March 16, 2011

"Some in GOP grow tired of right wing."

Some in Althouse blog grow tired of Politico.

152 comments:

Revenant said...

Bad URL.

Old Dad said...

Some Democrats rape pigeons.

Phil 3:14 said...

Yes, I read the story and yes it does appear that Politico is slowly drifting leftward. I still read it but I'm getting tired of the:

OMG, look at the Republicans! tone.

It falls into line with all other MSM outlets that can report on disagreements/dissension within the Republican Party but are mute regarding same within the Democratic Party. Its the logic that makes a straight party line vote for Obama "a winning vote" and the opposing vote that included Democrats as well as all Republicans as not being "bipartisan".

Leland said...

Count me with the masses in the "some" of the blog.

madawaskan said...

Isn't it amazing how even after the Democrats lost the House, took significant hits in the Senate, got their asses handed to them in the Governor races, and lost down ticket state races...

that the story seems to always be the Republican infighting?

Funny how Democrats are all unionized...oh wait!

Methadras said...

Phil 3:14 said...

Yes, I read the story and yes it does appear that Politico is slowly drifting leftward. I still read it but I'm getting tired of the:

OMG, look at the Republicans! tone.


Politico is drifting leftward? I always thought they were already leftward and are finally tired of hiding it. Leading a double life wears thin.

Erich said...

Good URL

chickelit said...

Shouldn't we refer to it as "America's Politico"?

pbAndj said...

Never allow dissent.

Awesome.

Maguro said...

Concern trolling at its finest.

chickelit said...

So how come we never read the headline: "Some in Dem Party grow tired of left wing"?

testing 1-2

madawaskan said...

I think the Democrats are hiding Harry Reid; they want the American public to think those evil Republicans control Congress.

Hell at Obama's last presser the way he talked about Congress or as my buddy said Obama-

Clintoned Congress

it's as if Obama is banking on Americans forgetting that the Democrats own the Senate and have little understanding for the primacy of that body over the House.

madawaskan said...

chickenlittle


Wow that google search tells you all you need to know.

American media-left wing much?

chickelit said...

@madawaskan: I think the real reason we never read "grow tired of left wing" in the MSM is that the MSM never grows tired of itself.

Revenant said...

I'm amused that veteran Republican politicians are "tired" of newcomers who want spending cuts.

There's an eerie coincidence there -- every Republican I know is tired of the veteran Republican congressmen. The days when you could get by saying "yeah we suck but the Democrats are worse" are over, boys.

madawaskan said...

Some Democrats *grow tired* of raping pigeons.

Peano said...

Rep. Mike Simpson: “I mean, this is three weeks; we’re cutting $6 billion. You know?"

Get a grip, Mike. $6 billion is 0.157 percent of the 2011 budget. That is one hundred and fifty-seven thousandths of 1 percent of federal spending. You know?

Mike Simpson is part of the problem.

madawaskan said...

Rev

You're a Libertarian-how's your party doin'?

madawaskan said...

Libertarians *grow tired* of everyone else.

I really think for Libertarians half the attraction is never having to play defense-any high school debater can see the attraction to that-and getting to throw critiques all around.

Pigeon feed. Easy -peasy.

Well half of the one percent of them-although I think almost all of them are blogging.

pbAndj said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

It's not just the GOP that is isck of the GOP. After 2 months. That's why the GOP always runs just abstract ideas. They can never really tell the public exactly what they will do in office on the campaign trail. And when they ideas are are enacted, people hate them.

pbAndj said...

"are over, boys."

And, it is "boys."

Somewhere I picked up that this new House was the first time since the seventies that the participation of women actually declined. [But, since I don't recall the source (and I'm too lazy to look for it) I can't be sure this is correct.]

If all the women were replaced, we could really have a pissing match.

AJ Lynch said...

Freshman tea party congress critters should whack $200 Billion out of budget and then propose they all go home for next 2 months to get more ideas from constitutents.

Afterall, when in Washington, the veteran congress critters don't know how to do anything but spend more money.

Old Dad said...

"Feathers and Squawking a Nuisance": highly placed congressional aides report that some dems grow tired of raping pigeons"

Maguro said...

That's why the GOP always runs just abstract ideas.

You're right...the GOP should run on concrete, detailed policy statements like "Hope" and "Change". That's the ticket.

madawaskan said...

How about this Rev-

Defend Meghan McCardle you know the Libertarian economist that somehow managed to voted for Obama because she was "concerned" about the budget, the US deficit?

I know, I know you don't have to.


See that's half the attraction!

former law student said...

So how come we never read the headline: "Some in Dem Party grow tired of left wing"?

Everybody likes Dennis Kucinich.

He's isolated but not left out.

AJ Lynch said...

Garbage: By whacking spending and getting rid of rule and regulations, they are doing something. It's just not doing what you want which is pend spend spend some more and write dumb new laws like anti-bullying.

Matthew said...

On most things, I think Politco could easily rename itself POLITBURO.

As for the GOP infighting, it's mostly a matter between those who wish to manage the rate/scope of cuts (so as to avoid losing at the ballot box), and those who are willing to risk electoal defeat to do the right thing.

It's a fight between those who claim that half-a-loaf is the same as no bread, and those who claim that no bread at all, in the short term, is a necessary evil.

The GOP has needed to have this fight for a very long time because it goes to the heart of republican/conservative political philosophy. The unfortunate part is that the people who are in a position to control the terms of the debate are the same people (McConnell, Boehner, McCain, et. al.) who set our rhetorical bakery aflame in the first place.

When you stop to consider the laundry list of stupidity so-called conservatives have helped foist upon us in the last decade or so (CFR, Sarbanes-Oxley, Patriot Act, deficits as far as the eye can see, no Entitlement Reform with control of all three branches, etc), it's no wonder this long-overdue fight is so acrimonious.People are pissed off because the GOP doesn't even pretend to stand for those things it used to hold most dear.

In the long run, it's a fight that's needed, and the GOP will emerge better and stronger because of it.

Assuming we don't go completely bankrupt, first.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


They can never really tell the public exactly what they will do in office on the campaign trail. And when they ideas are are enacted, people hate them.


Because we must have the most open and honest Congress ever…We will drain the swamp in Washington…because Bush has deficit spent us into a serious economic problem…Because a health insurance Mandate is a bad thing….

Garage take a break, your brain has been fried by losing in Madison, and now you’re just grasping at anything….

Oh and We’re going to close Gitmo…We’re going to begin bringing the troops home from Iraq on day 1 and all home within 18 months…we’re going to end military trials…. We’re going to wind down Afghanistan….we’re going to stop merely air striking Pakistan……

Just some of the things the Democrats “won” on in 2006 and 2008….

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

And no surprise, pbAndj tries to change the subject.

edutcher said...

The RINOs worry about being liked, not so much by the electorate as by their friends across the aisle in the Democrat Party.

So they "grow tired of right wing"

Note the union slugs don't hate RINOs.

chickelit said...

Shouldn't we refer to it as "America's Politico"

I think we can all agree that wins the thread.

So how come we never read the headline: "Some in Dem Party grow tired of left wing"?

They do, but they all have to vote R in the dark of night so the union slugs don't slash their tires.

E.M. Davis said...

I really think for Libertarians half the attraction is never having to play defense-any high school debater can see the attraction to that-and getting to throw critiques all around.

It's nice not being beholden to a particular party.

And not having to defend idiots in your midst.

Of course, the actual Libertarian party is incompetent and ridiculous in its own right.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Somewhere I picked up that this new House was the first time since the seventies that the participation of women actually declined. [But, since I don't recall the source (and I'm too lazy to look for it) I can't be sure this is correct.]

If all the women were replaced, we could really have a pissing match..


By which you mean LIBERAL womyn, like Patsy Schoeder…..the fact that Bachman and others womyn, NOT of the right persuasion are prominent is to be ignored….It’s like 1992, it was the Year of the Womon…in 1994 it was the Year of the Angry White man, even though more womyn won office, but they were REPUBLICAN womyn and so they didn’t really count.

Matthew said...

Actually, I think Libertarians have the right mindset, they just apply it to all the wrong issues.

garage mahal said...

Garbage: By whacking spending and getting rid of rule and regulations, they are doing something.

Yea that touches everybody's lives in a profound way doesn't it. If the Koch Brothers are happy, they're happy! The GOP doesn't care about spending, only where that spending goes.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Some on the right and left grow tired of an out of control Democratic Party and its President who refuse to listen to what the people want.

madawaskan said...

Well I do think the first bill that the Tea Party brought up was irresponsible and there is a good reason why-

Colonel West didn't go for it.

You don't get disarmament by unilaterally disarming first-now why do some people think that would that work with the Democrats?

Because Democrats are "friendlies"?


******

Well let's just say if you're anywhere near the military community-one party lets you vote and shit...

So I like to defend them.

Call me crazy.

Thorley Winston said...

Defend Meghan McCardle you know the Libertarian economist that somehow managed to voted for Obama because she was "concerned" about the budget, the US deficit?


Well for starters, Megan McCardle isn’t an economist, she’s a journalist who writes for The Atlantic. As far as her politics, while she has sometimes referred to herself as a “libertarian,” she’s also referred to herself as a registered Democrat who voted for Gore in 2000. As far as her reasons for voting for Obama, I don’t think it had much to do with the budget since McCain was one of the strongest deficit hawks in Congress and there was nothing in Obama’s record to show that he was a serious budget cutter.

blake said...

McMegan isn't much of a libertarian (though she may or may not be a Libertarian).

The Libertarians are much in the way of libertarianism either, if the few (L) sites I saw last election are any indication.

The candidate Mizurowsky might have replaced in Alaska was all about social justice. Social justice and drugs.

Sounds like a God-damned hippie to me.

madawaskan said...

Plus le challenge...

Hoosier Daddy said...

Assuming we don't go completely bankrupt, first

Can’t happen. We just press a button and out comes money. Ask garage, he’ll tell you.

madawaskan said...

I think she calls herself a Libertarian-hell leave that out-she calls herself an "economist" and she...oh forget it.

Coketown said...

Where was Politico's story about "some" Democrats becoming disillusioned between 2008 and 2010? Oh...right. They're doing like a thing, with a narrative. More left-wing puff pieces. They need to understand that "some" of any group doing something is never a story. Example: "After earthquake, some Japanese still playing bocce ball."

TMink said...

Politico has always been lefty. They just hid it a tad better. I have not been there in 18 months.

Trey

E.M. Davis said...

Some on internet grow tired of Politico.



WV: Undra. Oh no! The Russians have finally run out of T.

Chip S. said...

Better version of the headline:

"Some in GOP grow tired of
fiscal reality
."

Quaestor said...

There's a really fancy country club for Republicans who've grow weary of the right wing.

AJ Lynch said...

Megan McArdle is way over-rated by Insty. IMO I suspect she lacks real world [specifically work] experience. As a result, many of her recommendations are unrealistic like when she might suggest people save 25% of their income. As if, the average Joe or Jane even has that much left over after paying the bills, etc.

On the other hand, she is very smart and she has the passion and confidence [even when mistaken] of a future talking head.

former law student said...

Some on the right and left grow tired of an out of control Democratic Party and its President who refuse to listen to...

...Sean Hannity.

My ego is as strong as anyone's but I don't think of my desires as "what the people want."

Quaestor said...

The Russian have run out of T!!!

Instead of _zar, we now spell it Zar! (Hell bells, what's the difference?)

blake said...

McMegan doesn't EVER claim to be an economist. She goes out of her way to make sure everyone knows that, when the topic comes up.

I think she can't quite fully buy into liberalism so she uses libertarianism as a cover. That's okay with the left, since libertarians are politically impotent.

But she'll engage in (what, as a libertarian, I would consider) stupid debates about things that start by presuming all the liberal "truths", and wrestle with tough issues like whether the government should take 38% or 40% of your money.

Maguro said...

I love McArdle's blog, there are some epic choo-choo threads over there. Puts our little HSR arguments to shame.

garage, if you're reading this, check this out - a 921 comment choo-choo thread. Yowza!

Unfortunately, the Atlantic's commenting system sucks, but there's some good stuff in there.

blake said...

True dat, Maguro.

Also, despite the dorky blog photo, MM is actually rather elegant looking and not at all ungainly on video.

madawaskan said...

AJ

She voted for Obama. Yet before that she was concerned about the budget. A lot of things can be said about McCain but if your biggest concern was the deficit McCain was good on that.

What a lot of people forget is that with a McCain vote you would have had Republicans in all the administrative slots on down.


A lot of people are flabbergasted at Obama's indecisiveness.

Who's to say that isn't a result of a real lack of people with experience in Obama's Administration not just Obama's own inexperience.

What's Hillary's credentials to be Secretary of State?

Go on down the list the resumes look like they should be CEOs of banks.

Richard Holbrooke had some crisis management/ real world experience-(unlike Meghan McCardle has- I think your observation is dead on) but Richard Holbrooke is gone.

Who else does Obama have with that kind of experience?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





Obama is a snappy dresser and has quite the pants leg crease….he has the Presidential temperament…Sheeesh you ‘baggers don’t even read David Brooks do you?

madawaskan said...

Wow.... hmmm I always thought she was-an economist-she sure blogs like she might be.

To tell you the truth as soon as I saw that she somehow rationalized voting for Obama even though supposedly getting the economic arguments...

Just what is her background?

Maguro has set me right before.

Hell I got all freaked out by Taranto's "we" thing ...

Revenant said...

How about this Rev- Defend Meghan McCardle you know the Libertarian economist that somehow managed to voted for Obama because she was "concerned" about the budget, the US deficit?

Her blog allows comments. Why don't you go over there and ask her yourself?

My recollection is that it was more a matter of voting against McCain than of voting for Obama. I can identify with that, even though that's not how I ended up voting. Like I've said many times, the only good thing about Obama winning is that McCain lost.

madawaskan said...

Joe

LOL!

****

I do think blogs get too insular and assume people know the background.

Ever go to another blog and all the commenters are talking about some three year old battle they've had with each other or another blog and it's like reading hieroglyphics or somethin'.

Hell hieroglyphics wold be easier because at least you'd have pictures.

madawaskan said...

Rev

Her blog allows comments. Why don't you go over there and ask her yourself?

Deflection.

See..you did as I predicted.

Own a Libertarian damn it.

Hell you don't even have to defend anything historical past two days yet you're all "go ask her yourself"..

I see the unfair advantage /beauty that you see in it-and it's half the allure.

Revenant said...

Actually, I think Libertarians have the right mindset, they just apply it to all the wrong issues.

That's quite wrong. It is just that on "all the right issues" -- i.e., the ones on which Republicans and/or Democrats agree with us -- we just get called "conservatives" or "liberals".

E.g., when I grouse about the deficit, all the leftie dolts here call me a conservative. When I support gay marriage or abortion rights, the right-wing dolts here call me a liberal. We're noticed only when we disagree with a mainstream political group WITHOUT agreeing with the other mainstream political group.

Henry said...

@Rev -- I'm with you on that.

@Mad -- McArdle has an MBA and a lot of business experience. I think that's generally why she cuts through the theoretical musings of academic economists like Krugman. She's generally liberal on social issues and no doctrinaire on economic ones.

Given the awfulness of McCain and the manifest spending problems with the Bush presidency (up through & including TARP) I'm willing to give folks a pass on voting for Obama.

madawaskan said...

Well Rev let me ask you this-

In times like these who does Obama have to rely on-go look at the lack of depth in certain areas....

McCain was not simply a vote for McCain or even Palin it was a vote for Republican appointments with real world experience in a lot of different areas.

The lack of Democrat experience in crisis management could really end up being -

disastrous.

General Jones is gone. Holbrooke is dead, and what is Hillary's experience-managing Bill?

No wonder Obama is indecisive.

Oligonicella said...

garage mahal --

"If the Koch Brothers are happy, they're happy!"

Awk! Wheeewhoo! Koch Brothers! Wheewho! Koch Brothers! Awk!

madawaskan said...

Well to not give credit to McCain for actual documented efforts towards controlling spending in favor of the trackless Obama unicorn provider is-dare I say it-reckless.

Revenant said...

Deflection.

Whatever. Like I said, if you want to know, go ask her. Asking me to defend her is stupid, since I neither shared her voting preference nor remember why she held them.

Own a Libertarian damn it.

She's responsible for how she voted. I am not. The fact that personal responsibility confuses you is one reason why you're a Republican and I am not.

madawaskan said...

Henry

Cripes a third grader could cut through Krugman.

Well I can tell when I'm getting flanked and /or surrounded by McCurdle lovers-so I surender cuz I'm just enough Frrrwwwwanch like that.

Yikes!

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Garage:
"They(GOP) can never really tell the public exactly what they will do in office on the campaign trail. And when they ideas are are enacted, people hate them."

Nancy Pelosi:(fluttering eyes) "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

madawaskan said...

Shoot saw Rev's comment on publish-

Ya basically I'm trying to let you know what it's like to be attacked by Libertarians.

You've got a lot of built in advantages.

No Libertarian has ever had to handle a war, or economic crisis-it's all hypothetical.

Being a Libertarian means never being responsible.

Notice how you did that?

Yes being responsible is part of growing up.

shoutingthomas said...

Some is more than one, right?

So, how does one equal some?

Damn those Republicans? When are they going to stop being conservatives?

Henry said...

Cripes a third grader could cut through Krugman.

True, and it never gets old.

Maguro said...

McArdle is basically a liberal who understands economics and therefore holds heretical views on issues like high speed rail and wind power.

Her analysis of that type of technical/economic issue is really quite good and she's got some very smart commenters there too, along with the usual assortment of kooks and trolls.

She's a bleeding heart liberal about things like waterboarding and *sob* poor little Bradley Manning, but there's always a lively discussion in the comments.

Overall, I think her blog is one of the most informative ones out there.

Just my two cents.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

madawaskan said...

Defend Meghan McCardle you know the Libertarian economist that somehow managed to voted for Obama because she was "concerned" about the budget, the US deficit?

I know, I know you don't have to.
See that's half the attraction!


One of the great things about being a liberaterian is you never have to defend a fellow liberaterian when they say something you disagree with.

One of the great things about being a Republican is you never have to defend a fellow Republican when they say something you disagree with.

Same with being a Democrat.

Sometimes it sucks to be a partisan hack, no matter what your party.

John Burgess said...

I've voted Republican for going on 50 years. I'm certainly ready to cast the right wing off, condemning it to the same Hell as the left wing.

I imagine Kos + Wesboro Baptist Church would form an excellent Hell.

madawaskan said...

OK let me change it you never have to defend realities.

Libertarianism has never been tested we have to take it on your "faith" that it works.

Thorley Winston said...

Given the awfulness of McCain and the manifest spending problems with the Bush presidency (up through & including TARP) I'm willing to give folks a pass on voting for Obama.


That doesn’t really make sense since McCain, unlike Obama, routinely challenged the Bush administration and his own party on spending issues. If one’s a spending hawk, it doesn’t make sense to vote for the candidate whose criticism of the Bush administration boils down to “he didn’t INVEST enough in social spending” over the guy who had the integrity to tell voters in the Iowa primary that he opposed ethanol subsidies.

John Burgess said...

And just for giggles, look who gets talked about most, 1990-2008:

Google Ngram

Hoosier Daddy said...

Megan McArdle is way over-rated by Insty. IMO I suspect she lacks real world [specifically work] experience.

I agree. Her articles sound more like theory lectures than anything that resembles reality.

Thorley Winston said...

I imagine Kos + Wesboro Baptist Church would form an excellent Hell.

I would imagine that Markos “Screw them” Moulitsas would get along famously with fellow Democrats who protest military funerals.

Henry said...

@Thorley. I understand all your arguments and argued them in the past. I one who held my nose and voted for McCain.

I give him credit for being a budget hawk. But in my opinion he's also an economic illiterate and an erratic personality given to moral grandstanding (McCain-Feingold for example). His performance during the TARP debacle was embarrassing.

But really, I'm just not into the who-voted-for-who litmus test. People choose for and against Presidential candidates for a host of reasons. And since only one candidate becomes president we can only theorize how the other would have done.

Matthew said...

Rev said:

"E.g., when I grouse about the deficit, all the leftie dolts here call me a conservative. When I support gay marriage or abortion rights, the right-wing dolts here call me a liberal. We're noticed only when we disagree with a mainstream political group WITHOUT agreeing with the other mainstream political group."

Actually, I'd call you an "opportunist" or "fence-sitter" (I know the fashionable term is "independant")-- because neither "liberal" or "conservative" actually mean they once did -- and my terms would probably be closer to the truth. Libertarians are people who like to keep their options so wide open you could drive a semi through them.

That's so you can never pin them down on anything, or so that they can change like chamelons when that becomes necessary. It's all about avoiding responsibility or accountability to beyond one's self.

As for having the right mindset, Libertarians are at least being fair and honest when they wish to absolve everyone else from having to choose sides, or accept responsibility for certain things two inches past their own nose, too.

A return to the state of the primacy of the individual rather than that of the collective would be a breath of fresh air in American life. Everyone would like to be left alone by their government, no?

Where you begin lose me is when some of you start to get into the weeds on legalizing vice and advocate turning every situation in public life into an intellectual, overly-legalistic, wholly-unworkable web of private individuals and contracted vendors.

Thorley Winston said...

@Henry – fair enough, I hope it didn’t come across like I was trying to pick on you. I agree that McCain (while I agreed with him on a lot of policy issues) ran an awful campaign particularly suspending it to vote for TARP and treating his opponent with kid gloves. I think we both made the right call and for the right reasons.


If we’re going to avoid a repeat of 2008 next year, we need to (a) have a much better candidate and (b) get people to vote with their brains rather their emotions which seemed to be Obama’s draw. (a) is outside our control for the moment but for (b) I think we can move the ball in the right direction by focusing people’s minds on the issues rather than the personalities.

chickelit said...

@madawaskan: "McCurdle" LOL!

Carol_Herman said...

Okay. So we've had a stop-gap vote. Without changing the dynamics. Meaning there will be more battles ahead.

While across this nation there's been a "culture shift." (The last one was in the 1960s). This time there's a shift RIGHT. Politicians who don't catch this one, accurately, are usually set adrift.

Since there are 435 members in the House. And, the republicans just swept in with a 60+ majority ... My guess is that they're going to try and hold onto their lead.

2012 puts the whole House up again. (TWO YEAR SEATS). When Nancy Pelosi won her Speaker's seat (2008, I think.) She thought she'd be in that office for a longer period of time than it was held by Newt Gingrich. SHE WAS WRONG.

Politics has been throwing curve balls.

Obama, it seems, has been losing favor! He was supposed to be the HOPE & CHANGE guy who promised he'd go out and campaign for others. You think this is a role for him, ahead?

People don't remember Reagan. Back then, Tip O'Neil was in da' House. He said the FEAR of Reagan was so great! Because House members didn't want him "talking over their heads" directly To The People.

Who has that kind of clout, now?

Phil 3:14 said...

fls;
So how come we never read the headline: "Some in Dem Party grow tired of left wing"?

Everybody likes Dennis Kucinich.


You aren't really suggesting that Kucinich is the only liberal/left wing in the party are you?

See here. The ADA didn't even given Dennis 100%. Now note all of those with 100%. The big question would be who are the "dissenters" in the Democratic Party, the left wing or the Blue Dogs?

Phil 3:14 said...

I've voted Republican for going on 50 years. I'm certainly ready to cast the right wing off, condemning it to the same Hell as the left wing.

I imagine Kos + Wesboro Baptist Church would form an excellent Hell.


Can we once and for all dispel the myth that Westboro Baptist is "right wing" They are nothing; not Republican, not Conservative. Hell they're even disowned by the Religious Right. Tell you what, I grant you that in spite of some of his statements Lyndon LaRouche is not Democract or liberal; he's just crazy. Will you now say the same about Westboro Baptist.

Try to get past the notion that someone labelled "Christian" and who uses the word "fag" is a conservative Christian.

Pogo said...

Like Peggy Noonan, Megan McArdle fell in love with the inchoate idea of BH Obama.

As a result, I really can't give anything they write too much weight.

Yeah, I know Althouse did the same, though hers seemed more a vote against McCain. (Nevertheless, I was heartsick considering the future we faced.)

McArdle and Noonan were swooning.

deborah said...

"McArdle and Noonan were swooning."

I remember La Noonan swooning before and after, but don't recall McCardle doing so. On Blogging Heads, she stated that she said she was terrified, or the like, of a McCain presidency.

chickelit said...

On Blogging Heads, she stated that she said she was terrified, or the like, of a McCain presidency.

"terrified"? Really?

McArdle does seem a priori like the type who would be terrified of McCain's running mate.

Perhaps she was just under the influence of her erstwhile colleague.

chickelit said...

@deborah: Every time I look at your avi I'm reminded of an animal with white antlers.

Anybody else?

chickelit said...

@Pogo: It's too bad about Peggy Noonan. She's kinda like the Linus Pauling of speechwriters.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"I imagine Kos + Wesboro Baptist Church would form an excellent Hell."

The thought of spending an eternity with these two will make a believer out of anybody.

Jeremy said...

The teabagger morons here are still blathering on about the Wesboro Baptist Church?

Good lord...

BJM said...

Intentionally or not, Obama created the perception of a leadership vacuum which the MSM and fellow travelers rush to fill, lest he look weak.

Ironically they're making him look worse with their sycophantic keening and moronic blathering.

The POTUS has three choices; lead, follow or get out of the way. I think Obama has chosen the latter, to let events run their course, lift a finger to find the prevailing wind, trim and tack into the 2012 season.

It's a risky tactic as any number of unknowns could steal his wind or a newcomer float the spinnaker.

BJM said...

@Chickelit

Me too...it catches my eye every time, even though I know it's a kitteh.

deborah said...

chick and BJM, I see what you mean...

Revenant said...

Libertarianism has never been tested we have to take it on your "faith" that it works.

Individual libertarian policies -- free trade, low taxes, minimal government, laissez faire capitalism, free speech, elimination of victimless crimes, etc -- have been tried, with considerable success.

But yes, we do take it "on faith" that if you try a whole bunch of successful policies simultaneously, they will still be successful. You've got us dead to rights there. :)

E.M. Davis said...

Everybody likes Dennis Kucinich.

Like the family pet?

E.M. Davis said...

Libertarians are people who like to keep their options so wide open you could drive a semi through them.

Bullshit. We're principled.

Dear Government, leave us alone.

Revenant said...

"terrified"? Really?

McArdle does seem a priori like the type who would be terrified of McCain's running mate.

What is so confusing about a McCain presidency being terrifying to a libertarian?

McCain's only consistent political position is this: the government should have more power, and people should be more loyal to it. He has no interest in individual rights, no interest in controlling the size of government, and absolutely no interest at ALL in the notion of the Constitution limiting the powers of the federal government.

Now, I personally voted for the worthless son of a bitch anyway. Despite the fact that if he ran up to me on fire I couldn't be bothered to piss on him and put out the flames, it still seemed to me that Obama was worse.

But that was by no means a given. Given a choice between a person who is 100% guaranteed to be an atrocious President and a person who is 95% likely to be an even worse President... I can see gambling on that 5% chance. If you know the country is fucked regardless, why not take a chance on the long shot.

deborah said...

I voted for McCain partially because I didn't think he'd be as bad as everyone was saying, and I didn't think Obama would be as good as everyone was saying.

Matthew said...

E.M. I've hardly ever met a Libertarian who wasn't a rich, upwardly-mobile snob with a drug habit who just didn't want to be left alone to debauch as he saw fit.

Maybe the twenty or so I knew (that would be a local chapter of the NY State Libertarian Party) are just the wrong ones? Then again, they asked me to join their little coven, so maybe there's something to that famous maxim:

"I would never want to be associated with a group that would have me as a member".

I only attended their meetings because the adult beverages were free, and free-flowing, and quite yummy.

Oh, and their pet peeve was to get an intiative on the ballot to allow the citizens of NYC to 'opt out' of public safety services, to be replaced with privately-contracted law enforcement and fire protection services. The idea being that if you weren't using taxpayer-supported services, you should, theorhetically, pay less in taxes.

Of course, one of the proponents just happened to own a large, private security service...

Just sayin'.

Revenant said...

That's so you can never pin them down on anything, or so that they can change like chamelons when that becomes necessary.

We are consistent in what we want and in what we believe. We are inconsistent in which party we support because neither party is consistent in what IT supports and believes.

Oh, both parties are consistent in what they SAY they believe, sure. The Republicans are consistent in saying they want smaller government and fewer restrictions on business, the Democrats are consistent in saying they want greater individual freedom and less government meddling in private lives.

The problem, of course, is that both parties are lying about that. Small government is not important to the Republican Party, and individual rights are not important to Democrats.

PaulV said...

The title should be
"The People are tired of Democrats and threw bums out Nov. 2010"
64 House seats, 6 Senators, bunch of governors and whole host of state legislature. Tea Party discipline Republicans first and threw Democrats out on their asses.

Matthew said...

Corrction: "...who just wanted to beleft alone to debauch as he saw fit..."

Sorry!

Matthew said...

Oh, I agree with you vis-a-vis D's and R's, Rev. It just that once you peel back the veneer of personal liberty-this and personal-liberty that, it's apparent that a Libertarian is:

a) A Fiscal Conservative, and
b) A Social Liberal

It's just that neither party fully scratches all of their particular itches.

Revenant said...

A libertarian is a person who generally favors individual liberty over societal needs. Most make an exception for things which cannot feasibly be accomplished except by a government, e.g. police and military.

"Economic conservative and social liberal" isn't really a good summary of that, especially since it implies that libertarians actually want to DO the things they think should be legal. I have no desire to own a business that forbids black people from patronizing it, and I have no desire to shoot heroin. I just think it is wrong for the government to ban those things.

Matthew said...

I'm not running you down, Revenant, I happen to agree with you, in principle, I just don't think the system you advocate is workable.

Not that government intervention in every aspect of life is any better, or cheaper.

Of course,as soon as I say "workable", I'll hear "but we've never tried it..." but to these tired old ears that sounds very much like the people who still insist that a Communism system can work...if only you find the RIGHT Communists to run it.

Any disagreement, such as it is, is between theory and practice.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Matthew,

I heard a quip I never forgot, because it absolutely describes my experience: "I thought I was a libertarian. Then I met some Libertarians."

I don't think the party (big L) represents a very large set of people who describe themselves as libertarians (small l).

chickelit said...

Me too...it catches my eye every time, even though I know it's a kitteh.

It's great avi, and crystal clear when enlarged.
I think my l'oeils are tromped because it's upside down.

Henry said...

I voted for McCain because Congress was majority Democrat. I might have voted for Obama if the Republicans held both houses. Checks and balances and all that.

I don't think anyone who voted for Obama thought he would be as awful as he has been. I think a few people thought he'd push some of the social liberal ideas that Democrats talk about in election seasons and forget about the rest of the time. Well other than the end of DADT Obama's been true to form.

But the biggest reason he has been so awful is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in power. No matter who was president the Pelosi-Reid majorities spelled disaster.

Certainly McCain would have provided a little bit more pushback to Congress and the establishment than Obama. On domestic issues he deferred to Pelosi. Thus Obamacare. On national security he deferred to the establishment. Thus Guantanamo is still open (fine by me).

Why does he seem so passive and indecisive now? He was always passive. But now he doesn't have Pelosi giving him his agenda.

chickelit said...

@revenant: So how come McArdle couldn't see that 5% difference? I still suspect she was a closet Palin loather & that accounts for her temporary swoon.

BTW, I would up the percentage difference to more than 5%. I've immersing myself in the naval aviation centennial lately and perhaps I'm too inclined to give John McCain a pass where others refuse to do so.

Revenant said...

Of course,as soon as I say "workable", I'll hear "but we've never tried it..." but to these tired old ears that sounds very much like the people who still insist that a Communism system can work...if only you find the RIGHT Communists to run it.

What does it mean to say that libertarianism has never been tried? Do you mean "recently"? Or do you think that things like welfare, social security, large federal police forces, high tax rates, drug laws, and a criminal code that runs to thousands of pages have been with us since the dawn of time?

What libertarians are agitating for is, essentially, a government much like that of the early United States, but inhabited by 21st century Americans. Maybe that wouldn't work... but it worked pretty well for 18th century Americans. Are people really so inherently different now that they can't handle that level of individual freedom?

Revenant said...

@revenant: So how come McArdle couldn't see that 5% difference? I still suspect she was a closet Palin loather & that accounts for her temporary swoon.

Er... you misunderstand me. McCain was the person guaranteed to be horrible. After 25 years of open hostility to individual rights -- including the greatest violation of free speech rights in our lifetime, McCain-Feingold -- there was no possible cause for hope there.

Obama's political resume was essentially nonexistent, which left open the oh so slight possibility that he'd just been blowing smoke up the Left's ass in order to get elected. That's the 5% chance of non-horribleness.

Personally I voted for the lesser evil. He lost anyway, but I can't say I was all broken up about it.

blake said...

>>No Libertarian has ever had to handle a war, or economic crisis-it's all hypothetical.<<

I assume you mean that capital L sincerely, considering Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison were all libertarians.

chickelit said...

@revenant. Wait, what you're saying is that Obama was an uncertainy. If that's true, and also that there was at least a 5% chance that he'd be better than McCain, then I believe it follows that there was corresponding chance that he'd be 5% worse than McCain (symmetry arguments).

Personally, I don't buy the uncertainty argument. We shouldn't roll dice with the Presidency.

Revenant said...

I assume you mean that capital L sincerely, considering Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison were all libertarians.

Regarding handling economic crises, I would also point to Hong Kong. Between 1961 and 1997 it weathered quite a few local and global economic crises while growing its per-capital GDP by 8700%.

And it did that "despite" having minimal taxation and government regulation of the economy. Don't tell me it hasn't been tried. It has been tried all over the place, to resounding success.

Henry said...

We shouldn't roll dice with the Presidency.

We always roll dice with the Presidency.

deborah said...

chick:

"@revenant: So how come McArdle couldn't see that 5% difference? I still suspect she was a closet Palin loather & that accounts for her temporary swoon."

If I work up the gumption, I'll make you a bhtv clip; she was quite concerned about McCain. How she felt about, Palin, I can't recall...the McCain concern might have been also related to her pick of Palin. How she talked about Palin on her blog, I don't know, as I don't read it.

On the other hand, I seem to recall her taking a negative stance, going along with Marc Kleiman, on a diavlog, when they were discussing Palin unfairly cutting the Alaska budget for some pregnant mothers' home...which may have been incorrect on their part.

PS: the cat is not upside down...that's the angle I took the picture from!

Henry said...

To God in Heaven I wish we'd had a libertarian handling this past economic crisis. I wish we'd had Calvin Coolidge instead of George W. Hoover and Franklin Delano Obama.

chickelit said...

We always roll dice with the Presidency.

Yes, I take your point. But not deliberately, in the sense that revenant reasoned.

Revenant said...

If that's true, and also that there was at least a 5% chance that he'd be better than McCain, then I believe it follows that there was corresponding chance that he'd be 5% worse than McCain (symmetry arguments).

A 95% chance he'd be worse than McCain.

Metaphorically, think of it like this: one guy has a 100% of beating you with a tire iron. The other guy has a 95% chance of having a pack of SEIU activists collectively beat you with tire irons, but a 5% chance of letting you off with nothing but a swift kick in the ass.

Who do you pick? Tough call.

pbAndj said...

"but it worked pretty well for 18th century Americans"

According to Brink or Glenn (I don't recall which one, but I think Brink) in that last BHTV thing Althouse partially excerpted yesterday, In 1900 six percent of Americans graduated from high school and a quarter of a percent graduated from a college.

What was good for the 18th and 19th centuries isn't good enough for the 21st.

Revenant said...

I wish we'd had Calvin Coolidge instead of George W. Hoover and Franklin Delano Obama.

Preach on, brother Henry. I feel the spirit movin' me! :)

chickelit said...

PS: the cat is not upside down...that's the angle I took the picture from!

I know that. But it still looks upside down at a cursory glance. It looks like a leaping reindeer!

blake said...

Or to rephrase it, suppose you had to vote for either a Turd Sandwich or a Giant Douche...

wv: sithead

As in "Anakin was a sithead".

chickelit said...

So in essence you're saying that McCain would definitely, at this point in time, be worse than Obama.

That's borderline Cedarford/Althouse argumentation.
_____________________
wv = "waguar" fancy British sports car for fops.

Revenant said...

In 1900 six percent of Americans graduated from high school and a quarter of a percent graduated from a college.

I don't see the connection between government and percentage of Americans with a high school diploma and/or a college degree.

It seems to me it is a function of our wealth and the distribution of the labor force. In 1900 we were the third-richest country in the world, but our population was still (a) overwhelmingly engaged in manual labor of one kind of another and (b) overwhelmingly poor by modern standards.

That changed because our economy grew and matured -- and THAT happened despite the government, not because of it. :)

deborah said...

"I know that. But it still looks upside down at a cursory glance. It looks like a leaping reindeer!"

I get ya, but it still looks like bunny rabbit feet to me.

Revenant said...

So in essence you're saying that McCain would definitely, at this point in time, be worse than Obama.

No.

pbAndj said...

"and THAT happened despite the government, not because of it. :)"

Of course it did.


I'm sure you sincerely wish that we'd go back to the good old days of the eighteenth century, except w/ all of the positive attributes of our current greatness, which would have been even greater if we'd stuck w/ the 18th century model of gov.

I get it, I was a self-described libertarian too, but for some reason I've developed a less pure/certain (aka more complicated) POV that is incompatible w/ your thinking. Even so, I can't say that I regret trading in certitude for....whatever it is I have in it's place.

Revenant said...

for some reason I've developed a less pure/certain (aka more complicated) POV that is incompatible w/ your thinking.

That would probably be a much more impressive statement if you were known for your your nuanced opinions as opposed to, say, your persistent trolling. :)

chickelit said...

revenant said...No.

OK, I'll try this. People who continue to say that they they voted for Obama because they thought there was a chance that he would be better than McCain should be honest and admit that there was also a chance that Obama would be worse than McCain. They should admit that they gambled--and lost the "he might be better odds." Otherwise, I think they're maintaining the hypothetical that McCain would have been worse all along--even now, or, they think Obama will pull through and improve. I'm pretty sure that Cedarford would maintain both, Palin-loather that he is--even though I pointed out to him over a year ago that that would be harder and harder to do as time goes forward.

And of course it's just better to ask who would be better than Obama in 2012.

former law student said...

Damn those Republicans? When are they going to stop being conservatives?

See, Republicans weren't always conservative. Teddy Roosevelt was Republican. Wisconsin's own "Fighting Bob" LaFollette was Republican.

former law student said...

Ah-nuld isn't conservative, either.

former law student said...


You aren't really suggesting that Kucinich is the only liberal/left wing in the party are you?


The only one with a national profile.

See here. The ADA didn't even given Dennis 100%. Now note all of those with 100%.

Ha! All those bills were too compromised for a left-winger to vote for!. Tax cuts? Money for wars in the Middle East? No federal funds for abortion? R U kidding?

Revenant said...

See, Republicans weren't always conservative. Teddy Roosevelt was Republican.

Republicans were liberal back when Democrats were conservative. Sure, they could switch places again. They probably will, eventually.

But what people really mean when they say "I wish the Republicans wouldn't pay so much attention to the right wing" is "I wish that a third of Americans were completely excluded from American politics". Because you certainly aren't planning to give those folks a home in the Democratic Party anytime soon.

pbAndj said...

"That would probably be a much more impressive statement if..."

Really?

Regardless of the source, It would seem like self-reverential BS, lamely posing as well considered insight.

But, I guess you have lower standards than I do.

Revenant said...

Really?

No, not really... I'd pretty much just dismiss you then, too.

X-Ray Tetra said...

No, not really... I'd pretty much just dismiss you then, too.
Boo boo hoo.

bagoh20 said...

If your home annual budget was $50,000, this is equal to cutting $79 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. One month's cable TV bill. It would do nothing to help your family out of a financial hole.

It's silly, unserious, and tone deaf. If you don't have the courage to make real cuts, then you are just unqualified for office at this time in history. Sorry, you need to go now. Clean out your desk, sir.

pbAndj said...

Rev,

Dismissing all the self-reverential BS, lamely posing as well considered insight around here wouldn't leave much to read.

And, perfectly considered and considerate folks are boring anyway.

vbspurs said...

Actually, I think Libertarians have the right mindset, they just apply it to all the wrong issues.

Genius, Matthew.

vbspurs said...

John Burgess wrote:

I imagine Kos + Wesboro Baptist Church would form an excellent Hell.

Now that is a ring of Hell I wouldn't want even Dante to imagine.

vbspurs said...

I love McArdle's blog, there are some epic choo-choo threads over there. Puts our little HSR arguments to shame.

Her commenters are people I learn from, Maguro. It's like commenters here -- and it's what keeps me coming back.

vbspurs said...

For the record, Politico keeps me guessing about their actual political tilt. Sure, it's left-wing. But it's not left-wing ENOUGH.

Revenant said...

If your home annual budget was $50,000, this is equal to cutting $79 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. One month's cable TV bill.

It's even worse than that. It is more like: your household income is $50,000, but you're spending $74,804 a year. But after weeks of arguing with your spouse over the budget, during which he or she predicts total catastrophe if you forgo even one dollar of spending, you compromise on a yearly spending budget of... $74,777.

Oh goody. Now everything will be fine. Thank goodness your family realized it needed to budget responsibly.

Phil 3:14 said...

FLS;
You aren't really suggesting that Kucinich is the only liberal/left wing in the party are you?

The only one with a national profile.


I mean, no one has heard of Nancy Pelosi, or Henry Waxman or Alan Grayson (now gone) or Steny Hoyer or Barney Frank or Anthony Weiner or Charley Rangel. I'll skip going over the Senate.

I guess we do lose perspective after awhile

E.M. Davis said...

E.M. I've hardly ever met a Libertarian who wasn't a rich, upwardly-mobile snob with a drug habit who just didn't want to be left alone to debauch as he saw fit.


Ha. You obviously met somewhat organized Libertarians.

You need to meet more, non-organized? disorganized? ones.

Opting out of public safety services is an absurd premise. Even if you're not consciously using the services of the police, you're still getting some basic services as a member of a community whether you like it or not.

It just strikes me as highly inefficent, much like firing all of the teachers everytime a new Governor might be elected.

E.M. Davis said...

Are people really so inherently different now that they can't handle that level of individual freedom?

No, save for the fact that the government has done a pretty good job of selling their indispensability to a good portion of the electorate over the past century.

Revenant said...

Sad but true, E.M.

former law student said...

I mean, no one has heard of Nancy Pelosi, or Henry Waxman or Alan Grayson (now gone) or Steny Hoyer or Barney Frank or Anthony Weiner or Charley Rangel. I'll skip going over the Senate.

Moderates, sell-outs. Barney Frank comes closest to being left-wing.

I guess we do lose perspective after awhile

Move to Madison.