Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Well, he'll have two years of experience in the Senate, he's got no Caucasian dialect and he's clean and articulate.That'll do it.Yeah, too easy but I got there first.
And now, we see conservatism in the idealized female form, the handsome Scott Brown in his truck.Shouldn't that be idealized male form?
AllenS:Maybe so, but he is the idealized form for females.
Cheese cake and beef cake!!!!!!
Freudian slip? :) Or are you saying Brown is a sissy boy?
I'm happy he won and showed that a Senate Seat is not owned by a family or political party. However, I'm not about to jump on his bandwagon truck. He's won an election against a Democrat with foot in mouth disease. Otherwise, we have already seen the error of going quickly from State Senator, to US Senator, to President.
How about we don't make the Obama mistake again and see what the guy is actually capable of and what he believes and what he does before we think about putting him in charge? What a novel idea!
Brown and Palin in 2012. It would absolutely drive the media nuts to have two people that good looking running for the Republicans.
How about we have a Romney/Thompson ticket? Now that would really be dreamy.
Mitch Daniels 2012.
Perfect spokesmodel for the GOP. I guarantee he won't have to answer one question or be accountable for anything from now until then. Certainly not on this blog.Terror!Taxes!Trucks!
"Perfect spokesmodel for the GOP. I guarantee he won't have to answer one question or be accountable for anything from now until then."Just like Barack Obama!
The next time Romney surfaces he may announce a run with Scot Brown for his VP. That could get the GOP big dogs behind them and could take that nomination away from Palin. Then unless Palin starts a Third party, the Romney/Brown team will wipe out Obama as would Palin if she was given the nomination. Hmmm?
So delighted today. Just delighted.
Check this out - Hitler expressing his frustration at Coakley's loss of Kennedy's seat:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY
Also, I think Romney should be forgiven for Romneycare now.He shepherded a Republican to a win in Mass. That's like passing some kind of mythical trial. It should be enough.
Brown does have a Boston-suburb accent. He prounces daughter Ayla's name "ayler", for example. So Reid might not like Brown's chances.
God, no.Have we learned nothing?Anyway, not conservative enough for the primaries. Ask Mitt Romney.
If the race were today, Romney/Brown would wipe the floor with Romney/Palin.
But neither Brown nor Palin should be looked at as candidates right now.I want a Cheney-esque VP. Thompson. I think he'd rather be the Veep than the Pres anyway.
Love the enthusiasm and all, but really? Brown seems like a good, common sense guy, but let him accumulate some national experience (and that does not mean a truncated Senate term), and maybe some goddamn EXECUTIVE experience, and then we could talk. Let's be blunt - though Brown is on my side on most issues (unlike, say, Obama), any dispassionate observer would note that he has most of the same structural failings as Obama - you know, the ones we pointed out but which were ignored by folks like Anne who were all caught up in how dreamy he was.Brown's military service has probably given him some of the leadership skills that Obama lacks, but he is a JAG officer, so only half points on that one. I still firmly believe that there is a good reason why it is former governors who are usually elected predident.
Freeman - I agree, Romney has done some good penance. I don't think to Mass pols on the same ticket is very likely. Brown's relatively young, no need to rush him onto the national ticket.
Please, no Conservative Obama's. Let's see how he governs first. In addition, do we really want to give the first Republican Massachusetts Senate seat in more than a generation back to the Democrats?
MnMark thats GOLD.Hilarious!thanks.
I know you'll never get this, garage, but the slightest evidence of RINO tendencies and Brown's short honeymoon will be fini.
Did we learn nothing? Next time we need to know who we are voting for and vote for the guy who has proven himself to be able to do more than just get elected, cause that's not the job.
Isn't that the same mistake the Dems made with Obama? Nominating a candidate without real experience? And, didn't we try that with Palin? No, no, no; give Brown time to mature.
Gah. I'm so sick of hearing that Palin had no experience. The woman was elected governor after serving as mayor (two terms) and on the energy board. She and her husband run their own small business. I'm not saying she has the most or best experience, but she still has a lot more executive experience than Obama.Brown would be like the white Obama except for that National Guard thing. And the fact that he didn't vote "present" most of the time he was in the state senate. And the fact that he actually won real campaigns for this state senate seat, not campaigns in which his opponents dropped out or were not even qualified to run in the state. Obama has coasted through life having stuff handed to him (including the presidency), Brown has been working. Comparing Brown to Obama is an insult to Brown.
Oh puleeeze. President already?Give it a rest people. The people make the mistake of electing an unknown, untested junior Senator, based merely on his canned speeches and appearance. Look where that got us!!Give him time and let's see what the man is about and how he can work.Being President is much much more than being a pretty face, studly body or giving a good speech. I'd rather have the ugly duckling if he/she can lead, make good decisions and most importantly LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.
"We've seen conservatism in the idealized female form, the lovely Sarah Palin with her moose. And now, we see conservatism in the idealized male form, the handsome Scott Brown in his truck."And we're also seeing Ann Althouse morph into Camille Paglia!(Not that that's a bad thing, I like both women.)
It's not my impression that he's a conservative, except that everybody looks conservative against what he's running against.
I was going to respond to a comment left by Roger J., but he deleted it, perhaps too quickly. The gist of his argument was that Scott Brown, like Obama, doesn't have enough experience to be a viable president. I would agree with that.wv: knood
Woah--3d time is a charmGod in heaven--What John Lynch, DBQ and others have said--we have elected what I suspect will go down in history as the worst president ever based on fluff with no recognizance of the fact he was manifestly unqualified to do anything involving executive skills--frankly, Scott Brown is in about the same category right now--let himm serve two terms and see what he does--WTF is it with this country--if we lust after celebrity presidents, lets move Lady GaGa to the top of the list.NO to any presidential runs from Senator Brown--Senator Obama has set the precedent for lack of qualification to the office and continues to demonstrate his ineptitude. Dont need to repeat this egregious mistake.
How about just "elect no senators to the Presidency?" Look what happens when we do. Last time we almost had a nuclear war and got involved in Vietnam.
Dust Bunny Queen said..."Oh puleeeze. President already?"I stand with DBQ.But he should drive that truck all the way to the White House gate.
I am with John Lynch--elect NO senators (at least until the 17th amendment is repealed)--they are, almost to a man or woman, preening narssicistic assholes and should be, like the paris communard in 1870, lined up and shot--then we can start over
This does something to close the glamour gap between Democrats and Republicans. Among the nice things you can say about Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, and Karl Rove, you can observe that they never used their good looks and physical magnetism to sway the multitudes......Yesterday Althouse posted about people marrying along an up/down axis. It doesn't happen. Up/down is a function of gravity; marriage is a function of magnetism. Magnetism trumps gravity. (Until, of course, it doesn't.)... Something similar happens in voting. A good looking guy with easy charm and two gorgeous daughters overjoyed to be standing beside him is more persuasive and electable than a power point presentation from Croakly. I don't know if Palin or Brown deserve to be President, but it's fun to watch them work out their destiny.
Did we learn nothing? It's headlines like this one from Drudge today that reminds me he is no longer part of the new media. He's just as established and looking for sensationalism as any other journo.wv: outti, so many puns, so little time.
Also, I'm just repeating what Drudge and Althouse are saying. The comparison with Obama is pretty obvious. It's much easier to see the problem with Scott Brown becoming President as a white Republican than Obama as a black Democrat, apparently.The huge conservative response to the election of what used to be called a RINO should be a warning sign that Republicans may be developing the same pathology as the Democrats. Obama is not a post-racial centrist, and Brown is not a mainstream conservative.I'm happy he won, as this country is being driven off a cliff, but we should be honest about what just happened. Massachusetts didn't elect a conservative, just the most conservative Republican that can get elected in that state. That's the way for Republicans to win Congress, but it won't work for a President. That's what happened to McCain.
BTW I'm bitterly regretting voting Democrat in 2008, for the first time ever. Feel free to point and laugh and make jokes at my expense. I've had it with this government. That's what I get for seeing what I wanted to see.About the only thing they've gotten remotely right is continuing the Bush policies on the war, which required them to betray the people who believed in them the most. I'm usually more interested in results than motives, but if they can lie about that they're pretty much capable of anything, aren't they?It's almost....Nixonian.
Me too, Freeman. Not so much that I love Brown, although I do, but I'm just so happy to see Americans reaffirming our basic good values. For a while there, I truly feared we were all on the road to serfdom.
One could argue that governors make the best presidents. Governors have to deal with state legislatures and state bureaucracies to get things done. If you're successful in that role, it definitely qualifies as executive experience.Senators may be able to successfully execute a statewide campaign; but once they're elected, they are not in charge of anything other than their vote. The Senate is the world's most exclusive men's club -- not a very challenging political environment.wv:lathr, as in "Brown's election got garage mahal in a lathr."
Republicans may be developing the same pathology as the Democrats. Obama is not a post-racial centrist, and Brown is not a mainstream conservative.You still don't get it. The Tea Party types, who were instrumental in advancing Brown's candidacy, are NOT mainstream conservatives nor are they evangelical/social issue conservatives. Brown was not elected by Republicans. The election was accomplished by Independents, Conservatives, Libertarians (which are what most Tea Party people are) and yes...even moderate Democrats.We don't WANT mainstream Republicans, RINO's. The Tea Party is about the Constitution of the United States, smaller less intrusive government, State's Rights and sovereignty. Fundamental issues. We want the government to stick to its knitting and get out of our face.
Agree with DBQ. If the Reps want to be really dumb, why don't they run OctoMom as VP for craps sake?
"Did we learn nothing?"Probably not. What makes you think the American electoral system is about learning anything?The current presidential election system favors good campaigners over good office holders and despite widespread belly aching, I can't perceive much that would indicate the American public is dissatisfied with that (enough to change things, at any rate).wv: divide : too perfect, what should always want in a government. Always voting against he incumbent or party in power is far the worst voting strategy around.
Holfast said...Brown's military service has probably given him some of the leadership skills that Obama lacks, but he is a JAG officer, so only half points on that one. LOL, I'd say the same thing if my JAG Colonel wife wasn't watching the screen.but seriously, likely 3/4 credit. He enlisted in the infantry, joined ROTC, served as a junior officer in QM unit, then passed the bar.
Hey, I'm happy that people see parties as means to an end. They aren't an identity, they are organizations that have to earn our votes.I'm willing to support libertarians, but they need to win. Once they win, they need to produce results. That's what I'm skeptical about. I'm happy to be proved wrong.Just having a lot of activism doesn't cut it. There was an antiwar movement, remember? What did they accomplish? I think they failed because Americans didn't want to lose the war. They were unhappy with the war because we were losing, but that didn't meant they wanted to lose.That's why I'm always skeptical about movements. Very often they think they have a mandate that doesn't exist.I think voters want the Democrats to deliver on their promises of jobs and economic growth. That's the biggest problem we have. I think libertarians have the right idea on how to do that, but they need to deliver if elected.
Pre-election, hadn't we seen liberalism in it's idealized male form? Young, light-skinned African-American (less any actual heritage of slavery), no Negro dialect, clean, bright, articulate. . . So what's the idealized female form of the liberal? Is she pretty?
Scott Brown ran and won in MA as the Sarah Palin "he's one of us" candidate. What does that tell you about Sarah's chances in 2012 against a certain other arrogant and detached Dem?
I supported Brown, but he did not win so much as the Dems lost that seat. Bernie Madoff could have won that race.
"So what's the idealized female form of the liberal? Is she pretty?"Somewhere between Rosie O'Donnell and Cindy Sheehan. So yes, very pretty, inside and out.
Please, please, please: No more love affairs or playing out one's savior fantasies via politics!Please.Gah.
@ John Lynch Brown is no RINO. Comparing Brown to the last two GOP nominees, he is well to the right of Bush on spending, and of both Bush and McCain on immigration. He's hawkish on defense/anti-terrorism (supports waterboarding), pro-gun, and opposes gay marriage (but supports civil unions). Re: Running for President, his pro-choice position would be a major problem, but other than simply doing a Romney and flipping on that, he could possibly go the Guiliani route, and say that he remains personally pro-choice but would appoint strict constructionist (i.e. pro-life) judges. That didn't work for Guiliani, but the mayor wasn't the guy who (possibly) single-handedly saved the USA from Obamacare.
Ann said... We've seen conservatism in the idealized female form, the lovely Sarah Palin with her moose. And now, we see conservatism in the idealized male form, the handsome Scott Brown in his truck.Is Ann a little hot for Brown?(Don't tell Meade)PS DBQ is right. Give Brown two terms in the Senate before anybody says VP.PPS Joan is, of course, right about Miss Sarah. She needs more time in office, but, compared to Barry, she was ready.
Let's find out HOW he drives that truck before letting him park it at the White House, please? As for Sarah Palin and her moose -- a moose is part of the "idealized female form" ???? I hadn't realized. Must get one. I would have said that it was her baby and children that made her so readily idealizable, if that's a word.
I took that headline to be a tongue in cheek reference to the qualifications needed to be president judging by the current clown in chief.I think a lot of you are mistaken in taking it literally.
Honestly... I think it's humor on Drudge's part and on the part of the vast majority of people saying anything like Brown for President.It's funny because he *would* be every bit as qualified in two years as Obama.It's worth pretending to be pushing Brown for President to watch heads pop.
Brown has Obama's experience with Palin's looks, populist appeal, and attractive family. Far, far more people can relate to Ayla's national exposure on American Idol than to Todd's snow machine competition. And Brown has served in the National Guard since he graduated high school, and is still serving today.
Freeman Hunt said...But neither Brown nor Palin should be looked at as candidates right now.I want a Cheney-esque VP. Thompson. I think he'd rather be the Veep than the Pres anywayDoesn't Thompson have young children? I think he should focus on the job of raising them before seeking high office.A Cheney-esque VP? I completely agree. Hey, here's a radical idea: Dick Cheney!(WV: "gingligh" - New improved Newt with 40% fewer calories)
Can't read the other comments right now, but these thoughts (from Hot Air) are in line with my thinking:"Brown’s victory means an end to Harry Reid’s supermajority, which makes the radical agenda he and Obama have pursued unlikely to succeed. This is a much-needed brake on runaway government expansion, but it isn’t Nirvana by any stretch. Brown will be likely to vote for a scaled-down version of health-care reform (as would be Snowe, Collins, and perhaps a couple of other Republicans) that still would be the wrong direction, just not as bad as what’s on the table now."Brown's in for one reason and one reason only - to stop ObamaCare - but he is still talking healthcare himself (He said it in his "this is the people's seat" speech and I heard him doing it again in a press conference this morning) so, now that he's in, he needs to be straightened out: Healthcare is a non-starter, dude.Talking about running another one-term senator for president is crazytalk. His mandate is simple - defending the Constitution, acting as a brake to Obama and the Dems, jobs, and cutting taxes - in that order and nothing more.Don't muddy the issue - even with Drudge kicking up dust.
Synova, great minds think alike. I'm surprised how few got it.........
Nobody runs for VP a second time after losing the first go-round. Sarah knows that. If she runs, and I'm by no means sure she will, it will be for the crystal.I think she'd do better to continue her Fox show, honing her ability to think on her feet before a camera, until such time as she can take one of the Alaska Senate seats. Or perhaps Secretary of Energy in a Romney administration. She has twenty years of viability left, and it will only increase the more experience she gets. In 2020, she and Brown would make a pretty good combo, especially if no woman has yet been elected in the meantime. A large number of people who dismiss her now, especially women, will take a second look if she is the first woman to earn a major party nomination by her own merits and efforts.deutedi: Do he or don't he roll in his grave this morning?
Amen DBQ.Fiscal conservatism, strong national defense. O/w stay out of my life!
Meade said...Doesn't Thompson have young children? I think he should focus on the job of raising them before seeking high office.I forgot about that. Yes, and good point.A Cheney-esque VP? I completely agree. Hey, here's a radical idea: Dick Cheney!I heart this idea. I wish everyone did.Again though, how about Romney? And if not Romney, who?
PatCA said...For a while there, I truly feared we were all on the road to serfdom.Yes, exactly. I am elated because I'm filled with hope that this Brown election signals that the tide is turning. Maybe my children and their children and their children and so on won't grow up to be government pawns or slaves. Hooray!
The next time Romney surfaces he may announce a run with Scot Brown for his VPThe Constitution says both candidates can't be from the same state, so watch Mitt's residency.Right now, in the bowels of the RNC and DNC, researchers are scouring back issues of Cosmo for prospective candidates.
The Constitution says both candidates can't be from the same state, so watch Mitt's residencyHe could move to Michigan or Utah, a la Cheney's move back to Wyoming.
Meade said...Doesn't Thompson have young children? I think he should focus on the job of raising them before seeking high office."I forgot about that. Yes, and good point."So does Obama, have small children. Perhaps he should have focused on them instead of becoming President? This is not a good point. Lots of people (men and women) who have high powered careers have children. Should they all stay home for 18 years?
Freeman Hunt said...Again though, how about Romney? And if not Romney, who?Romney/Cheney 2012: Experience. Competence. Limited government.Dust Bunny Queen said...So does Obama, have small children. Perhaps he should have focused on them instead of becoming President?Perhaps indeed. This is not a good point. Lots of people (men and women) who have high powered careers have children. Should they all stay home for 18 years?Yes.
You don't have a liberal Republican from Massachusetts as your running mate if you are already a former liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts. Makes no sense.It probably wouldn't even get Massachusetts' electoral votes, although now... who knows?There really are no more red and blue states.
DBQ, running for President is not like a high-powered job. It's vicious, especially if you're a conservative.Also, I think it depends on what you mean by "high-powered." If you mean a job like the President's where you, by necessity, have almost no family time at all, then no, I don't think that's good for people with children.Controversial: And yeah, I do think it's a good idea that somebody, man or woman, or some kind of split, stays home with the kids for eighteen years.
The irony of being beaten by a guy driving a GMC truck with 200,000 miles on it is probably lost on the WH.
You got it Synova re the Drudge headline.It illustrates how ludicrous the selection of Obama was.(I believe Brown also qualified as a paratrooper. Not exactly a "white collar" JAG.)
This is not a good point. Lots of people (men and women) who have high powered careers have children. Should they all stay home for 18 years?"Yes."Really? How are they going to feed the children if the parents are forbidden to work for 18 years.@ Freeman. I agree the "ideal" is that one of the parents be able to stay at home with the small chldren. Especially up until they are in junior high. After that....the kids don't need you to sit at home during the day and dust knick knacks. The reality is that just to put a roof over your head and food on the table and forego all the fripperies like flat screen tvs etc.... it still often takes two jobs. If you want to get down to it....high powered job versus menial job....the menial job probably takes more out of you as a parent, leaving you tired and still broke at the end of the day.Side note: my parents both worked full time jobs. Up until I was about 13 years old (I was the oldest child), one would work the day shift and the other the night shift so that there was always some one around for us children. Some one really sleepy and tired but still available. After my turning 13, they both worked the day shift and we were latch key children who came home from school, let ourselves in, did chores, did homework, made some snacks and were self sufficient for about 2 to 4 hours after school. It didn't hurt us. In fact, I think it made us into more responsible adults.
@DBQ: Your personal story makes my point. Thank goodness neither of your parents ran for and got elected President. At least not until after you reached 18.
Four observations, led by repeating Galbraith.1. SMGalbraith said... Well, he'll have two years of experience in the Senate, he's got no Caucasian dialect and he's clean and articulate.That'll do it.Yeah, too easy but I got there first.Add he ALSO has two adorable young daughters.And unlike Obama has some private sector and military experience actually leading people.BUT - I also don't think the US wants to again go with an inexperienced 2-year Senator after Obama.2. There were two classy moves during Browns victory speech. One was Brown noting he elected to make his 1st phone call to Vicky Kennedy and honor Ted Kennedy's long service to the Comonwealth.The other was by Romney. Acknowledged by Brown for special recognition as an early backer who did everything he could to support Brown - Romney simply walked out from behind the crowd, shook Browns hand and said one word - "Congratulations" and went back into the crowd outside camera view. It showed selflessness and humility. Traits Obama sorely lacks in.3. There was little screaming by the Southern Religious Right Base about true pure Republicans best abandoning 7/10ths of America rather than accept RINOS who failed litmus tests. It was nice to chew on Browns victory and liberal Dems pain along with your Catfish and hushpuppies - wasn't it??4. People thinking this was all about healthcare miss what the exit polls said. It was an issue, not the only one. Voters in Mass were angry about backroom deals in DC and Coakley's dutiful echoing of terrorism as a matter for lawyers, not soldiers to fight, with due process was not accepted by Massachusetts voters.
Romney simply walked out from behind the crowdMitt spoke to the crowd some time before Brown.
Apparently, Brown supports some kind of basic plan for everyone.But it won't require tax hikes, Medicare cuts, or raising spending. And I thought that only lefties believed in magical unicorns and a free lunch.
DBQ, I don't disagree with anything in your last comment.
So that's a "yes," Freems? You will be our candidate in 2028?!!!!11!!1!!
It's an MA Republican, Peter. Incidentally, about as rare as a unicorn too.
You will be our candidate in 2028?Hey, let Freeman have all the babies she wants. Politics can wait.
Ha, I missed this before because I left the computer right after I posted.Ha ha ha.
I think Scott Brown's Truck and Todd Palin's Snowmobile would be a winning ticket.
Republican State Sen. Scott Brown scored an political upset in the special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat occupied for so long by Democratic Ted Kennedy. Brown, who beat the state’s Democratic attorney general, Martha Coakley, will become the 41st Republican vote in the Senate and robbed Democrats of the crucial 60th Senate vote they need to overcome Republican procedural hurdles.
Post a Comment