January 30, 2012

"They're trying to crucify this man...."

Delving into a presidential candidate's record and criticizing him vigorously is crucifixion?

How about the way we failed — back in 2008 — to delve into Obama's record and failed to criticize him?

Here's a clue: Get yourself perceived as The Messiah and the good people of the United States of America will refrain from crucifying you.

221 comments:

1 – 200 of 221   Newer›   Newest»
Joe said...

Always look on the bright side of life...

Original Mike said...

"How about the way we failed — back in 2008 — to delve into Obama's record and failed to criticize him?"

We???? Don't nail that on me.

Petunia said...

Not "we". The mainstream media and the millions of people who allowed themselves to be duped by the Obama campaign.

John Stodder said...

Palin is yesterday's gal. She burned brightly for a little while, but sometimes the Charlie Gibsons of the world aren't wrong. Her rant for Newt is almost as embarrassing as Newt's own ravings of the past week.

He's accusing Romney of "lies," without citing one factual inaccuracy. She's joining in. They're both overlooking the fact that bona fide conservatives, people whose credentials never get doubted in the way Romney's do (like Tom Coburn), are as scathing in their assessment of Gingrich as the supposed "establishment."

Moreover, how do either of them see this type of campaigning, this constant self-pity and victimization, as attracting voters? I do think the pity pot sort of worked for Newt in SC, in particular the crying about John King and ABC. But that's a trick you can play once. What has Gingrich said lately that would tell you what kind of campaign he would run against Obama, or how he would govern. No, it's all about that mean old Romney.

It is what it is. Gingrich is coming off as the old man, an old man full of spite and regrets. If he really doesn't want Romney to win, the only decent thing he could do is drop out and endorse Santorum, who is a legitimate and worthy adversary for Romney. Instead, he's sinking both of them. And taking Palin with him by prompting her to this baseless and stupid attack.

Scott M said...

Here's a clue: Get yourself perceived as The Messiah and the good people of the United States of America will refrain from crucifying you.

That statement is like a Mobius strip of double meanings.

bagoh20 said...

Very simple: refuse to vote for anyone who has not been properly vetted. Would you hire the only applicant for a job who didn't have a resume? You can only assume that stuff being hidden has got to be bad.

Those who voted for Obama, lowered the bar on our politics and politicians, and that was worse than electing a bad President. In fact, if we luck out and he ends up being a good President, that damage is even worse. His failure is needed now to return people to healthy skepticism. That vote was simply weak and short sighted, and the justification - which I do understand - does not cover it .

Henry said...

It's very very very very very very very hard for me pity for Newt Gingrich. "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."

Alex said...

I am giving an in-kind contribution to Palin, eat me.

Andy R. said...

What part of Obama's record wasn't adequately explored? His birth certificate? His Kenyan anti-colonial worldview?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... How about the way we failed..."

Whose 'we'?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... What part of Obama's record wasn't adequately explored?.."

Andy makes an excellent point. There simply wasn't much of a record to explore.

garage mahal said...

How about the way we failed — back in 2008 — to delve into Obama's record and failed to criticize him?

It's never too late! Drudge has a big scoop on Michelle Obama's panties. Somebody's got to do it.

Palladian said...

Palin is Yoko to Newt's John. They're going to be eating chocolate cake in a bag pretty soon.

Palladian said...

Michelle's panties contain far more than one big scoop, Garage.

Andy R. said...

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

EMD said...

Here's a clue: Get yourself perceived as The Messiah and the good people of the United States of America will refrain from crucifying you.

The question is: who are the Sanhedrin and who is Pontius Pilate?

EMD said...

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

McCain never fully articulated a cohesive vision for the future of the country. He was as bad of a presidential candidate as I've ever seen.

Obama built a cult following out of blame and platitudes.

Bender said...

Here's a clue: Get yourself perceived as The Messiah and the good people of the United States of America will refrain from crucifying you.

The establishment -- as well as those in the mushy middle who claim to be former libs mugged by reality, but who nevertheless voted Obama, and will likely vote for him again because their residual kneejerk antipathy for conservatives exceeds their disgust at liberals -- have annointed Romney as the nation's savior.

Is that why Romney is to be exempted from deep scrutiny, and any defects (including those which are gross disqualifications for the office) are to be excused and dismisssed out of hand?

DADvocate said...

Newt's doing his own share of driving nails. The bright side is that the Dems will have a hard time coming up with new assaults on whomever the Republican nominee is, and I hope it's not Newt.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama


That's funny.

Which voter has seen Obama's medical records or any academic transcripts?

Why then did media members make it a point to not discuss Reverend Wright?

Oh, I know.

You're lying. That's why.

Christian said...

Well, we can be sure the Messiah wouldn't cheat on his wife, marry his adulterous co-conspirator, then cheat on her, and marry the next one.

I suppose Palin would have a point if she said it was like they were dragging Gingrich out in the field and stoning him....

In general she has a lot in common with Newt. They both resigned, and quit on the job. Newt resigned because of scandal and it was very likely a deal where he agreed to resigned to save face from them really destroying him with his ethical issues. I now wonder if it's the same for Palin -- the Democrats in Alaska gave her a choice to resign or be brought down in scandal.

mccullough said...

Obama presented himself as a pragmatic moderate liberal. But his sparse record showed him to be someone with no proven leadership skills and someone who voted present and who was lazy, though bright.

Palin has demonstrated she is a celebrity fool who is also lazy and is not bright.

Newt is bright and lazy like Obama, but also has no discipline and is erratic.

Romney is bright, hard-working, disciplined, and boring.

This election will be Romney's to lose.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Drudge has a big scoop on Michelle Obama's panties.


Which is what one says when they can't bring themseleves to criticize the fact that a whole street was closed so the first lady can spend $50,000 shopping.

bridgecross said...

"How about: his history of drug use in prep school, and history of low grades ..."

Now now, Bush is gone. Lay off the man.

DADvocate said...

Drudge has a big scoop on Michelle Obama's panties.

That's better than a big scoop IN Michelle Obama's panties.

She spent more than my annual take home pay. Democrats - the party of the rich people. Where's my cake?

ricpic said...

The Messiah's administration is about to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. But the work of fundamentally changing America must go forward no matter what. Right?....Right?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more..."

Custer had a plan too.

Ann Althouse said...

Those of you who are trying to opt out of the "we": What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him? Obviously, not enough, because we've never gotten enough. There are many things we still don't know. You can say that you wanted more, that you asked for more, and that you were never convinced he should be President and didn't vote for him. But there was still, objectively, not enough. You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure that is We the People of the United States of America.

TMink said...

What you mean "we" Kemosabe?

Trey

machine said...

#1: Has anyone posting here ever looked over a presidential nominee's academic transcript prior to voting for them?

#2: President Obama did try and work with Republicans in Congress---they simply refuse to respond in kind. Remember, their top priority is defeating President Obama...regardless of the effects on the country.

EMD said...

Those of you who are trying to opt out of the "we": What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him? Obviously, not enough, because we've never gotten enough.

Are you being this dumb on purpose?

Patrick said...

"But there was still, objectively, not enough. You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure that is We the People of the United States of America."

Actually, I think there was plenty that was known about him that indicated back in 2008 that he would not be a good President. For example, his history of voting "Present" on difficult issues while in the Illinois Senate, his very leftist leaning voting record in the US Senate (albeit a short record), and his utter lack of experience in anything that would benefit him in his first executive experience.

In other words, I think there was easily "objectively enough" information that would lead someone to conclude that he should not be President.

TMink said...

"the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions"

Andy, if that were the case, Obama's approval rating would consist of more than you and Stodder.

There is coffee brewing, have a sniff.

Trey

Carnifex said...

I Am as conservative as they come, and here is the list of politicians running for office I consider incapable of mirroring my conservatism.

1) Barack Obama - Nuff' said.
2) Mitt Romney - He governed as a RINO. The establishment RINO's are pushing him like crack to a junkie.
3) Newt Gingrich - He's a big government guy with the gift of gab. He's not quite a RINO but he's awfully close.
4) Rick Santorum - Again big government RINO lite without Newts gab.
5) Ron Paul - Libertarians are just old Democrats.

The problem is that 2-4 is worlds better than 1. So much so, that it's not even close.
2-4 will still send us over the debt canyon, but at a walk as opposed to Obama's full sprint.

So I don't care who wins the republican nomination. They could dig up Reagan, zombiefy him, and make him the nomination with the platform of a brain in every pot, and I would vote for Zombie Reagan over Obama.

If they brought in Hugo Chavez, I think I would vote for him, because at least Chavez looks out for his people. Obama has done nothing, let me repeat that, NOTHING for this country.

He's the most divisive POS to ever come out of Chicago, and in a few months he'll be able to go back home. The one thing I relish is that when Moochie gets out of the WH, she won't be able to order us around anymore, so all that ABW will be aimed right at his ass.(instant karma gonna what?)

Tank said...

Ann Althouse said...
Those of you who are trying to opt out of the "we": What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him? Obviously, not enough, because we've never gotten enough. There are many things we still don't know. You can say that you wanted more, that you asked for more, and that you were never convinced he should be President and didn't vote for him. But there was still, objectively, not enough. You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure that is We the People of the United States of America.


Truly, this is the most pathetic comment ever.

Hello.

Listen, you can say, as you have, that you looked at McCain, and you looked at Zero, and Zero looked possibly better. Really, if you limited your choices to them, who could blame you for not choosing McCain, who is ... well ... a moron.

But there was plenty of info out there to asses the Zero, and many of us correctly did just that. For those who are "surprised" at what they got, they just weren't looking.

Fail.

Projection.

Blaming the "victim."

Pathetic.

Bender said...

we've never gotten enough

We got enough.

We got enough to know that Obama would govern exactly as he has, and that he would be a spectacular crash-and-burn. We knew enough to say Election Night 2008 that America had voted for national suicide.

But people didn't care.

Just like we know enough about the utterly disqualified Romney, and people don't care.

Mike said...

You know Andy R, the choice in 2008 was between Dumb and Dumber; or another way to look at it was between two buffalo chips.

One of them disproved the old adage that you can't polist a t#@d. His name was Obama.

And as for Ms. Althouse. You're a delightful host, but some of us remember who you voted for in 2008--don't lay that blame on me.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Remember, their top priority is defeating President Obama...regardless of the effects on the country..."

That's typically the priority of political parties.

You're new to this aren't you?

John Stodder said...

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

Partly true.

I think conservatives saw McCain as wanting on economic issues, and were able to thus talk themselves into buying into Obama because of the stage-managed perception that Obama had a better grasp of what was going on in the specific time frame of post-Lehman's collapse.

This is why I think the media bears a larger share of the blame for Obama's failed administration than is usually the case. They vouched for expertise he didn't really have.

But if you'd had a stronger candidate on economic issues on the GOP ticket in 2008, the media's cheerleading wouldn't have mattered as much.

The point being: The GOP picked the wrong guy, and then he went ahead and picked the wrong VP. Had McCain picked Romney instead of Palin, he would have had someone he could put out there to talk about the appropriate governmental response to the sudden onset of economic chaos in ways he couldn't.

Instead, he had Palin, who could talk with authority about energy, but not much else.

garage mahal said...

Which is what one says when they can't bring themseleves to criticize the fact that a whole street was closed so the first lady can spend $50,000 shopping.

You stay focused like a laser on the First Lady's panties, Jay. Good job for you come to think of it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Remember, their top priority is defeating President Obama...regardless of the effects on the country..."

Then again when the effects the President is having on the country are debilitating, its the duty of the opposition party to try and defeat the President.

Naturally to many leftists, ruining the country is a goal.

Scott M said...

What you mean "we" Kemosabe?

100% inevitable.

mccullough said...

Althouse,

The fact that Obama had the thinnest resume was enough not to vote for him.

McCain voted against the W. tax cuts and Medicare Part D, and is a big proponent of Wilson/Kennedy military interventions around the world. McCain had a predicatable record. He like balanced budgets and he likes war.

There were reasons not to vote for McCain. There were no reasons to vote for Obama.

Rusty said...

OK, Ann. How about this.
Didn't the fact that he was Chicago street organizer raise any flags? How about his sweet deal with Tony Rezco?
His lack of college or even high school transcripts. How his wife got her job? The total lack of results for his foundation work? His relationship with Bill Ayers?

He's from fucking Chicago! The most politically corrupt city in the country!
What do you want us to? Staple it to your forehead?
Jaysus, girl.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.


Obama campaigned on ending the Bush tax cuts, but extended them.

Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo, it is open.

President-elect Barack Obama pledged Tuesday to eliminate unnecessary government spending and programs, yet the deficit has doubled and the federal debt has increased by 36%.

So um, which "plan" are you referring to?

Rusty said...

Shorter version.

It's not my fault 53% of you are clueless.

Scott M said...

So um, which "plan" are you referring to?

Racist.

Jay said...

machine said...

#2: President Obama did try and work with Republicans in Congress---they simply refuse to respond in kind. Remember, their top priority is defeating President Obama...regardless of the effects on the country.


Obama's policies that have been implemented have been bad for the country.

The policies Obama proposes for the country would be even worse.

Thanks for participating.

traditionalguy said...

The meme to crucify someone carries with it a mob mentality that only sees as evil on Good Friday the same man they saw as their Messiah on psalm Sunday.

It therefore implies a lack of any critical thought in a desperate effort to kill off a stronger person before he reforms the way the established authority's money rules.

The same stories that Newt did this or Newt did that in the 1990s have always been available. No one cared much.

It is this sudden assembly of them into a slanted gotcha crescendo coming from all four sides that reveals more about the Bain mob's leaders than it reveals about Newt's well known feet of clay.

Kirby Olson said...

I've been paying attention to the whole circus for at least a year, and so far there've been only two good ideas:

1. Let kids be janitors.
2. Bring down Hugo Chavez by any means necessary.

They're both Newt's.

He may be aptly named as a lizard of sorts, and he may be a bit of a grinch, but summer needs winter, and we've had enough of summer. Let's get winter going before it's too late.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

You stay focused like a laser on the First Lady's panties, Jay.


Like I said,this is what one says when they can't bring themseleves to criticize the fact that a whole street was closed so the first lady can spend $50,000 shopping.

Remember, the Obama's support the little guy garage, and it isn't a lie if you believe it.

Pastafarian said...

Althouse: "You did not provide what was missing, and you are part of the collective failure..."

Jesus H. Christ on horseback.

Consider what information there was available to voters: The Goddamn Amerikkka church; ties to the mad bomber William Ayers; just a couple of years of experience as a legislator, and none as an executive in any capacity; Obama's own statements, where he vowed to raise taxes even if it cost the government revenue, out of "fairness".

If that information wasn't enough to persuade an Obama voter from attempting to assuage her liberal white guilt by voting for an underqualified communist, then my playing part-time Nancy Drew and trying to unearth the details of Obama's college transcripts or the details of what he did in the Chicago political machine would not have made one wet fart's worth of difference.

Don't blame this shit on us. We told you until we were sick of reading our own comments.

Chip Ahoy said...

Martin Gore said he was inspired to write Personal Jesus from Pricilla's relationship with Elvis Presley. He noticed that around him and thought it wasn't a very good idea to make somebody your own personal savior like that. That song is on all my playlists. It looks very good in sign too but that is incidental to its awesomeness.

Bender said...

In all fairness to the Professor, McCain was not the answer either. Like Romney, McCain was part of the problem.

Indeed, McCain is largely to blame for the pathetic state that we find the GOP in today. Let's go back to November 2008 and remember how things were.

As I wrote the day after Obama was elected --

The Inevitable Happens
Now do you McCain folks see why we went ape-sh*t when he became the inevitable nominee?

Look, when you got one guy attacking and running against the Republicans, and you got the other guy who is a rabid, pro-abortion Marxist, the Republican ticket hasn’t got a chance.

That there was no one better who was running, for that, too, McCain should be held to answer. He spends the last seven years fragging his own party, giving the opposition cover for attacking conservatives and Republicans, including legitimizing Bush-hate, with the result of not gaining the respect of Dems and independents, and only sabotaging the Party, so is it any surprise that any possible up-and-coming stars out in the states were snuffed out in the crib and, thus, not in a position to run?

Time to settle all family business. The McCain camp, big-tent moderates, anti-Palin elites. Give them the Carlo Rizzi treatment. It’s not personal, it’s strictly business.

It is John McCain and his “maverickism” that blew a gaping hole in the Republican Party; it was McCain and his anti-Bushism that helped foster and feed totally irrational Bush-hate, thereby dragging down, not only Bush, but conservatives and the entire Party; it was McCain and the Gang of 14 and the rest of the “Republican” moderates that have decimated the Party.

It was this idea, for way, way, way too long of “let’s not do that,” that we must have a big tent and must support and elect a whole bunch of people on the Republican ballot who are antithetical to Republican and conservative principles, that left us with nary a single viable candidate for president this year. It was maverickism and big tentism that left us with a tent full of squishes and worms and slick used car salesmen.

This idea that McCain would be the Dems’ worst nightmare, because he is so loved by Dems and independents, pushed on us by elites and those who know better than anyone else (like the Maverick), was a blatently obviously falacious idea from the get-go because it was clear that they would all abandon him as quickly as they could. It was clear to all who had eyes to see that the most likely outcome was total ruin. And that is what McCain has brought us.

Well, if we have now crashed and burned, the wisest thing to do would be to rebuild the right way, to purify, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Hagar said...

Ms. Sarah needs to watch some clips of Newt himself speaking; never mind what the others are saying about him.

And Obama was indeed carried, but I do not think it was so much affirmative action as that he was Bill Ayers' protégé.

Scott M said...

That song is on all my playlists. It looks very good in sign too but that is incidental to its awesomeness.

It's too bad they fell off the radar, but then again, David's voice has really not aged well.

garage mahal said...

Rasmussen has Obama up by 9 over Romney in Florida. I agree with Palin, annoy a liberal and vote for Newt! Both Gingrich and Romney should be scrutinized to the fullest. We don't want a repeat of 2008!

rcommal said...

Respectfully, I disagree with the "we." I do feel that I put quite a lot if effort into following Obama's career and evaluating his background in the run-up to 2008. I assume you did, too. Obviously, we came to different decisions, no doubt also in part to a different weighing of McCain and what his presidency might look like, etc. I'm fine with that, which is why I've not poked at you over your vote over the past few years. Please show similar respect.

Alex said...

It's The Season of the Witch man, groovy. Pass the joint and everything is just so floral man.

Pastafarian said...

I'm trying to see things your way, Althouse, and I'm drawing a blank here. I cannot bring myself to feel any personal responsibility for the election of Obama.

Hell, I even contributed to the McCain campaign. It wasn't much -- but it was the first contribution I've ever made to a political candidate.

And I made it to...McCain. Basically, I ate a giant shit-sandwich in an effort to prevent Obama from being elected.

I really don't see what I could have done, personally, to change the course of history. I cast my vote; it was canceled out by yours. Well, actually no; we're in different states. My vote was canceled by one of Mickey Mouse's 60 votes cast in Cleveland.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Rasmussen has Obama up by 9 over Romney in Florida..."

I'm looking on their site right now and can't find that.

cubanbob said...

Well I will be happy to oblige Garage when I vote for Newt tomorrow. Who knows, if Obama can be elected anyone can.

The question for our hostess is will she repeat her mistake again in November?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Rasmussen has Obama up by 9 over Romney in Florida


Why don't you give us a link to that?

Hagar said...

i.e. - Newt does not need anyone's help getting crucified. He can do it - and is doing it - quite well all by himself.

rcommal said...

On another point, vetting does not equal crucifying. Nor should it. It's important not to confuse the two, in either direction.

machine said...

So Obama's policy of reinstating the Get Osama and decimate the rest of Al Qaeda plan was wrong for the country?

got it...

Chip Ahoy said...

What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him?

I heard them ask repeatedly for his records but his records were being protected and people voted for him anyway.

Same thing with his birth certificate. A thing as basic as that, yet it was totally jacked, used as a tool to ridicule the people who demanded it, and those people still are not satisfied.

MadisonMan said...

Those who voted for Obama

Who votes for people these days? I think many votes for McCain were actually just against Obama.

Bender, your good analysis doesn't go back in history long enough. Take it back to the South Carolina primary Bush v. McCain when the whispers about McCain's kids started and he crashed. How could McCain not take that personally? Karl Rove's work, IIRC, and look what it got his party!

Robert Cook said...

"Very simple: refuse to vote for anyone who has not been properly vetted."

"Properly vetted" by whom?

EDH said...

Michelle Obama's panties aside...

Palin recently criticized... New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whom the former Alaska governor accused of... getting his “panties in a wad.”

Okay, I didn't need that image in my head.

garage mahal said...

Rasmussen has it 47-41, my bad. NBC/Marist has it at 9.

In potential Election 2012 matchups, it’s President Obama 47% and Romney 41%. However, if Gingrich is his Republican opponent, the president holds a double-digit lead, 52% to 35%. That’s the president’s biggest lead over Romney since November and his largest advantage over Gingrich since October. (see tracking history). That’s consistent with the uptick in the president’s approval rating over recent months and an increase in consumer confidence

shiloh said...

Every chance Althouse gives her flock to whine about Obama is a chance they relish to take. Gasp! Even when the thread is about mama grizzly and gingrich lol.

Rinse, lather, repeat ...

And please, let the conservative whining continue as elections come down to choices and the teabaggers are "stuck" w/mittens :-P in 2012 by default.

btw, a coultergeist song and dance is always somewhat amusing!

take care

I ♥ Willard said...

Those of you who are trying to opt out of the "we"

I am not responsible for your mistake, Professor.

MadisonMan said...

Rinse, lather, repeat ...

And you end up with a head full of lather. :)

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... So Obama's policy of reinstating the Get Osama and decimate the rest of Al Qaeda plan was wrong for the country?.."

Glad to see combatting Islamic terrorism suddenly became a good thing for liberals.

Better late than never.

shiloh said...

I ♥ Willard said...

"I am not responsible for your mistake, Professor."

I ♥ Willard, it's because you are smitten w/mittens, much like Althouse, and no need to apologize. :D

Don't Tread 2012 said...

I was well aware of the lack of real achievement, the associations, the black liberation theology and the community organizing. That the MSM chose to ignore these facts amounts to journalistic malpractice. Facts are stubborn things and don't bear any resemblance to 'crucifixion', in this case a drama word used to deflect/distract.

Bender said...

How could McCain not take that personally?

MadisonMan -- and don't forget Bush making a duplicate key to the pantry where the strawberries were kept.

DADvocate said...

You stay focused like a laser on the First Lady's panties

You don't need laser focus for that. I hear this guy has been harassing her.

EDH said...

Romney’s Dream

I dreamed I met a Georgian
A most amazing man
He had that look
You very rarely find
The haunting hunted kind

I asked him
To say what had happened
How it all began
I asked again
He just kept pontificating
As if he hadn't heard

And next the room was full
Of wild and angry establishment Republicans
They seemed to hate this man
They fell on him and then disappeared

Then I saw thousands of millions
Crying for this man
And then I heard them mentioning my name
And leaving me the blame

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Rasmussen has it 47-41, my bad. NBC/Marist has it at 9.


Neither poll was specific to Florida, which is what you said.

edutcher said...

Sad to say, she sees Newt having done to him what was done to her. That's just not the case.

While some may say the media dump last week was over the line, Newt should have the last 20 years of his statement, positions, and ideas reviewed as much as Milton's.

And let's not forget, Newt's delving into "vulture capitalism" did a number on Milton's standing with independents. If you can't take the heat...

Bender said...

In all fairness to the Professor, McCain was not the answer either. Like Romney, McCain was part of the problem.

No, McCain never had a rep as a big spender and the biggest knock on him was immigration. You wouldn't have JuniorCare, Stimulus, Government Motors, or Reset with McCain.

As for Milton, again, nowhere near as bad as GodZero; whether MiltonCare was a method to forestalling single pay in the People's Republic is still up in the air.

And, last time out, Milton was seen as the big Conservative in the race.

PS As for Hatman and his question about Zero's record, I'm seriously beginning to believe all light is absorbed by him.

Jay said...

machine said...
So Obama's policy of reinstating the Get Osama and decimate the rest of Al Qaeda plan was wrong for the country?


I'm not sure Obama said this was a "policy" nor that the US ever moved away from this as a "policy"

Anyway, it is rather touching that you leftists have embraced sending small groups of US solidiers into soverign countries to blow up homes and shoot everyone inside.

Really, it is.

shiloh said...

"And you end up with a head full of lather. :)"

Indeed MadisonMan :) as this blog is 24/7 anti-Obama, go figure, so very, very hard for conservatives not to whine, eh.

Again, a self-fulfilling prophecy at a winger blog er Althouse feeding her flock what they want to eat. Shocking!

It's actually quite poetic/endearing :-P in a pathetic kinda way ...

>

And the irony of "smitten w/mittens", I voted for Obama my own damn self Althouse, leading the way lol.

'nuf said!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well that's even better news garage because that's a national poll not just Florida.

So it would appear that despite adding an additional $5 trillion in debt with unemployment still 9% and no end in sight to trillion dollar deficits, Obama has convinced enough people to give him four more years to completely screw the nation over.

Oh well.

I ♥ Willard said...

I ♥ Willard, it's because you are smitten w/mittens, much like Althouse, and no need to apologize.

I would like to know why the Professor didn't blog about Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright before the last election.

Freeman Hunt said...

Unforced error in the play by Palin.

shiloh said...

Hoosier Daddy, your continuing whining notwithstanding, elections come down to choices!

And Reps seem to be choosing McCain er RINO lite in 2012 to run against an incumbent ...

Original Mike said...

"Those of you who are trying to opt out of the "we": What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him?"

Sliming us with blame doesn't wash.

Nice try, though.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Hoosier Daddy, your continuing whining notwithstanding, elections come down to choices!.."

Yes and idioten like you choose to give a former community organizer another four years of steering the country off a cliff.

That's not whining, simply stating a fact.

shiloh said...

So let's recap, shall "we".

Wah! Wah! Waaaaahhhhh! :)

garage mahal said...

Hoosier
I don't think the majority of Americans read right wing blogs, that may be the disconnect.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

"I don't think the majority of Americans read right wing blogs, that may be the disconnect."

2.5 million watch fixednoise in prime time + reportedly ?!? (20) million listen to Limbaugh daily + anti-Obama conservative blogs = preaching to the choir = a right wing echo chamber = wah wah waaaaahhhhh.

Agan simple arithmetic, A+B=C.

Scott M said...

I don't think the majority of Americans read right wing blogs, that may be the disconnect.

The majority of Americans don't read blogs period. Neither do many (I don't know about the majority) know as much as they should about the process in all it's kielbasa glory.

Original Mike said...

Although, frankly, I think there was enough information in 2008 to see Obama as a disaster waiting to happen. People made a poor choice and now they want absolution by claiming theynogulik didn't have enough information.

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
Hoosier
I don't think the majority of Americans read right wing blogs, that may be the disconnect.

1/30/12 12:30 PM

Since the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative they sure as hell aren't reading left-wing blogs. That my friend is your disconnect.

shiloh said...

Let the record show cubanbob has the first deflection to left wing blogs. Congrats!

MadisonMan said...

I just meant: You flipped it. It's Lather, rinse, repeat.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... I don't think the majority of Americans read right wing blogs, that may be the disconnect..."

Could be. Then again the unemployment numbers, soaring Federal debt and deficit are readily available on government websites and major news publications and not right wing blogs. But then maybe the majority are reading Kim Kardashians Twitter posts since she's so effing hawt.

Alex said...

Top 15 blogs by traffic

Hmmm 2 left wing ones(HuffPo, Daily Beast) and not a single right-wing blog. I think garage may be onto something here.

garage mahal said...

Where did you get Obama adding 5 trillion in new debt?

Alex said...

We do know there are far more self-identified conservatives then liberals but I think liberals are several times more likely to read blogs then conservatives, especially religious conservatives who disdain the internet, but they do vote.

shiloh said...

"I just meant: You flipped it. It's Lather, rinse, repeat."

Thanx for the attention to detail. :)

Alex said...

garage - do you believe POTUS is solely responsible for federal spending/taxes or not? You sure blamed Bush for all that from 2001-2008, but Obama is magically impotent and uninvolved....

Steve Koch said...

Althouse deserves huge credit for realizing that she made a big mistake in not properly vetting before voting.

On the other hand, IIRC, her collective guilt proposal is against international law.

It just occurred to me that Althouse might be Carol Herman. If so, well done.

edutcher said...

Jay said...

So Obama's policy of reinstating the Get Osama and decimate the rest of Al Qaeda plan was wrong for the country?


I'm not sure Obama said this was a "policy" nor that the US ever moved away from this as a "policy"


GodZero reinstated nothing. This was an ongoing project begun by Dubya which finally bore fruit.

If anything, rumors that this was Panetta's show, wire to wire, with Zero being kept out of the loop, are receiving a bit more substantiation.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Where did you get Obama adding 5 trillion in new debt?.."

Are you serious?

machine said...

2006: "The CIA has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday."

2009: [Obama] drafted a memo instructing Panetta to create a “detailed operation plan” for finding the Al Qaeda leader and to “ensure that we have expended every effort.”

Apology accepted.

Original Mike said...

"Are you serious?"

He's trolling. T'was ever thus.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... He's trolling. T'was ever thus..."

I try to give garage the benefit if the doubt thinking that maybe he's hungover or suffered some traumatic brain injury but its getting harder.

Steve Koch said...

My impression is that Palin would like to lead the Tea Party away from the GOP so that she could triangulate between the DNC and the GOP.

The comment comparing Palin and Newt was spot on. Palin objecting to the close examination of what Newt has said and done is hilarious.

Lance said...

I'm a little puzzled by the people who think Obama wasn't properly vetted. His record was short, and his life was literally two open books actually written by him. I don't pretend to be all that prescient, but I got pretty much the leader I expected with one exception, and I knew it was a question for someone with that short of a track record: how would he handle the unprecedented executive power Bush/Cheney left him?

Unfortunately, he took it and ran. Some of it resulted in good things like OBL being killed, torture allegedly stopped, and our terror posture seems to be more strategic and less oriented to nation building. The downside is we still have Gitmo, Libya happened, and accountability in this space seems nearly nonexistent.

So Ann I'm puzzled as to what you feel like you didn't know prior to January 2009?

This reminds me of the Iraq debate. Many people who voted for the war said "if we only knew". The evidence was there all along, we just chose to ignore it.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Where did you get Obama adding 5 trillion in new debt?


Um, On Obama’s watch so far, the size of the cumulative federal debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.8 trillion — about 40 percent — and it continues to climb.

Obama has called for higher spending.

Under Obama, federal government spending has exploded by more than $600 billion per year. In President George W. Bush’s last full year in office, federal spending was just under $3 trillion; under Obama, it increased to approximately $3.6 trillion. That’s an increase of more than 20 percent

For example, the State Department and other international assistance went from $47 billion in 2008 to $58 billion in 2010. The Labor’s Department’s budget authority went from $57 billion in 2008 to $179 billion in 2010.
Most of the new spending was the result of policy choices by the president and congressional allies. During 2009 and 2010, federal agencies and programs saw extraordinary increases in their budgets.

That's how.
For starters.

AprilApple said...

In 2008, Obama campaigned as a moderate, and the nation was fooled. We shall see if the nation will be fooled again after 4 years of crony capitalism and trillions in debt etc...

Original Mike said...

"I try to give garage the benefit if the doubt ..."

I used to. I really did. But he doesn't reciprocate with a good faith effort. He's just a troll.

garage mahal said...

Are you serious?

He's trolling. T'was ever thus.

try to give garage the benefit if the doubt thinking that maybe he's hungover or suffered some traumatic brain injury but its getting harder.

Funny, no link to the claim!

5 trillion in new spending. Must be easy to itemize that?

Original Mike said...

I don't play your games anymore, garage (or, at least I try not to). Looks like Jay did, though, so you can play with him.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
5 trillion in new spending.


Um, "5 trillion in new spending" is not required to add 5 trillion to the debt.

But of course you wouldn't know that.

Hint: a trillion in borrowing adds X% to debt service.

Hint: social security went into the red "earlier than expected"

Hint: you know very, very little about how the government operates and even less about economics.

garage mahal said...

Um, "5 trillion in new spending" is not required to add 5 trillion to the debt.

So what you're saying is:

BLAME BUSH!!!

Hahahaha.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Funny, no link to the claim!

5 trillion in new spending. Must be easy to itemize that?.."

It's not hard. It was a little over $10 trillion when Bush left and its $15 trillion right now.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
So what you're saying is:

BLAME BUSH!!!

Hahahaha.


No, but as Original Mike said, you're just full troll at this point.

Alex said...

garage - I asked you a basic civics question. What % of responsibility does POTUS have for spending & Taxes?

garage mahal said...

It's not hard. It was a little over $10 trillion when Bush left and its $15 trillion right now.

You made the claim Obama is responsible for 5 trillion in new spending. But now you're stuck like chuck because either you don't know the actual figure, or you're playing a bit of sleight of hand. Combination of both is my guess. It's one of Jay's favorite tricks.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
You made the claim Obama is responsible for 5 trillion in new spending


No he didn't. He said new debt.

you're playing a bit of sleight of hand.

Hysterical projection.

See above.

I Callahan said...

I think conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with the realization that the voters had a good understanding of Obama and McCain and their various policy positions and chose Obama because they like his plan for the country more.

Not likely. McCain was a weak, squishy RINO candidate, so a number of conservatives stayed home. Also, Obama only got 53% of the vote. And, if the above were true, the Republicans wouldn't have run away with so many house races and nearly taken back the senate.

garage mahal said...

No he didn't. He said new debt.

Ok, so Obama is responsible for his predecessors debt. I thought blaming Bush was strictly forbidden?

Alex said...

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Presidential Powers

Clause one is a "vesting clause," similar to other clauses in Articles One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The important distinction between the vesting clause in Article I and this Vesting Clause is that this one is Plenary (i.e., it implies the power the executive to fall in line with what other "executives" around the world at the time could do) whereas the power vested in Article I is subject to limits to be outlined in later sections.

The President has to power to execute laws, not make them. Only Congress is allowed to make laws.

Alex said...

One thing I've noticed is that people who get up and quote the Constitution are considered loonies/crazies by the media and average people. Doesn't matter if it's Robert Byrd or a Republican. It's like if you start quoting the Articles - people look at you like you have a 2nd head. It's all about reality TV, iPhones, lattes and Cancun. If you talk about anything truly meaningful, their eyes glaze over.

Scott M said...

Ok, so Obama is responsible for his predecessors debt. I thought blaming Bush was strictly forbidden?

How do you reconcile Obama's presiding over the level of debt we're at now given his calls of "unpatriotic" when Bush was at 9 trillion?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... You made the claim Obama is responsible for 5 trillion in new spending. But now you're stuck like chuck because either you don't know the actual figure.."

To be accurate, I claimed Obama added $5 trillion to the national debt. The current national debt is $15,294,836,252 as of a few minutes ago.

If you want to pretend it hasn't increased from the $10 trillion Bush left it from that's fine. Some people frolic through life in delusion.

Anthony said...

I think she's got a point. Republicans are going on the airwaves, for example, slamming him for the ethics charges and implying that he resigned due to that. He didn't. He admitted to a minor ethics violation and the IRS cleared him of any wrongdoing. He resigned because the Republicans did poorly in the 1998 elections. The ethics and IRS allegations were largely dirty tricks by the Democrats. . .and Republicans now are going along with it.

Not to mention using a member of the very same MSM that consistently works against Republicans -- Tom Brokaw -- in an anti-Newt ad.

Which isn't to say the reverse isn't also going on, e.g., Romney being all rich and stuff.

Like Insty says, if anyone can run against this President's record and blow it. . .it's the Republicans.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Ok, so Obama is responsible for his predecessors debt.


Um, nobody is saying that.

Again, you're just full troll at this point.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I blame Bush for adding $5 trillion in debt in 8 years. I blame Obama for adding an additional $5 trillion in under four years.

Alex said...

Constitutionally, the new POTUS is responsible for the existing debt. The debt is required by LAW to be serviced and Obama ran for this office. He wanted the responsibility, so fucking deal with it.

Alex said...

Hoosier - POTUS proposes a budget, but Congress has to pass their version which may be higher or lower in spending, higher or lower in taxes. The POTUS can only give his preference, but it has no binding in Constitutional law.

Alex said...

Essentially the President's biggest powers are as CIC, executive orders and the bully pulpit. Everything else attributed to a POTUS usually goes with Congress or SCOTUS.

I ♥ Willard said...

Then again the unemployment numbers, soaring Federal debt and deficit are readily available on government websites and major news publications and not right wing blogs.

C'mon guys, let's be honest here. As Reagan conservatives, we've never really cared much about Federal debt, deficits and unemployment except when Democrats are in the White House.

The things we really care about are keeping the military strong, keeping the liberals from taking our guns, keeping homosexuals from getting married and keeping women from getting abortions. We need to remember to focus on the big three in 2012: God, guns and gays.

John Stodder said...

Not likely. McCain was a weak, squishy RINO candidate, so a number of conservatives stayed home.

That's a big, fat myth. 34 percent of 2008's voters identified as conservatives, the exact same percentage as 2004, with higher turnout. So actually more self-identified conservatives showed up in 2008.

http://nhjournal.com/2011/11/25/medved-on-mccain-conservatives-electability/

Sad to say, I think Palin's floundering performance pushed a lot of the dread centrists who some of you think you don't need in November to vote for Obama. I also think my theory is correct, that you had some conservatives vote for Obama not because McCain was "squishy" but because he positioned himself as not particularly conversant with economic issues, while Obama had the media's help in positioning HIM as some kind of cool, globally-minded, intellectual who could handle the looming economic crisis.

I said at the time that if McCain had picked Romney as his running mate, he might have won, because Romney would have been instantly perceived as a competent sidekick on the matter that was roiling the electorate. I still think that.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Presidents can veto budgets.

Scott M said...

We need to remember to focus on the big three in 2012: God, guns and gays.

Even as snark, this is woefully ignorant of the current lay of the land. It might have been funny a decade or so ago.

Jay said...

Federal spending 2008, $2.983 trillion. Federal spending 2011, $3.834 trillion. Increase: 29%.

Deficit 2008, $458 billion. Deficit 2011, $1,266 billion. Increase: 176%.

Some of the reasons: Solyndra, “Cash for Clunkers”, the student loan program, expanding the food stamp program.

The USA borrows over $46,000 dollars a second to keep the government going.

In garage's mind only "new spending" adds to the debt.

But of course what garage knows about basic economics is on par with what a 5th grader would know.

Alex said...

Hoosier - true enough the POTUS can refuse to sign the budget but political reality dictates that he has no choice. Which political reality existed that allowed any President to veto anything but a balanced budget? Let's not lay this all on Bush/Obama - the American people are mostly to blame.

I ♥ Willard said...

... You made the claim Obama is responsible for 5 trillion in new spending. But now you're stuck like chuck because either you don't know the actual figure..

There's no point in arguing about something so trivial, but if you care that much, check this website:

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_chart.html

According to the data, Obama is responsible for $3.7 trillion of deficits in his first three years.

I ♥ Willard said...

Even as snark, this is woefully ignorant of the current lay of the land. It might have been funny a decade or so ago.

So you're telling me that the GOP is now for gun control, gay marriage and abortion? And the GOP is now against school prayer and keeping the military strong?

Wow, you're really out of touch with the modern Republican party. Check the positions of any of the main GOP candidates and you'll see how wrong you are.

Patrick said...

My God, garage, do you really not understand "new" debt?

Up your game, man.

garage mahal said...

My God, garage, do you really not understand "new" debt?

I simply asked for an itemized list of "new debt" Obama is responsible for. Haven't seen it yet. Maybe you could help?

Alex said...

garage - do you have an itemized list of Bush's debt?

Scott M said...

No, Will. My point was that gay marriage and abortion matter a lot less than they used to, to growing number of conservatives. The argument for not picking out paint colors while the house is burning down come to mind.

I assumed you were trying to be ironic and failing at it. If that was not the case, I misunderstood your point.

chickenlittle said...

John Stodder wrote: Sad to say, I think Palin's floundering performance pushed a lot of the dread centrists who some of you think you don't need in November to vote for Obama.

You're certainly entitled to think that but in view of the Medved article you linked I would like to see a count of those whom Palin inspired to vote for McCain.

The Republican camp remains as split as ever--on the one hand you have the Cedarfordian Palin-loathers who actually voted for Obama (I count Althouse among them for her lame excuse for negative voting). On the other hand there is the Tea Party wing which Establishment Republicans need to newter and destroy instead of placate or partially embrace.

Your man Obama (I remember how you voted) loves the divisiveness, being an astute student of Lincoln.

chickenlittle said...

garage mahal said...

I simply asked for an itemized list of "new debt" Obama is responsible for. Haven't seen it yet. Maybe you could help?

I'd like to see an itemization of any new wealth which Obama claims to have inspired or created. Printing money doesn't count.

Scott M said...

I simply asked for an itemized list of "new debt" Obama is responsible for. Haven't seen it yet. Maybe you could help?

That's not what you asked for at all. You asked if it would be easy to itemize. You didn't ask for it to be done and provided to you.

Answer the question, GM. How do you reconcile Obama's cries of "unpatriotic" when the debt was at 9 trillion and what's he done to it since he got in.

chickenlittle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickenlittle said...

@garage: I mean, if the President's focus were on wealth creation instead of redistribution, the whole debt thingie would go away.

Why focus on the negative (debt)?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Garage just doesn't want to acknowledge that the federal debt went from $10 to $15 trillion since Obama took office. Not surprising, being in perpetual denial is the only way liberals can rationalize their beliefs.

Patrick said...

Garage, Because you and the rest of the left seemed quite comfortable with attaching all debt incurred during President Bush's terms to President Bush, If feel quite comfortable doing the same for President Obama. The numbers were highlighted earlier, if you want them itemized look it up.

Do you think the number is not $3.7 trillion? I know that makes President Obama look horrible by comparison, but what other conclusion are we to draw?

Kirk Parker said...

EMD,

"Obama built a cult following out of blame and platitudes"

... and empty-slate-ness, don't forget that.


Althouse,

"But there was still, objectively, not enough."

Oh come on. The galloping megalomania of his acceptance speech was completely disqualifying all by itself.

I ♥ Willard said...

Garage just doesn't want to acknowledge that the federal debt went from $10 to $15 trillion since Obama took office.

I probably dislike our socialist president more than any of you, but your numbers are wrong. In three years Obama has created deficits worth $3.7 trillion. That's a whole lot of money so exaggeration isn't necessary.

garage mahal said...

To recap:

Obama is blah garble blah blah garble garble. Er, google it.

sleepless nights said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I ♥ Willard said...

My point was that gay marriage and abortion matter a lot less than they used to, to growing number of conservatives.

Is that so? Can you link me to the poll you're referencing?

Patrick said...

Garage, I'll take it by your snark, or your attempt at snark that you agree with those numbers. In other words, Obama has been horrible as far as keeping the debt down, which is the opposite of what he promised. Another mendacious politician who was able to convince a whole lot of rubes to vote for him.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The current debt figure is $15 trillion. Thats $5 trillion more than when Bush left office.

yashu said...

On the other hand there is the Tea Party wing which Establishment Republicans need to newter and destroy instead of placate or partially embrace.

Huh? Maybe the Establishment Republicans (whatever specific individuals you mean by that) are in a covert conspiracy to "newter and destroy" the Tea Party, I don't know. But I certainly have never heard "establishment republicans" talk like that. I guess they're clever to disguise their nefarious motives.

On the other hand, one keeps hearing many self-described Tea Party true conservatives fulminating all through the primaries about the need to "newter and destroy instead of placate or partially embrace" The Establishment, the RINOS, etc., even at the cost of a second Obama term. All or nothing; not-Romney or we don't vote. The Establishment Republicans aren't the purists and schismatics, here.

As someone with great sympathy for the original Tea Party values (before it just became this populist anti-establishment demagoguery being pushed by Palin, sometimes even with an anti-capitalist OWS tinge), as someone who used to be a Palin fan (but now can't stand her), I'm saddened by this state of affairs. I don't know who you would consider part of The Establishment (nowadays, the term seems to mean anyone who's anti-Newt or pro-Romney), but whoever they are, they aren't the ones pushing for a GOP crack-up.

Scott M said...

Can you link me to the poll you're referencing

Nope. It wouldn't matter if I could, though, would it? Suffice to say that this was the prevailing sentiment at all of the Tea Party rallies I went to last year.

I Callahan said...

That's a big, fat myth. 34 percent of 2008's voters identified as conservatives, the exact same percentage as 2004, with higher turnout. So actually more self-identified conservatives showed up in 2008.

Quoting an article by a squishy RINO (Medved) is not going to convince me that I'm wrong here.

Sad to say, I think Palin's floundering performance pushed a lot of the dread centrists who some of you think you don't need in November to vote for Obama

Then why did McCain's numbers go up when Palin was added to the ticket?

I also think my theory is correct, that you had some conservatives vote for Obama not because McCain was "squishy" but because he positioned himself as not particularly conversant with economic issues, while Obama had the media's help in positioning HIM as some kind of cool, globally-minded, intellectual who could handle the looming economic crisis.

We are mostly in agreement here.

I said at the time that if McCain had picked Romney as his running mate, he might have won, because Romney would have been instantly perceived as a competent sidekick on the matter that was roiling the electorate. I still think that.

I don't think it would have made much difference. People were sick of Bush (or should I say the media's constant denigration of Bush), so whoever the Dem was going to be would probably have won. However, I (and most conservatives I know) would NOT have voted for McCain if he hadn't picked Palin. The media are just as much to blame for Palin's demise as they are for lifting up Obama - they pushed him across the finish line.

chickenlittle said...

@Yashu: I didn't invent to term "Establishment Republican." Look back to 1948 or 1952, for example. It's also true for the Democratic Party. And stop being so polemic just for the sake of being polemic. Populism has a loong history. A real compromise needs to happen--otherwise--Obama gleefully wins.

I ♥ Willard said...

The current debt figure is $15 trillion. Thats $5 trillion more than when Bush left office.

Your post made me think of this:

http://kristinelowe.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/07/blog1.jpg

I ♥ Willard said...

Suffice to say that this was the prevailing sentiment at all of the Tea Party rallies I went to last year.

The Tea Party will love my man Willard when they get to know him. If anyone understands the plight of the middle class in America, it's Willard!

chickenlittle said...

garage mahal said...
Obama is blah garble blah blah garble garble. Er, google it.

Well, don't you think it's better than focussing on his wife's largesse?

shiloh said...

"The Tea Party will love my man Willard when they get to know him. If anyone understands the plight of the middle class in America, it's Willard!"

Indeed, so true, so true ...

yashu said...

"A real compromise needs to happen--otherwise--Obama gleefully wins."

But I agree 100% with this! All I'm saying is, in your description, you characterized the "establishment Republicans" as the uncompromising ones. At the present moment, I just don't think that's true. On the contrary, much conservative rhetoric lately goes: if you're willing to compromise, you're just being co-opted by The Establishment.

"And stop being so polemic just for the sake of being polemic."

But who's being polemical here? That's what I'd like to see too, from a lot of the so-called Tea Party wing (so-called, because I see a lot of people appropriating the "Tea Party" "anti-establishment" label opportunistically & hypocritically-- like Newt). The overblown polemical rhetoric is precisely what I'm lamenting, and that's why I dislike the game Palin is playing (Alinsky! Crucifixion! The Establishment!) on behalf of *Newt Gingrich* (?!), which makes no sense whatsoever.

I ♥ Willard said...

Getting To Know Willard
(Part 1 of a 538 part series)

1 Willard's Experience as a Mormon Missionary in France ("Hard Times")

At a campaign event, Willard gave a rare account of his two and a half years from July 1966 as a missionary in France, which he described as "not exactly a Third World country".

He was forced to live off $110 a month. "So, I lived in a way that people of lower-middle income in France lived," he said.

Explaining that he often had no working lavatory, Mr Romney said: "We had instead the little pads on the ground There was a chain behind you with a bucket".

There were also no baths or showers, said Mr Romney.
"If we were lucky, we actually bought a hose and we stuck it on the sink ... and wash ourselves that way," he said.

"Most of the apartments I lived in had no refrigerators," Mr Romney added. He remembered saying to himself: "Wow, I sure am lucky to have been born in the United States of America".

More information here (including photos of Willard roughing it in France):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8959440/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-life-as-a-poor-Mormon-missionary-in-France-questioned.html

garage mahal said...

Well, don't you think it's better than focussing on his wife's largesse?

You've been in The Bubble far too long.

Scott M said...

You've been in The Bubble far too long.

Very racist, GM. One mention of the first lady's large ass and your first comment is about a bubble?

Shame.

chickenlittle said...

I ♥ Willard said...
Getting To Know Willard
(Part 1 of a 538 part series)


I've got some special animus for the Mormon-bashers saved up. I'm waiting for the underwear fetishists to come out though. Probably sometime this spring.

chickenlittle said...

I interpreted garage's retort as just his wanting to be a prick.

I ♥ Willard said...

I'm waiting for the underwear fetishists to come out though.

It's nice that you have a hobby. :)

garage mahal said...

Chick
Just heard some very interesting Wisconsin recall related news from one of my ace sources. Sorry, but I can't tell you.

John Stodder said...

As someone with great sympathy for the original Tea Party values (before it just became this populist anti-establishment demagoguery being pushed by Palin, sometimes even with an anti-capitalist OWS tinge), as someone who used to be a Palin fan (but now can't stand her), I'm saddened by this state of affairs. I don't know who you would consider part of The Establishment (nowadays, the term seems to mean anyone who's anti-Newt or pro-Romney), but whoever they are, they aren't the ones pushing for a GOP crack-up.

Amen.

This "establishment Republican" allegation is a sheer canard in 2012. Romney is a lone wolf just as much as Gingrich is. He is less moored to the DC establishment than Gingrich. He has become, by default, the choice of those who think, not without foundation, that Gingrich is a giant asshole irrespective of whether you buy into the idea of him as a conservative (not everyone does) or the even more absurd idea that he is a Tea Party conservative (which requires immense gullibility or drunkenness.) The man is an unstable narcissist who is the worst kind of politician. The fact that every so often he says something Tea Party-esque just shows what a fabulous thief he is of ideas and energy that he has nothing to do with producing.

I loathe Gingrich. I'd feel that way whether he was a liberal, a conservative, or if he'd gotten Google to hand over all my ideas and announced that he agreed with all of them.

You anti-establishment conservatives: The bastard is PLAYING you.

Romney might not have the perfect pedigree for you. But if I recall correctly, the Tea Party originated in a dire concern for the amount of debt the bailouts and stimulus and health care plan were incurring on this nation and our descendants. It wasn't just an attitude, which is the insult Gingrich is paying you all, acting as if attitude is everything. It was a specific set of concerns that enwrapped a lot of Americans, including some you guys now, in a Pavlovian impulse call RINOs. Romney is best equipped to deliver on what you say you want. Gingrich wants a colony on the moon.

Santorum is pretty good, actually; I'm not a social conservative so I have trouble with his anti-gay stuff and his overidentification with cops, but fiscally he would be a fair option. Go with him if you want to vent your spleen against Romney. Let it go down to those two. Don't let Gingrich punk you in his private psychological games, which have little to do with this country, and nothing to do with what you care about.

Scott M said...

But if I recall correctly, the Tea Party originated in a dire concern for the amount of debt the bailouts and stimulus and health care plan were incurring on this nation and our descendants.

This and I agree with the Santorum take as well. We're simply not in a place to worry about the social conservative agenda right note.

On a related note, Snoop Dog endorsed Ron Paul.

Bender said...

I would like to see a count of those whom Palin inspired to vote for McCain

I'll tell you -- NONE. No one voted for McCain because of Palin.

But a great many people did vote for Palin, with McCain being along for the ride. But even then it was more important to the Republican establishment crowd to savage Palin than to stop Obama.

John Stodder said...

On a related note, Snoop Dog endorsed Ron Paul.

Some days, I think libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke pot legally.

Other days, I think libertarians are pot-smokers who believe what Republicans believe. Except about pot.

But I do believe that you should look at the Ron Paul vote as a proxy for those who want legal pot. It's a constituency out there for the taking.

bgates said...

What did you do to delve into his record and criticize him? Obviously, not enough

There was enough available to both of us to convince anyone who wasn't an utter fool. I'm not sure what would have been necessary to convince an utter fool, because I'm not one. You probably don't know either, because you are one.

you are part of the collective failure

If everyone had done what I did, the country would have been vastly stronger and the world vastly safer. If everyone had done what you did, we'd be in the same mess we're in now.

John Stodder said...

even then it was more important to the Republican establishment crowd to savage Palin than to stop Obama.

Not really, not until after the election. Before the election, the people you perceive as the RE pretty much kept their mouths shut about their misgivings about Palin.

I liked Palin. I did vote for Obama, but that was more a case of allowing myself to be sold a false image. Mea culpa. But Palin didn't stop me from voting for McCain, and I loved her convention speech. Her interviews on ABC and CBS were painful, but I thought it was a case of her being unprepared, which she was. But I had hopes for her.

Not anymore, though. She's a Kardashian in my opinion. In love with attention. She is authentic in her views -- in that sense she is vastly preferable to Newt -- but she is useless as a force for good public policy, because she'd rather just have attention, not responsibility. Perhaps because she knows her limits.

Bender said...

Santorum is pretty good, actually; I'm not a social conservative so I have trouble with . . .

This and I agree with the Santorum take as well. We're simply not in a place to worry about the social conservative agenda right [now]


So you guys have no trouble whatsoever with Romney's assertions of being socially conservative? Of being against same-sex "marriage" and saying that he is pro-life?

Or are you not worried about Romney's purported social conservativism because you know that he doesn't really mean it? That he wants the votes of social conservatives, but he'll never actually deliver anything for them. That he will mouth a few platitudes to fool social conservatives into voting for him, but once they do, he won't give those issues a second thought?

traditionalguy said...

Point of order: The Tea Party was not about TARP and Stimulus. It spontaneously arose when NO politician sent home to explain ObamaCare in August 2009 would listen to anything the older folks wanted to say to them about Sarah Palin's alert to the Death Panels being the main part of new Nationalized Health Care.

They only listened after the 2010 mid-terms... for a few months and then they turned stone cold deaf again behind the Romney wing of the GOP.

Romney has been selected to be a channel for the politicians in the GOP to crush what's left of the Tea party rebellion.

John Stodder said...

Or are you not worried about Romney's purported social conservativism because you know that he doesn't really mean it?

I know enough members of the LDS church to know that he certainly means it. On abortion, he's really pretty unassailable from the right. But he's enough of a businessman to know that resolving these issues in a diverse society like the US right now would require far too much political capital in a time when there are much higher priorities.

From what you wrote, I gather you would rather see gay marriage banned and abortion outlawed than the debt reduced, government shrunk and Obamacare repealed. If that's the case, you're not in my party. And I don't think you're in the Tea Party either. Perhaps you're with Pat Robertson in thinking that our economic and foreign policy challenges are God's curse on us for allowing these social apostasies. Again, fine for you, not for me.

John Stodder said...

Point of order: The Tea Party was not about TARP and Stimulus. It spontaneously arose when NO politician sent home to explain ObamaCare in August 2009 would listen to anything the older folks wanted to say to them about Sarah Palin's alert to the Death Panels being the main part of new Nationalized Health Care.

You're off by a few months. It started in February 2009. It started really before that, but the name "Tea Party" wasn't attached to it until Rick Santelli had a widely-publicized rant on CNBC. Before that it was a protest against Porkulus, the grassroots name for the stimulus. The first protests were later that month.

Certainly, the Obamacare bill was galvanizing, but the movement was already rising by August; that's why they were able to turn so many people out to the Congressional open houses that became such debacles for the Democrats.

If the Tea Party has faded in influence, I'll tell you, it's not because of the Tea Party members nor is it because of the Republican Establishment. It's because of false friends like Gingrich and Palin who want the Tea Party movement to be, in effect, their tickets. Why would the Tea Party ever want Newt Gingrich's baggage. But he sure has put it on them.

Bender said...

They only listened after the 2010 mid-terms... for a few months

They didn't even listen that long, TradGuy.

A couple of days after the election, Boehner was out there saying that nothing much would happen because Republicans controlled "only one-half of one-third of the branches of the federal government."

And he and others have been undermining conservatives and the Tea Party ever since. See, e.g. The Myth of GOP Stinginess

shiloh said...

"It spontaneously arose"

The tea party arose when an African/American Muslim, born in Kenya, was elected president and the yahoos couldn't cope w/reality. Gasp!

Indeed, he's not one of us, so let's throw a temper tantrum.

It's that basic ~ carry on.

Jay said...

shiloh said...


The tea party arose when an African/American Muslim, born in Kenya, was elected president and the yahoos couldn't cope w/reality


Idiot:

The TEA Party started before Obama was elected.

That is a fact.

Your "reality" consists of you stupidly writing false things on the Internet.

Bender said...

If you mean I'm not in the Big Tent, you're damned right Stodder. Neither am I a fan of Robertson.

But let me ask you this, how much blood is enough for you? How many innocents must die? After 55 million dead, when will it be time for ending it?

By the way -- it was a conservative tent before it was "your" party.

Revenant said...

If the Tea Party has faded in influence, I'll tell you, it's not because of the Tea Party members nor is it because of the Republican Establishment. It's because of false friends like Gingrich and Palin who want the Tea Party movement to be, in effect, their tickets.

Amen to that.

The Tea Party is about economic and size-of-government issues. It was never supposed to be about being a doctrinaire Republican or conservative with all the military and social-conservatism issues that entails.

chickenlittle said...

The tea party arose when an African/American Muslim, born in Kenya, was elected president and the yahoos couldn't cope w/reality. Gasp!

What's the matter, Man on the Moon?Did somebody restrict your air supply?

Thorley Winston said...

I know enough members of the LDS church to know that he certainly means it. On abortion, he's really pretty unassailable from the right. But he's enough of a businessman to know that resolving these issues in a diverse society like the US right now would require far too much political capital in a time when there are much higher priorities.
I don’t think that there’s much any President can do about abortion other than in their judicial appointees which are pretty much a crap shoot anyway. Each Party has its own array of legal talent to draw from and the candidates from the respective talent pools do tend to “lean” in a particular direction but no President can ever guarantee how a judicial nominee will vote on a particular issue. At the end of the day, what we’re voting for in choosing a Republican or Democratic President is which pool of talent that next batch of judges will come from.

Methadras said...

Urkel does it to himself. He sees a cross, gets on it, spreads his arms across it and says, "Hey, I'm just hanging out."

rcommal said...

Michael Medved is a RINO??

Thorley Winston said...

A couple of days after the election, Boehner was out there saying that nothing much would happen because Republicans controlled "only one-half of one-third of the branches of the federal government.".


I must have missed that press conference but I do recall during the special session that extended unemployment benefits and ethanol subsidies in exchange for a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts how Boehner argued that since the special session wasn’t technically part of the 2010 session, the new spending that they voted for shouldn’t count against what they agreed to cut from the baseline.

Technically he may have been correct but it demonstrated an utter lack of good faith on his part and told me all that I needed to know about how much I could trust him to fulfill the promises that he ran on.

chickenlittle said...

rcommal said...

Michael Medved is a RINO??

I don't know and don't really care. I did read the piece Stodder linked to and it seemed one sided, as I said at 2:28.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 221   Newer› Newest»