March 9, 2014

It's "A Rand Paul rout in CPAC straw poll" says Politico, but the only report in the NYT is a Ross Douthat column titled "Four Factions, No Favorite."

Douthat's column, dated yesterday, may very well have gone up before the poll, but still, if a rout was in the works, why is Douthat in the dark, and why is there no NYT article about Rand's rout? A search for Rand Paul's name in the NYT in the past week turns up 2 articles from 2 days ago:

1.  "Paul Ryan’s Contradiction," by Juliet Lapidos. The headline names the other Paul — Paul Ryan (who came out in 8th place, with 3%, in the CPAC poll), and it turns out Rand Paul isn't in the article at all. Why did the search pull that up? A good guess would be that Ayn Rand appears in the article to add the Rand to Paul, but that didn't happen. It's just an item about Paul Ryan at CPAC, and how his statement that people "want a life of dignity... a life of self-determination" undercuts his concern that people will become dependent on government programs. "See the contradiction?," Lapidos asks. Read her article for instruction if you don't.

2. "Trying to Revive His Prospects, Rubio Pushes Strength Abroad," by Jonathan Martin. This one really does mention Rand Paul, beginning in the 5th paragraph. Paul, who is "wary of foreign intervention," comes up as contrast to Rubio's "muscular brand of foreign policy." If you make it to paragraph 11, there's a quote from a Paul adviser saying that Paul "rejects the label of isolationism" and "believes in a strong national defense, and an America that leads the way in the world and engages with other nations," but then it's back to the news that Rubio is a "hawk" and "Republican hawks believe that Republicans’ calling for a more aggressive response in Ukraine reveals that Mr. Paul is out of step with his own party." And Bill Kristol is quoted saying that Rand Paul is an "outlier" on Ukraine and Republicans don't want the U.S. to "unapologetically stand aside as Russia invades Ukraine."

Here's the Politico piece on the CPAC straw poll. Rand Paul got 31%, and his closest rival, Ted Cruz, got 11%. Rubio is down at 6%, below Scott Walker (7%), who skipped CPAC this year.

Douthat's column, which seems obsolete after the poll, is his take on CPAC. Skim to paragraph 14 for the first mention of Rand Paul. Republicans named in preceding paragraphs (as Douthat explains the 4 factions," none of which is libertarian):

1, 2. John McCain and Jon Huntsman, who in past elections represented the "centrist" Faction #1.

3, 4. Mitt Romney and Bob Dole, representative of the "moderately conservative" Faction #2.

5, 6. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, examples of the "socially conservative" Faction #3.

7, 8. Gingrich and Steve Forbes, the "very conservative but more secular" Faction #4. (For some reason, Douthat refers to Gingrich — and Gingrich alone — with no first name.)

9. Ronald Reagan, who won by "consolidating secular and religious conservatives and then wooing enough moderate conservatives to win."

10. Lamar Alexander, a centrist.

11. Pat Buchanan, a social conservative.

12. George W. Bush, who appealed to "moderate conservatives and religious conservatives." (Why was "religious" swapped in for "social" at that point?)

13. Chris Christie, combining "moderates and moderate conservatives." (Is that supposed to be Factions 1 and 2? If you're going to write about 4 factions, keep the labels clear. Reading on, I can see Douthat meant "centrists and moderate conservatives," Factions 1 and 2.)

14, 15,16. Scott Walker, Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush — all moderate conservatives who could undercut Christie, leaving Christie with only the centrists.

17. Ted Cruz, who might combine Factions 2, 3, and 4 (especially if Huckabee and Santorum stay out of his way).

And so, after 17 Republicans have been slotted into a faction or factions, we get to "the fascinating case of Rand Paul." He's fascinating because he combines "a potentially formidable base in two factions that don’t usually ally — moderates who like his social libertarianism and secular conservatives who like his economic views." Has Douthat heard of libertarians? Libertarians should have been one of the factions, but now they're some strange combo of Factions 1 & 4.

Douthat's next sentence is "Confused yet?" Were you trying to confuse your NYT readers? Is the idea that the Republicans are an incoherent mishmash? The next sentence reinforces the theory that the GOP is adrift:
Imagine being a Republican strategist or donor, trying to figure out where to place your bets. And I haven’t even given you the Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal and John Kasich scenarios!
So now 21 Republicans have been named. What's the one name we haven't seen yet? It's the one Jonathan Martin pumped up with "muscular" "strength" earlier in the week: Marco Rubio. Rubio, Douthat tells us, may be able to do what good old George W. Bush did, win by appealing to religious conservatives and moderate conservatives, combining Factions ##2 and 3. Douthat ends this way:
[Rubio is] not the front-runner, because there is no front-runner. There are only factions waiting for their champion, and a party waiting for its biggest fight in years.
I'd say there is a front runner. It's Rand Paul, whose rise to the top has not come as a result of insinuating his way into the good graces of one or two of the old factions Douthat has laid out for us.

Is Douthat out of touch? Maybe he's very much in touch... with what the NYT readers want to hear: The GOP is stuck trying to win the votes of disparate sets of old-fashioned or wishy-washy Americans, and it's unlikely to get its act together by 2016. Within that comforting message, Rand Paul is static.

UPDATE: The NYT has an article "Rand Paul Wins Conservative Straw Poll," dated yesterday (March 8), written by Jonathan Martin, which did not appear when I searched for "Rand Paul" using the NYT search box when I first wrote this post. This article says: "A version of this article appears in print on March 9, 2014, on page A25 of the New York edition."

AND: Right now, mid-afternoon the same day this post went up, a search for "Rand Paul," restricted as above to the last 7 days, gets 10 hits. What happened? Did the NYT have his name suppressed within the search tool? I count on those searches to mean something! I relied on it.

89 comments:

Lauderdale Vet said...

Ha.

I hope the GOP *does* trend libertarian for years to come.

BDNYC said...

Moderating its social platform is a no-brainer. Fight about economic issues and the role of government. There will still be room for guys with different views like Christie and Paul and Rubio. Let the religious nuts go away.

Pogo is Dead said...

Good analysis.

The next step in the playbook is calling him crazy. Expect them to conflate quote from his father and his followers as if from Rand.

Too crazy to be Preezy.

Laslo Spatula said...

He didn't mention Ted Nugent.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


If they thought they could get away with calling him crazy, they would be doing it already. You can bank on that.

They are afraid of his popularity and chances (with good reason), hence the press blackout.

Character assassination is all the Progs have left, and they don't have anything credible, even by low info voter standards.

Rand Paul is the real deal.

Bob Boyd said...

In this context, not being the focus of the NYT is like not being singled out for a strip search at airport security.

Bob Ellison said...

Eventually the kept conservative becomes a nuanced liberal. Ross Douthat has been on that long, slow walk for a while now.

"Civil War Among Conservatives" is a favorite theme of liberal commentatoristatorians.

Andrea Ostrov Letania said...

Rander is just another sell-out politician.

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/12/white-renegade-of-the-year/

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Aged liberals are absolutely terrified of libertarians, who represent the antithesis of their desire to control everyone's daily life.

Their existential problem is that the under-45 crowd is trending decidedly libertarian. Some are left-libertarians like one of my sons, several of my nieces, nephews, and younger cousins.

Others are right-libertarians, like another son, some nephews, and many younger friends.

What terrifies "progressives" beyond belief is that all of these folks believe that true progress is to have a smaller, less intrusive, less powerful, and less obnoxious government at every level.

Rand Paul, by focusing on liberty, is attracting the admiration of huge numbers in the younger generations. It's not just about marijuana any more.

Laslo Spatula said...

1. The need to put items into numeric groupings or lists is the sign of an untidy mind craving order.

2. I believe I made my point.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I wrote: "Character assassination is all the Progs have left"

Andrea Ostrov Letania then said...

Rander is just another sell-out politician.

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/12/white-renegade-of-the-year/


See what I mean.

EMD said...

(No one tell Crack who finished third. )

David Carlson said...

Is Ross talking nomination or cpac? Seems to me his analysis is correct For who gets the primary win

Cedarford said...

Rand Paul polls so well because he attracts libertarians and also the hearts of conservatives that reject the idea of Republicans being branded as the Party of New Wars. Not pure isolationists, but conservatives sick of neocon pundits like Kristol and who openly mock John McCain with a list of 15 wars McCain wanted us to start.

The rhetorical tools of the neocons and do-gooder advocates of America as the free 911 Service for the World (like Samantha Powers) have been exhausted. Americans have become disgusted with endless Neocon comparisons to each new foreign crisis to "Munich!!" to hear why we need to invade Syria or Iran, or battle Russia in their own backyard. And sick of liberal female prattle about how our "Heroes", led into battle by newly empowered Female Officers..need to bleed and the US squander more treasure to "help the noble Burmese and Congolese and Libyan Freedom Lovers build a better and more just and progressive nation.".



garage mahal said...

Always get a chuckle out of what supposedly "TERRIFIES PROGRESSIVES".

I watched CPAC for laughs, the only thing I found terrifying was their sense of humor.

Michael K said...

"Americans have become disgusted with endless Neocon comparisons to each new foreign crisis to "Munich!!" to hear why we need to invade Syria or Iran, or battle Russia in their own backyard."

Concern trolling is still popular.

Nobody is seriously considering any of that. What is being said is that Obama has projected weakness, somewhat similar to former Mayor of Birmingham Chamberlain in 1938. The results of such obvious passive behavior was war, not peace. If you want peace, prepare for war. Or "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Obama has been shouting and brandishing a wet noodle.

The future trend of the GOP has to be libertarian until we get the economy going again. Then we can think about other things but by then today's worry will change to something else.

I am far more leery of social conservative after an experience at Ricochet last month. I met a bunch of creationists who populated that site.

Michael K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

"I'd say there is a front runner. It's Rand Paul, whose rise to the top has not come as a result of insinuating his way into the good graces of one or two of the old factions Douthat has laid out for us."

That would the same Rand Paul who famously told Mitch McConnell "we're going to win this thing" during the shut down?

Shouldn't leaders be able to accurately see the political landscape?

Good luck with that,…

EMD said...

I watched CPAC for laughs,

I'm sure you tuned in.

The Crack Emcee said...

garage mahal,

"I watched CPAC for laughs, the only thing I found terrifying was their sense of humor."

It's bizarre:

Their awful and disgusting "humor" is becoming the best diagnostic tool to discover their true intentions.

AReasonableMan said...

Douthat is only animated by religion and its interaction with politics and society. CPAC downplayed religion.

garage mahal said...

I'm sure you tuned in.

I did. liberals seem to enjoy CPAC more than conservatives.

AReasonableMan said...

I was surprised by the poor showing by Paul Ryan. At one point he seemed to be the most likely nominee because he appeared to have the backing of the Republican establishment and he was the last VP nominee, a position that has traditionally carried some weight in subsequent nomination battles. In this respect Douthat is correct, it remains a very open contest. Rand Paul probably has a ceiling for support that is not a lot higher than his fathers.

AReasonableMan said...

garage mahal said...
liberals seem to enjoy CPAC more than conservatives.


It's more helpful to their cause. More Anne Coulter, please.

Paul said...

Left leaning libertarian? That's a contradiction in terms. Sort of like a small government statist, or an intelligent response by garage mahal (the dimwit commenter, not the indie band he pilfered the name from).

Irwin Chusid said...

I guess the word "lockstep" does not appear in Douthat's column.

syed ali said...

Make your own home based business without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
Invest as low as 1$ and Get 2.5% Daily profit for 90 Days, Join Now
HotFxEarnings.com

Oso Negro said...

The New York Times is still trying to determine who the squishy, Establishment-friendly GOP candidate should be for 2016. They will pimp the candidate until the convention (see "maverick" McCain, "inevitable" Romney)and then turn on them viciously in the general election. If they pick the right squish, Establishment values will be upheld even in the event of a Republican victory.

garage mahal said...

"indie band"? That's incredibly stupid, even for you.

The Crack Emcee said...

EMD said...
(No one tell Crack who finished third. )

Let me guess:


Someone most blacks would call "Uncle Tom" while whites imagine such a person - who blacks will never follow or listen to - will be seen as great or new.

Again - historically ignorant to the point of absurdity.



Michael K said...

"Rand Paul probably has a ceiling for support that is not a lot higher than his fathers."

Lefties simply do not understand libertarians. They see the social aspect and think they are allies, then they see the economic policies and are gobsmacked.

They can't figure it out. Culture shock. Libertarians will take power and proceed to leave us alone.

What ???

sane_voter said...

For comparison, here are the 2010 CPAC results

Ron Paul 31%
Mitt Romney 22%
Sarah Palin 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Mike Pence 5%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Mitch Daniels 2%
John Thune 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Haley Barbour 1%

garage mahal said...

When it came time to support a true libertarian in Virginia who had a broad base of support, who did Rand Paul stump for? The social conservative Republican who wanted to outlaw blow jobs.

MarkHB said...

I could vote for Rand but he wouldn't be my first choice. If we are going to win, and then have a President that knows how to govern, it will probably be with a governor, not a senator or a representative.
My money is going to Scott Walker, but I would be happy to support Bobby Jindal, as well.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
Lefties simply do not understand libertarians. They see the social aspect and think they are allies, then they see the economic policies and are gobsmacked.

They can't figure it out. Culture shock. Libertarians will take power and proceed to leave us alone.

What ???


You have just strung together a series of non sequiturs.

We are talking about CPAC and the broader Republican voting base that determines the Republican nominee. Liberals don't play a role in either other than as interested observers. If Rand Paul has a limited ceiling it is because of the views of his fellow Republicans, it has nothing to do with liberals.

dreams said...

You don't get hired by the NY Times by being a true conservative. We saw what happened to Bill Kristol a few years ago.

cubanbob said...

One thing is for sure whoever is the Republican candidate will be far superior to any Democrat. The question remains is whether an electorate dumb enough to elect and re-elect an Obama be dumb enough to vote for a third Obama term? My fear is that it is.

The Crack Emcee said...

cubanbob,

"The question remains is whether an electorate dumb enough to elect and re-elect an Obama be dumb enough to vote for a third Obama term? My fear is that it is."


And that's because you guys are making yourselves look so attractive,...

dreams said...

I like Scott Walker best too but I'm not sure he can generate enough enthusiasm for his candidacy. I like Scott Walker over Rand Paul because he has proven his ability to govern by standing up to the corrupt public unions and getting the job done. I like Rand Paul too.

EDH said...

MarkHB is correct. It'd be better if Paul is influential in the 2014 congressional and senate races.

Paul said...

" One thing is for sure whoever is the Republican candidate will be far superior to any Democrat. The question remains is whether an electorate dumb enough to elect and re-elect an Obama be dumb enough to vote for a third Obama term? My fear is that it is."

Yep. 2012 proved we are a bona fide idiocracy. Low information identity politics voters are the majority now

Titus said...

I hope Donald Trump runs.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Low information identity politics voters are the majority now"


Oh, we have LOTS of information, which is why you're losing,...

cubanbob said...

@ Crack: now for The Macho Response to this question-it's 3am at the bar, closing time and you have the following choice-ugly or uglier? Going home alone isn't an option. Who do you pick?

cubanbob said...

@ Crack: now for The Macho Response to this question-it's 3am at the bar, closing time and you have the following choice-ugly or uglier? Going home alone isn't an option. Who do you pick?

cubanbob said...

"Low information identity politics voters are the majority now"


Oh, we have LOTS of information, which is why you're losing,...

3/9/14, 11:40 AM"

No. We have lots of information but the problem is we have an electorate who would rather believe the progressives instead of their lying eyes. The last time we had an economy this bad for this long was during the FDR Administration. And there isn't any sign of improvement.

AReasonableMan said...

cubanbob said...
The last time we had an economy this bad for this long was during the FDR Administration.


I am glad that you can acknowledge the close parallels between the Bush and Hoover presidencies in regard to their stewardship of the economy. Acceptance is the last stage of grief.

Cedarford said...

Cubanbob - "One thing is for sure whoever is the Republican candidate will be far superior to any Democrat. The question remains is whether an electorate dumb enough to elect and re-elect an Obama be dumb enough to vote for a third Obama term? My fear is that it is."

Only a delusional partisan thinks that way. No way is an out of control flake like Gingrich "automatically" better than some of the potential Democrats. Nor the odious Rick Santorum. Nor hucksters like 9-9-9!! Herman.
Frankly, most Americans seeing the semi-senile and erratic John McCain popping up with Fascist Party Ukrainian "Freedom Lovers", or similar "Freedom Loving" Islamists affiliated with Al Qaeda in Syria - reminds many that the country dodged a real bullet when they rejected that war-mongering Neocon.
Rand Pauls people pass around a list of 15 new wars McCain is on record for advocating - as sort of a joke.

AReasonableMan said...

Cedarford said...

Rand Pauls people pass around a list of 15 new wars McCain is on record for advocating - as sort of a joke

and sort of a tragedy.

Bob R said...

The Olsen article in The National Interest is far superior to Douthat's.(Douthat links to it.) Olsen uses the word faction, but he really means voting blocks in past elections. So far, there has not been a libertarian voting block in Republican primaries. Maybe that can change, but Ron Paul knows it hasn't changed yet. Olsen addresses Rand Paul's courting of the secular conservative voting block, so he at least is aware of what is going on.

bbkingfish said...

Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll in 2010 and 2011. Now Rand won in 2013 and 2014.

Who won in 2012? (Hint: the 2012 winner has a better chance at the 2016 nomination than Rand Paul does.)

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

The Crack Emcee said...

"Low information identity politics voters are the majority now"


Oh, we have LOTS of information, which is why you're losing,...


You were only able to reply that way because the adjective "accurate" was negligently left off from between the words "low" and "information".

And since it was left out, we all have to agree with your "LOTS". But that's not a good thing.

Drago said...

Crack: "Oh, we have LOTS of information, which is why you're losing,.."

yep.

Lots of information.

Like, if you like your health plan, you can keep you health plan.

We had that information prior to the last election.

I wonder if information like that played a large part in the outcome.

One can only wonder.

But then, there was other information out there as well that led some folks to believe it might be in their interest to vote in obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Yep. More information out there.

I wonder if and when it might be appropriate to discuss the quality of the "lots of information" that happens to be out there.

Or is "quality" now racist?

It's hard to keep track.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Of course, many times we don't actually need adjectives.

For example, Drudge has an item right now that reads "Massive brawl breaks out at LA FITNESS" "People Throwing Weights".

And we don't need a single adjective to instantly know just who those "people" are. Amazing, isn't it?

The Crack Emcee said...

cubanbob,

"No. We have lots of information but the problem is we have an electorate who would rather believe the progressives instead of their lying eyes."


I like the repeated suggestion I, and other blacks, don't think for ourselves. The white man does it all for us! (And you guys wonder why nobody listens to you?)

And what's wrong with our eyes? We saw black slavery, etc., turn into riches for the entire nation while we were kept in poverty by Jim Crow. Did we imagine it?

Are our eyes the problem or yours?

eric said...

I like Rand Paul because he seems to understand how the media works. He gets on message and he stays on message and he's able to frame things in a way that are clear and concise.

He doesn't need to check notes and he talks well off the cuff, without seeming to be repeating the same thing over and over again.

As far as his politics? I don't agree with his foreign policy as much as I'd like to, or how far libertarian he can be. However, he'd be much preferable to a Hillary Clinton or her ilk.

If I have to bite that bullet, I will do so, gladly.

I'd much rather go the libertarian route in this country, than the socialist route.

Lydia said...

Too bad Rand Paul picked Roger Waters' lyrics to quote in his CPAC speech. Since Waters is an out-and-proud hater of Israel who's into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Kirk Parker said...

Michael,

I went to have a look at your blog post, but I got bogged down in the details (though I completely understand you wanting document them.)

Would it be possible for you to post a very brief answer to the question that always comes to mind when evolution and medicine comes up: What difference does it make? I don't mean to ask about the researcher, but the practitioner. Let's say you're a surgeon, or an internist, or oncologist, or whatever. What difference in your actual practice of your specialty will it make, to have a creationist view?

The Crack Emcee said...

Buh-buh-buh BOOOOM:
Rand Paul & Mitch McConnell Abandon The Tea Party

How you like me now, baby?"

Michael K said...

"I am glad that you can acknowledge the close parallels between the Bush and Hoover presidencies in regard to their stewardship of the economy. Acceptance is the last stage of grief."

It's no surprise that ARM does not realize that Hoover, a member of Wilson's cabinet, was a progressive and advocated the same policies that FDR later followed. Roosevelt even criticized him for deficit budgets and promised to balance the budget !

No, ARM, your history is bunk.

Marshal said...


The Crack Emcee said...
"Low information identity politics voters are the majority now"

Oh, we have LOTS of information, which is why you're losing,


Interesting comment from someone who claims to be a Republican. Much like NPR's "conservative" callers who somehow only call in to express how the current candidate is no true conservative.

Drago said...

crack: "Are our eyes the problem or yours?"

Well, we would need to investigate further if you show signs of glaucoma and/or astigmatism.

Of course, with obamacare it probably won't be easy to get in to see someone.

Keep trying though.

The Crack Emcee said...

Marshal,

"Interesting comment from someone who claims to be a Republican."


Never said I was lock-step. Never even pretended.

I will not be going over the cliff just because the rest are lemmings.

"Much like NPR's "conservative" callers who somehow only call in to express how the current candidate is no true conservative."


When conservatives stop fucking up, I'll praise them. In the meantime, I do the party no favors by supporting losing policies, and the losers who support them.

You've got the rest of these yokels for that,...

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

The Crack Emcee said...

I like the repeated suggestion I, and other blacks, don't think for ourselves. The white man does it all for us! (And you guys wonder why nobody listens to you?)


If you all think for yourselves, there should be a more natural diversity of opinion. Instead, you all vote 95% one (failed) way. So I call B.S. on the thinking for yourselves.

And what's wrong with our eyes? We saw black slavery, etc., turn into riches for the entire nation while we were kept in poverty by Jim Crow. Did we imagine it?

First of all, you, and everyone living today, 'saw' nothing, nor had anything done to you. And as far as "the entire nation" getting riches, someone forgot to include my itinerant Irish sharecropping great grandfather, I guess.

Are our eyes the problem or yours?

Your 'stuck-in-the-past' attitude and world-view is your likely problem. Your ancestors suffered. Their decedents in America have it way better than they, and better than most today in Africa.

Going back far enough, all of our ancestors had it bad at some point. Most of us got over it, each generation vowing to leave a better situation. I'm now better off because my ancestors were starved out of Ireland by the English. Bad for them, good for me.

Context and perspective are everything.

For the Past to be a factor at all, it has to be continuously 'recreated' and preserved in the thoughts of those living now. It can be changed in a heartbeat. A single different thought. You might try it sometime.

Marshal said...

Never said I was lock-step. Never even pretended.

Your position doesn't bother me, I want all the racists to renounce the Republican party.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I am deep denial that Herbert Clark Hoover (August 10, 1874 – October 20, 1964) was a Republican president.


A more recent Republican president than Lincoln I might add.

And speaking about not knowing their history, Hoover served "as the United States Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge".

Tom Perkins said...

"When it came time to support a true libertarian in Virginia who had a broad base of support, who did Rand Paul stump for? The social conservative Republican who wanted to outlaw blow jobs."

Liar. What he wanted to do was keep a bunch of pederasts in prison who were convicted under the old law.

The Crack Emcee said...

SomeoneHasToSayIt,

"If you all think for yourselves, there should be a more natural diversity of opinion."

Oh - so if we're collectively oppressed, we should disagree on that? That makes no sense at all.

"First of all, you, and everyone living today, 'saw' nothing, nor had anything done to you."


Bullshit - we have family members who made this the story of our lives - as real as the founding of this nation. And they not only suffered under that, but all the structural racism embedded in society, too. Can you deny that Jim Crow (which was in effect when I was a child) kept blacks segregated, and discriminated against, so they couldn't earn money?

And, if slaves and sharecroppers couldn't earn wealth to pass on to their relatives - by law - then why aren't I hurt, today, by that?

"Someone forgot to include my itinerant Irish sharecropping great grandfather, I guess."

Oh yes it does - he lived here, as a white man, able to earn and live in ways blacks could only dream about, and he said nothing. Just as you do now. He was probably a pain in the ass, as you are now, too, because the law said he was better than blacks, so my relatives had to move off the sidewalk when your piss poor relatives walked by - another issue they didn't find a problem with.

He probably attend a lynching or two as well. It was entertainment, you know.

"Your ancestors suffered."

Yes, but we know we stand on their shoulders - it's you who take multigenerational suffering to be no big thing. You think blacks, competing with whites who got all the resources when we don't have any accumulated wealth from the policies whites supported, on on fair footing when we just walked to the starting line 35 years ago.

You're nuts.

"Going back far enough, all of our ancestors had it bad at some point."

But slavery ended 140 years ago. Jim Crow officially ended 35-40 years ago.

Is that ancient history to you, or does it make sense that whites have everything and blacks nothing because the whites - our fellow countrymen - have been cheating for centuries?

"Most of us got over it, each generation vowing to leave a better situation."

You got over this? How does any people get over centuries of that kind of terrorism in 35-40 years?

Again - it's crazy talk - unless you're a Nazi. "Oh, the Jews didn't have it so bad in the camps."

Sure.

"I'm now better off because my ancestors were starved out of Ireland by the English."

Great. That's not the black experience. We live with our abusers - not run from them. The black experience was black men being forced to fuck Irish women - while white men watched - to make more slaves. Sometimes in front of the black man's wife.

You talk like you don't know the first thing about it, but still think you should criticize. That, too, is crazy. Just adding insult to injury.

"Context and perspective are everything."

And you have neither. 400 years vs. 35-40 and you think it all evens out. That's nuts.

"For the Past to be a factor at all, it has to be continuously 'recreated' and preserved in the thoughts of those living now."

Bullshit - you hurt me and I could give a damn what your intent is. You could be the most gentle soul on the planet, but if you cause me to lose a hand, I won't care what your disposition is, and you wouldn't either.

"It can be changed in a heartbeat. A single different thought. You might try it sometime."

Look who's talking!

You guys might not be racists but, boy, you sure do say racist shit like 'em,...

harrogate said...

Is Rand Paul winning the straw poll at CPAC big news that all the papers ought to be trumpeting with "big coverage"?

This post seems, anyway, to believe the answer to that question is yes. While that's an arguable position, it's hardly indisputable. I for one am unconvinced that ... drumroll please.... We The People .. . . even cared all that much that CPAC was happening.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

The Crack Emcee said...

. . . a whole bunch of shit


If that is how you think, I feel sorry for you, man.

They say the best cage is one where you can't even see the bars.

And worse, to be creating them your own self.

Good luck to you.

cubanbob said...

AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
The last time we had an economy this bad for this long was during the FDR Administration.

I am glad that you can acknowledge the close parallels between the Bush and Hoover presidencies in regard to their stewardship of the economy. Acceptance is the last stage of grief.

3/9/14, 12:02 PM

Apparently you haven't accepted facts versus fantasies. I both both parallels you mention it was the Federal Reserve that created the inflationary bubbles that lead to the crashes. Hoover was a progressive, his tax and spend and borrow policies were the predicate for FDR and in principal not that different from Obama. Reality is hard for progressives.

Cedaford: seriously? Which Republican you listed could possibly fuck up the economy any worse than the Democrats have already done and are continuing to do so?

Paul said...

I always roll my eyes when someone says blacks built the country or whites got rich on slavery. If that was so the RICH South would have beaten the POOR North. Slavery may enrich a few people but is not anywhere as efficient economically as people motivated to work hard for their own betterment. I'm pretty sure the greatest economic growth and high standard of living achieved in this country occurred post slavery.

The resident racist here is just race baiting because, a) he's an attention whore, an insecure, needy little man, and, b)unable to assume responsibility for failing in life and needing a scapegoat as his narcissism renders him incapable of realizing that he is indeed a failure of his own making.

Of course add that all up and what do you get?

A prime grade asshole.

The Crack Emcee said...

Paul said...
I always roll my eyes when someone says blacks built the country or whites got rich on slavery. If that was so the RICH South would have beaten the POOR North.


You don't understand:

The South's wealth WAS the slaves.

The Crack Emcee said...

It's amazing how little about slavery when it was the biggest sin this country ever committed next to taking the land.

But then, if you weren't kept in the dark, it probably never would've worked,...

gadfly said...

I think CPAC poll indicates that we are seeing the supreme organization of the "Paulites" operating as they did in the non-voting primary states in 2012 for Ron Paul - but now they have a more attractive candidate in Rand.

Less than 2,500 CPACers voted and 31% went for Rand Paul whose speech deliberately avoided the Russian invasion like the plague.

AReasonableMan said...

cubanbob said...

Apparently you haven't accepted facts versus fantasies. I both both parallels you mention it was the Federal Reserve that created the inflationary bubbles that lead to the crashes. Hoover was a progressive, his tax and spend and borrow policies were the predicate for FDR and in principal not that different from Obama. Reality is hard for progressives.


The lead up to both the Great Recession and the Great Depression featured Republican presidencies. Based on our history, apparently the surest way to ensure economic collapse is to have a Republican presidency. And, most of the lead up to the Great Depression was dominated by Coolidge's presidency and Coolidge is no ones concept of a statist.

MadisonMa'am said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMa'am said...

Rand Paul co sponsored a bill that would give personhood to a fertilized egg. He will not get the youth vote.


cubanbob said...

ARM you never miss an opportunity to miss the truth-the 1929 and the 2008 crash were the direct result of bubbles created by the Federal Reserve Board-a creation of the Democrats.

Crack your vision impairment leads to your inability to read what is written versus what you assume was writen.

I never said a sub-section of the electorate. I said the electorate as a whole. Now maybe I'm wrong but up to now it's been considered in incontrrverted fact that Jefferson Davis, the slave owners and Jim Crow were Democrats. All of them. And so were Wallace, Faubus and Bilbo. Is that recent enough for you?

Kirk Parker said...

Crack,

"The South's wealth WAS the slaves."

Nice circular argument you've got there.

AReasonableMan said...

cubanbob said...
ARM you never miss an opportunity to miss the truth-the 1929 and the 2008 crash were the direct result of bubbles created by the Federal Reserve Board-a creation of the Democrats.


Simply saying something doesn't make it true - most of us learnt that in kindergarten. The Fed in the run up to the Great Recession was lead not just by a Republican but by a Randian - Alan Greenspan. To blame the Democrats for this fools ideological driven nonsense is delusional.

The Crack Emcee said...

Kirk Parker said...
Crack,

"The South's wealth WAS the slaves."

Nice circular argument you've got there.


It's not a circular argument, it's a fact. Black American slaves were the most expensive "property" the South owned. They (and others around the world) even took out mortgages on them.

No slaves, no wealth - the South was "broke" once the slaves left, while the North had real money from centuries of selling what the slaves had made.

I really am flabbergasted you guys don't know this stuff,...

The Crack Emcee said...

I mean, this is the American history most of you seem to be so proud of knowing, but you don't.

And this - the general operation - is the basic stuff,...

Michael said...

ARM. i believe cubanbob was referring to the institution of the Federal Reserve Board which was a creation of the Democrats. He was not, as a reader would note, alleging the bubbles were the result of the particular chairs. A disrinction with a difference.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael said...
ARM. i believe cubanbob was referring to the institution of the Federal Reserve Board which was a creation of the Democrats. He was not, as a reader would note, alleging the bubbles were the result of the particular chairs. A disrinction with a difference.


I understood this but it is stupid point. There will always have to be a central bank of some kind and if the very existence of the Fed is so intrinsically damaging Republican chairmen could just sit on their hands and do nothing, as often happens with other regulatory boards.

Shouting Thomas said...

How much does this being the world's leading authority on racism pay, Crack?

Nothing?

No shit. That's what I figured.

So, who's a loser?

Maybe you ought to forget about the political BSing and get an education and a job.

The Crack Emcee said...

Shouting Thomas,

Maybe you ought to forget about the political BSing and get an education and a job.


And maybe you should suck a dick, because those desperate third world bitches don't seem to be improving your outlook. Here's an idea:

Go fuck Myrna's corpse and get your dignity back,...

Shouting Thomas said...

Nothing to do again today, huh, Crack?

That racism biz is really paying off.

April Apple said...

Garage is teeing up the predictable petty from the authoritarian left progressive big government camp.


Forget liberty - some GOPer is attempting to take away your condoms, birth control, tampons, and your access to government sponsored blow jobs.