in dogshit?
Oh, wait. It’s just anus again.
Oh, look who has slithered back while Jeff’s away—it’s actus. The guy who didn’t want to condemn Jeff’s stalker, but does defend sleazy, baseless innuendo by GiGi the sock-puppet.
And everyone heed Mr. Crawford: IGNORE ACTHOLE.
Oh yeah ???,
We have subtsance abuse is on are’s,
And he’s the one asking where the shitstorm is…
It’s an application of the Golden Rule. I do unto him as he does unto others.
Yes, Emanuel.
Republican congressmen Jack Kingston (GA) and Patrick McHenry (NC) have written a letter demanding Pelosi and Emanuel declare under oath they had no prior knowledge of the Foley trick. It’ll never happen.
Newt Gingrich has been saying on talk radio appearances last week that the slime trail leads back to Emanuel’s door. I heard the interview on WLS AM myself, and I agree with him. Emanuel is a snake.
River: Don’t you listen to Rosie? They’re not absolutely rights, they’re more suggestions.
Remember, the Constitution’s a living document. That’s why the Left keeps trying to kill it.
As stated, that’s just silly. I think we want to avoid federal taxation on the first few tens of thousands of income, no? And since EITC is a terrifically successful policy, one might argue negative taxation for the lowest brackets is a good idea.
Or did you mean something else?
Ah, I’m tired.
Cocytus has the right idea, but there are bits to add here and there…
1) Come out for smaller government
RC is right. We will get smaller government over the Boomers’ dead bodies, quite literally. And I’m a Boomer.
2) Come out for legal immigration
I wasn’t aware that anyone, let alone Republicans, were against legal immigration, so you’re going to have to unpack this one. Do you mean (a)using force to ensure that only legal immigration occurs or (b) removing all legal barriers, so that all immigration is legal?
I’m pretty sure you could get majority approval of (a). (b) is disaster looking for an opportunity to exert itself.
3) Come out for lower taxes
4) Be for the proposition that if a citizen pays no federal income tax, that’s unfair.
These two make an uncomfortable pair. There are already many, many citizens who pay no taxes—who, in fact, receive refunds tremendously in excess of their payin (note that everybody who works pays into the system). Most of the tax receivers are poor. Once in a great while some rich person games the system, but we now have the Alternative Minimum Tax—above a certain bracket, if you have enough deductions they all disappear.
One of the reasons Democrats want power is so they can repeat the grand triumph of the Carter administration—rapid inflation coupled with no tax indexing, resulting in ordinary people being classed as plutocrats. The AMT is already snaring all of the rich and most of the upper middle class, and is creeping up on the ordinary people. The AMT isn’t indexed, so pretty soon the deductions will disappear de facto. Is that what you’re after here?
5) Be for truth in sentencing
Again: Unpack. This sounds like a code phrase, and I don’t know the code.
6) Be for free speech and the Bill of Rights
…motherhood [for both sexes] apple pie [made of organic ingredients with no added sugar or trans fats] the Common People [so long as they keep their mouths shut] and a chicken in every pot [see: apple pie].
If what you mean is not listening to terrorists’ phone calls, you’re on a loser. If you mean that only Rightists can be criticized for speech, you’re a liar.
7) Be against “nation buildingâ€Â
8) Be for a larger armed forces
Again, an odd couple. Do you realize that the two together add up to Imperialism? If we’re not to engage in nation building, the alternative is to engage in nation flattening—or we don’t have any use for armed forces except as a political organ. So far our armed forces have heroically resisted the opportunity to be the Army of a Duck Soup republic; should they just go with the flow?
9) Be for transparency in government
See #6
10) Be for term limits
Again Cocytus hits the nail on the head. If you want term limits, buy a rifle and start scouting out good positions. It won’t happen any other way.
Regards,
Ric
Cocytus!
Yah. That makes about as much sense as jamming a butter knife into a plugged-in toaster and proclaiming, after each jolt, that you will stop sticking the knife into the toaster as soon as it quits shocking you when you do it. Our current laws are the problem, not the answer.
Currently immigration from Mexico is limited by a rediculously low number of LEGAL applicants per year that was set in the ‘50s. When a person or a nation sets themselves in opposition to the laws of supply and demand, guess who wins? Every time? Supply and demand. See: The War on Drugsâ„¢ for a further demonstration.
yours/
peter.
Peter,
You are of course correct.
But you’re pissing in the wind, because the debate, ostensibly about immigration, is about something else entirely. And the way the debate is going, potential immigrants and their champions look to be the losers. Pretty faces get saved for the cameras. It’s the stand-ins who get their noses shoved in it.
When you figure out what the debate is really about you might be of service. As it is, you’re simply part of the misdirection.
Regards,
Ric
All,
Well, I see that everyone pretty much got my point. Which was: Republicans used to be for all these thngs, but they no longer are. They are now closer to the Democrats on these issues – sort of makes them no better than Democrats.
I got most of the bullet points above from Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America, (and sneakily threw in one or two of my own).
Here was my original thinking on some of the points that nobody got:
1) Be for legal immigration – Republicans don’t seem to be for legal immigration, but rather seem to want to allow a lot of illegal immigration. While this does have some tangible benefits for me (lower influation keeps interest rates on my adjustable-rate mortgage down), in the long run it sets up an unhealthy situation where you have two kinds of Americans – lawless ones with no access to all of our rights, and people born here. Eventually, those two groups are going to clash violently.
2) Be for the proposition that if a citizen pays no federal income tax, that’s unfair. Our tax system should be “fair” right? Well, if someone pays NOTHING, that’s not their fair share. That’s no share. Currently, the bottom 50% of Americans pay virtually no federal income tax. The bottom 30% pay zero. That’s not fair. Paying zero just isn’t fair. We should all pay something, right? Even poor people want to feel like they are contributing to their society, and not just taking from it. I know. I used to be poor and it was a constant source of pride for me that, even though I was poor, I paid federal income taxes and was thus, contributing to the greatness that was America.
3) Be for free speech and the Bill of Rights. It was Republicans who passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which limits the ability of Americans to run television ads critical of a sitting politician 60 days before an election. That’s un-American, and an abomination our founding fathers warned us about.
4) George W. Bush got elected because he rejected the role of “nation building” for our military. He was right. Our military isn’t trained to build nations, and does a terrible job of it. We should use the military to break shit. They are exceedingly good at that, and there is value in their ability to do it so well.
6) Our military is also too fucking small, and deployed in too many stupid places. Can someone tell me the conservative argument for having troops in Kosovo … still.
If, God forbid, Iran nuked Bagdhad, our military might never recover (save a draft). Placing this large a percentage of troops in such a small space is a recipe for disaster. Our enemies have to have noticed this.
7) Truth in sentencing: People who are sentenced to spend time in jail should spend it all there. End all pre-release programs that reduce a person’s sentence. This would have a significant positive impact on crime and instantly create a wedge issue between Republcans (tough on crime) and Democrats (who, at least in my state, write letters on behalf of convicted brutal rapists trying to get them freed.)
8) Transparency in government: William Jefferson has been caught on videotape accepting a bribe. The guy who bribed him is already in prison. Yet, Jefferson is not only free, he’s a US Congressman. Why the fuck is that happening on the Republicans’ watch?
9) Nobody is for term limits, so it will never pass, huh. Well, why can’t Republicans be for it? They used to be when they were in the minority (and I suspect they’ll be for term limits again when they are returned to the minority soon.) How about a maximum 20-year limit? Here’s a constitutional way to implement it: All benefits stop after 20 years … no insurance, no additional pension, no vacation or sick days. Problem solved.
Thoughts?
Raising taxes on 50% of America’s voters doesn’t seem like a wiinning strategy to me.
[url=”http://www.fairtax.org/” target=”_blank”]
Yes.[/url]
I, of course, was not complaining.
That’s because they can hear lightning and see thunder. This, in a way, gives some of us hope for development of an ability to detect more subtle effects.
The problem is that the situation has changed quite a bit, in many cases deterioration (IMO and apparently yours). “The moving finger writes, and having writ…” Some Democrats are now talking about moving the party in a libertarian direction. They will discover the same thing Gingrich and company did: a strong activist Government is needed to provide benefits and/or privileges to various groups, each of those groups is shortsighted enough to support activism on behalf of others if the others will support theirs, and one of those groups is the Press, which is pleased and happy to engage in character assassination against anyone who contradicts their agenda. The result is that anyone who supports a libertarian agenda cannot be elected, and if elected cannot accomplish anything in office while being nibbled to death by ducks.
George Washington’s admonition against the Party system was heeded—we don’t have one in the sense he meant it: our two parties arent organized around the lines of the Parliamentary system. But, still, the first function of a Party is to get the members of the Party elected, and to support them in office. Regardless of the (putative) underlying philosophy of the Party, tactics that don’t get Party members elected will not be continued, and tactics that result in members losing incumbency will be stricken from the list.
That’s life.
Regards,
Ric
I can tell you’re ignoring me by how wrong you are.
Foley’s tricks, if any, were between him and some young boys. I don’t think anyone has heard of those yet. But there are a few more weeks to go…
Actually, if I’m at a BBQ, and a blood-sucking insect lands on my friend’s arm, I inform him of it. You wanted to excuse Frisch and support vile libel by GiGi. You have little or no regard for facts or common decency. So when you show up—every time I see you show up—I will inform the group of exactly what you are.
Excuse? i said she was so wrong as to appear crazy! As for Gigi, thats no libel. It may be sleazy, but its not baseless. In the end, Rush’s drug capades will be protected by the right to privacy he has over his career declared does not exist. Or I hope it will. We’re all pulling for this one.
This is what you said. You have, afaik, been to law school and know that mental illness does not excuse criminal conduct unless the person does not know right from wrong, as Frisch admits she does. So let’s not airbrush history.
And GiGi is engaged in libelous innuendo, as noted at my first link. The fact that you claim it is not baseless, but can produce no concrete evidence, proves the point and your general scumminess. I’m not buying it, and will make sure everyone here knows exactly what you are.
Exactly my argument as to why this is not an excuse.
He won’t be found liable for libel.
Uh, there’s quite a base for saying the dude does drugs, has had failed marriages, and takes unlabelled viagra bottles to third world countries by himself.
This is the exchange:
So you most certainly were using her mental illness as a complete excuse.
And none at all for innuendo of using teenage prostitutes.
People can read the rest at the links and judge for themselves.
You are a slime-merchant. Expect me to note it every time I see you here. Keep it up and you can expect me to note it at any other blog where I see you.
Actually, I was using it to say that she appears crazy—because she was doing something quite wrong. If it turns out shes’ not crazy, but appears to be, all thats left is that she’s doing something wrongful.
Because, as you point out, and know, I know exactly under what conditions mental illness is an excuse.
I think he lays out his argument clearly, and those who find weaknesses in it can find it easily. But I do admit, it is sleazy. The sort of stuff that doesn’t belong in the respectable blogospheric discourse. Maybe he should be on talk radio.
You’d think i’d make some good money at being a ‘merchant.’ BTW: you’re doing a shit-ass job of ignoring me. I think we’d both gain if you either gave up on trying—ie, stop ignoring when i point out that you’re wrong—or just actually went ahead and did ignore.
Sorry. Nice try at dissembling and retreating, but it’s not going to happen. You will get the same treatment every time I see you here. And this thread will now be added to the links that get posted.
Feel free to keep digging, though.
Can you post them all right now? Because i’m curious as to how you’re going to be ignoring me in the future. can you show me an example now?
Why would I do something like you a favor?
You know, some on the left are capable of condemning vile behavior without trying to excuse it. Some are so devoid of common decency that they cannot. You’re in that second category.
Tell me again how I know about mental illness not being an excuse. Thats the best part, where you share with me precisely my argument. Will you be doing that in your future ignoring?
People can read what you have written, and how you are trying to dissemble and backpedal now. It’s too late for you. You let your mask drop, so that everyone can see your ugliness. If you bring it around here in the future, it will be noted again.
Oh. You think my argument is something I only make now? Did you ignore when i said as much back then? all the times that I called her behavior wrongful? Thats part of your shit-ass ignoring isn’t it? Will you be ignoring me like that in the future?
Seems like I’ve touched a nerve. I guess being exposed would be very unpleasant.
Well, like most people, I don’t like it when people are stupid about me. I don’t like people being stupid in general, but especially not about me. So I try to help. But for you, you want to go on ‘noting’ things? go for it dude. I spend most of my days at work anymore, so you may not have much opportunity. So be on the lookout. Cheers.
…and it slithers away.
Probably to Patterico but I know he won’t take any crap from the Actard either…
Karl, I’ve been down that road with actus before. If he/she doesn’t want to deal with a particular issue he/she will ignore it.
Unlike Anony-Mouse, who actually takes a shot at engaging in a debate of ideas with background, actus is a sniper of the worst kind, finding in it’s own mind the one aspect that will advance the cause and slopping it out like a dollop of pink mashed potatos in a buffet line. No doubt he/she/it then has a few chortles while all the stupid conservatives run around aghast at the unfairness of it all. If you are expecting more, you are dooming yourself to perpetual disappointment.
You’ll note in the above link that I’m still waiting for an answer to that question. Actus can duck and cover like to worst tin can prize fighter. (My favorite is still the “I don’t know studds, he served before i was born..”line.)
When it comes to progs, I actually miss Anony-Mouse, even though the last time he was heard he went postal on Vladimir. Now that’s entertainment.
BTW: Karl thanks for the analysis on Trudy Rubin, I just got back to read it and I’m saving now. Your critical skills make me jealous (along with Ardgaine’s, Ric Locke’s, River…,Aw hell, most everybody here!)
I think the problem people have with foley is the predatory behavior. I don’t know how much studds or others exhibited this. But I’m all for foley getting the studds treatment: let him continue to run for congress. Reynolds recently talked him into it.
Please note that all is right with the world: actus continues to refuse to address the original question from a thread of 5 days ago.
Consistancy, thy name is actus.
That doens’t address it? I’m trying to explain the difference in the scandals, thus why I don’t see hypocrisy. Why I don’t see much fairness in hypocrisy. But perhaps there is a little. Kind of like the party of small government growing the government. These are the things we deal with in politics. The second tuesday of november ought to tell us which hypocrisy people prefer.
Is this enough? what else would you like?
Hey, look, he’s back. Just one day after writing this:
Of course, he was back even before that, taking long enough to come up with that tactic for my already low estimation of him to be lowered still further. It’s the sort of thing an eight-year-old would do, except the eight-year-old would have thought of it faster.
And after having been exposed as a loathsome, dissembling creep, what he does is pretend he’s leaving, then immediately slithers to another thread. Because that doesn’t prove the point of how disingenuous he is. Not at all.
The funniest part is that he doesn’t even get that the more he tries to dissemble to defend his indefensible behavior, the more he shows himself as he truly is to everyone who reads it.
And thanks for the kind words, BJTexs.
Did you notice today was a holiday?
I noticed your misleading departure and attempted re-emergence yesterday, as alredy noted. And apparently you were unaware Sunday that Monday was a holiday?
More dissembling and tapdancing from you, as predicted.
How about starting with a simple response to the original question, followed by some prose describing your reasoning for said response? Instead you throw out your perception of the worst aspect of the Foley scandal (“predatory”) ignore all the other scandals (still laughing about being unable to check for information on Studds) and end it with a generalised crack about the upcoming election (counting your chickens there, actus?)
It’s why Karl. a man who spends hours crafting literate, well researched posts and responses, is less than thrilled with your snipe and move style as he feels you are not fully engaged in the debate. I must agree and was once there myself but am long over your herky-jerky style. No, (anticpating Anony-Mouse) it’s not about style court, it’s about taking a few more minutes actually contribute an insight or two rather than just lob potato mashers.
Debating you is like reasoning with a popped up nail on a deck, which is the reason so many others hammer you down on a regular basis.
1)OK! Let’s abolish the Dept of Education, cut the State Department in Half and dismantle Fema, sending the resouces to the states.
2) No way, Jose! Illegal imigration is a fundamental right and perfectly in keeping with our heritige of…um…ah…immigration. Let’s move along…move along…
3) Hey, waht’s the matter with you, we’re at war!! Hike taxes on those rich people so that we can fund the deficit even as the economy goes into the tank because, after all, cutting taxes has no effect on the economy. The Philadelphia Inquirer said so!!
4) Yuppers! All of them poor people need to start paying taxes again. Let’s start with those off the books homeless. MD 20/20 is woth something!
5) OHHHH, YEEEAAA!!! Truly I think that you are a scum sucking low life goon and I truly sentence you to spend many years being Bubba’s boy toy. Truly!
6) Nah!
7) Hey! We done built a perty good nation right here in these United States. We need to support building, especially a shed in Goldstein’s backyard.
8) Yes, indeedy, especially more militias. YEEEE HAAAAAWWWWWWW!
9) Ain’t there windows on them government buildings?
10) I ain’t no doctor but don’t them preggers women give birth on their own?
In order for there to be no hypocrisy, the scandals need to be different or the people doing the criticising need to be different. I mentioned how this one scandal is different. In the end, the ethics committee recommendations passed overwhelmingly. I think they would do the same here. I really don’t know much about the other scandals—studds had sex with a minor some 33 years ago. So if you could tell me why you think there is hypocrisy, that would help. Supposedly there are hours of research involved.
But I’m fine with treating this one scandal the same as the rest. Have Foley be like Studds, and let the people of FL decide. That’s how I would cure any hypocrisy.