Let's continue the script:
A conservative triumphing and winning in Wisconsin is huge. That was one of the bluest of blue states. It's home to some of the most fringe, left-wing radical movements that there are in this country.Especially here in Madison, I need to say.
They weren't able to beat Scott Walker and two recall efforts, failed miserably.Now, this part must be ad lib, because he's got the facts wrong. There was only one recall election against Scott Walker, and under state law, there can only be one per term.
Rush observes that it's that other governor, Chris Christie who gets all the media, and people might say that's because "nobody cares about Scott Walker."
Well, the people of Wisconsin know about Scott Walker, and the people living there have elected him and have fought against efforts to recall him. He's had to fight like hell. It has not been easy. But it's the blueprint, it's evidence. I've interviewed him for the Limbaugh Letter. I've been chronicling this. I have been pointing this out to people. When he survived the most recent recall and when he announced the latest budget, which included tax cuts, a budget surplus, I said, "This should be the biggest story in the Republican Party today." And it was right before the Republican governors convention. And if you didn't hear about it on this program, you didn't hear about it.So Rush is really championing Walker. If you read the whole segment at the top link, you'll see it's his usual idea that Republicans win elections through principled conservatism and not by charming the media. The media are now shining their light on Chris Christie, but only, the theory goes, so he'll get the nomination, at which point they'll do what they can to wreck him, and, representing nothing principled, he'll have nothing to offer the voters.
"Nobody" may care about Scott Walker now, but if and when he gets the nomination, "nobody" will care about Chris Christie. That's the Limbaugh line on 2016.
Posts
66 comments:
I'm for Walker more than the rest, but nobody's perfect, until someone can prove that Mark Steyn is actually a US citizen.
All this election talk is only making me angrier at Mitt Romney and John McCain. They really owe this country a serious, grovelling apology.
I think Rush may be differentiating the state senate recalls from the Walker recall. The Democrats never gained effective control of the senate due to the recalls, even though they flipped a seat creating a Dem majority in 2012, since the senate wasn't in session after the recall.
I disagree that Wisconsin is a true Blue state.
I'm also suspicious about the claims of a state budget surplus. But I'm cynical.
Yeah, "one of the bluest of blue states" is blatantly off. We're a swing state. We had all those years of Tommy Thompson. We count as purple.
But Madison is clearly the bluest of the blue (even though the school color is the reddest of the red).
"I think Rush may be differentiating the state senate recalls from the Walker recall."
He may be getting mixed up about all the recalls because there were so many, but he repeatedly says "two" with reference to Walker, and it's just plain wrong.
I think Rush is correct on this one. Consciously or not, the press tends early to promote "Good" Republicans (ones like McCain and Romney who vote like relatively conservative Democrats) and then savage them in favor of the real Democrat during the general election season.
Bridge kerfluffle notwithstanding, Christie is this cycle's Good Republican. Heck, he's even an Obama Fan, or at least he was, and they have pictures and video to prove it.
The lack of degree is going to be a killer for Walker, which is a pity; he's certainly qualified to be President, but he isn't credentialed. Too many snobs and idiots believe that makes a difference for him to get the nomination, let alone the win the general.
Bluest of the blue, reddest of the Reds.
Ano no, I'm not talking about Cincinnati.
Bluest of blue? We have a GOP Guv, Senate, and Assembly. 50/50 on US Senators. And 5/8 House members are GOP. We're reddish purple.
It's sort of a straw man argument to say that you shouldn't try to "win over the media". Has any candidate ever said "vote for me because the media likes me"? The issue is how to handle the media--Reagan and even Nixon knew how to do that to some degree. You can even have the media attacking you and have it help you with how its perceived by viewers/readers. And besides, the people who make up the "media" care far more about whether you're a good story for them than they do about their personal political preferences. I think even a reporter who is a liberal Democrat would pounce on the Democratic candidate if it meant scooping the competition on a great story. (Whether that reporter's biases may skew his judgment on what is a good story is another matter, and that's where unconscious media bias matters. But the media doesn't have to love you to inadvertently work on your behalf)
The issue with a lot of these "principled conservatives" is that everyone's going to differ over who is a "principled conservative" and who is an unelectable joke. Was Christine O'Donnell a "principled conservative"?
It's true that a good candidate will be one who at least appears to have some convictions, but as to whether the GOP would do better with another Goldwater 1964campaign the main thing to keep in mind is that the electorate needs to be appealed to. Reagan's conservatism in 1980 succeeded where Goldwater's didn't in 1964 because of where the voters were politically. Four years of economic growth and an interest in civil rights affected the voters in 1964 very differently from how four years of malaise and Carterism affected them in 1980. Add that to Reagan's likeable image and you had a very different landslide, despite both candidates coming from the right wing of the party.
Today the Democrats have left a lot of younger people, suburban moderates, and Hispanics disaffected (this is where most of the drop in Obama's approval rating comes from). Perhaps a "principled" conservative can win those voters over, but I don't see it happening with the old Tea Party playbook. Not that I know exactly how the GOP can pull in those voters--more likely the result is many staying home or voting for some third party protest candidate.
Is Walker going to run? What are the whispers in Madison?
"Ann Althouse said...
Yeah, "one of the bluest of blue states" is blatantly off. We're a swing state. We had all those years of Tommy Thompson. We count as purple."
Tommy left office in 2001.
Ann Althouse: "He may be getting mixed up about all the recalls because there were so many, but he repeatedly says "two" with reference to Walker, and it's just plain wrong."
Since Rush has perused the Althouse Blog in the past, I wonder if he or a member of his staff will catch the error and correct it on todays show.
"All this election talk is only making me angrier at Mitt Romney and John McCain"
McCain followed the usual Republican pattern of being next in line but he was too old (I supported him and was a volunteer in 2000). Romney followed the same pattern toward the nomination being the runner-up in 2008. However, I think Romney ran a good campaign and was our last chance (Maybe ) to solve the critical problems of government in the country. He was used to big rescue jobs and knew how to run things.
The "Romneycare" thing was a bum rap since he was dealing with a solid Democrat legislature that overrode his veto on the employer mandate, The mandate idea was tried and was one attempt to deal with the "free rider" issue in health care reform. France, which has the best health care system in the world, I believe, requires something like catastrophic care insurance. Any mandate needs to be structured to apply only to basic care and to leave the already insured alone.
I think Romney lost because the GOP did not have a good GOTV campaign and that was not just Romney's fault, plus there may have been enough vote fraud and fraudulent attacks on the Tea Party to swing the election.
It was a tragedy and I have largely given up on politics since then. I am very pessimistic we can avoid a real severe crisis. Maybe Walker can do something but it is a very uphill battle.
I like Walker very much. He's more soft-spoken and he seems to have his policy priorities in the right order. Republicans can only win national elections if they exude competence on the big important stuff, like the budget and the economy, and soft-pedal the divisive social conservatism issues. His only weakness is his educational pedigree, but that really shouldn't matter. But it does to many voters.
I hope the Dems run Hillary. Maybe once and for all we can retire that despicable family from public life.
If people make an issue of Walker's education, the obvious rejoinder should be that Hillary failed the DC bar exam, right?
But Madison is clearly the bluest of the blue (even though the school color is the reddest of the red).
And the school kids certainly take that red seriously.
Unlike the media, who (deliberately?) assigned red to the states who didn't dance to the collective-progressivist jig of the 'blue' states.
I still get a kick out of the fact that you listen to Rush. I listened to him for about 25 years, on and off. Now I feel like I know what he is going to say almost every time so I don't listen much.
The first time I heard him, I couldn't believe I was hearing a guy say the kinds of things I thought, especially about Dukakis, I lived in Mass. I used to time my lunch to get to my car at 12:07 every weekday. He can be genuinely funny and insightful, and he puts forth arguments that would never have gotten aired pre-Rush.
In all the years I listened, I heard him say one thing that was arguably racist, OK, it was inarguably racist, in the sense that Juan Williams' comment was racist, and Mark Cuban. Which is why all the Rush bashing seems a lot more like people trying to convince themselves not to listen than anything to do with Rush. The bashing of Rush is always taken out of context, sometimes featuring quotes that start or stop in mid sentence, and always stripped of context.
When he was wrong, he sincerely apologized and changed his behavior, I am thinking about Chelsea Clinton.
Before Rush, there was only Alex P. Keaton, who, I have read, was supposed to be the butt of jokes and always made to apologize for his right wing views every show, but it only made him seem like the bigger person than those liberal loony parents of his.
Anyway, now I like my right wing media consumption to be somewhat tempered, which is I guess why I visit here every day.
Boy - a Rush endorsement!
That's sure to make the country get all warm and fuzzy for a guy with a racist staff,...
One episode of The Daily Show and he's toast,...
Michael K,
"I have largely given up on politics since then."
I love the loser spirit,...
The lack of a degree is a feature not a bug. This from someone who has an advanced degree. They are basically worthless as markers of success with exhibits a through zed embodied in our current president.
Wisconsin hasn't gone Republican in presidential race since 1984. You folks backed Dukakis for Christ's sake.
If the gubernatorial race were held the same time as presidential race, you'd never have a Republican governor or senator. In other words, Wisconsin is filled with low-information liberals who are too lazy to vote in off presidential year elections. Bluest of blue
Mark says: "The lack of degree is going to be a killer for Walker, which is a pity; he's certainly qualified to be President, but he isn't credentialed. Too many snobs and idiots believe that makes a difference for him to get the nomination, let alone the win the general."
I gave you the answer to this 2 months ago, here:
"What should Scott Walker — if he's a presidential candidate — say when they ask him whether a President needs to have a college degree?
"1. Express his understanding of the importance of education and of the good reasons why some young people interrupt their education to engage in other pursuits that are also important, such as business opportunities, family responsibilities, military service...
"2. Explain the work he has done, as Governor of Wisconsin, in supporting the University of Wisconsin's FlexOption, which facilitates the completion of a degree by those who have interrupted their education.
"3. Describe a hypothetical excellent presidential candidate who does not have a college degree, the sort of person that we would need to be embarrassingly snobbish to reject.
"4. Suddenly, but modestly, reveal that he has in fact earned that college degree."
Wisconsin hasn't given its electoral votes to a Republican since 1984.
Would they give them to Walker? Mitt did not win in MA, but then our state is really the bluest of the blue.
Is any Democrat running in 2016 going to repudiate Obama and his policies? No. Will that candidate run on anything that isn't a continuation of Obama's policies? No. So what's the selling point? That I can do a better job of implementing Obamanomics than Obama? That I would be better at implementing ObamaCare than Obama? That I would implement Obama's foreign policies better than Obama?
For the Republicans to lose would require a serious effort by the party to nominate the one candidate that is even more unelectable than the Democrat and that will be a very difficult trick to pull off. But never underestimate the GOP's penchant for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Tommy left office in 2001.
Curious George, stop that.
I'm still in my early 40s in my mind.
Until the conservative base stops being intimidated by the media spot light and playing wack-a-mole with candidates (it was a joke how fast the media could move conservatives from one candidate to another) will we elect the kind of person we want. We ask for them to be principled, but bail as fast as we can to the next least offensive guy when something negative appears. here's something, lets find the guy 'they' like the least and just support him regardless. Odds are thats the guy to elect.
Mark at 8:31 is right about the media and general elections. In Kansas City, the Star claims to be independent, yet they endorsed the most liberal Democrat of my lifetime, Obama, over the most liberal Republican of my lifetime, McCain. They should just make their party identification official.
"...a guy with a racist staff..."
This reminds me of the Seinfeld bit about his Uncle Leo. Everything that goes wrong in his life, he blames it on anti-semitism. "The pasta wasn't al-dente? Anti-semite! The rabbi at the high holy days?? Anti-semite!"
Re: Walker and college degrees. See Truman, Harry. I'd put him up over President Columbia/Harvard any day of the week.
Ann;
Not to derail a subject, but I just visited bloggingheads.tv and read this headline: "Tough-talkin’ lady FOX commentators ponder impeachment for Bergdahl release".
I know every now and then you locate a bit of sexist talk and tromp it. I was curious if you thought this rated. I also have a screenshot if you need one.
"Today the Democrats have left a lot of younger people, suburban moderates, and Hispanics disaffected (this is where most of the drop in Obama's approval rating comes from). Perhaps a "principled" conservative can win those voters over, but I don't see it happening with the old Tea Party playbook. Not that I know exactly how the GOP can pull in those voters--more likely the result is many staying home or voting for some third party protest candidate." - Brando
Well said. There is a real opportunity to move the stakes of the GOP tent. But its gonna take a candidate that understands the electorate and how to engage them with ideas that work. Guys like Paul do this well. They have that Breitbart fearlessness to intellectually engage the enemy.
> I think even a reporter who is a liberal Democrat would pounce on the Democratic candidate if it meant scooping the competition on a great story.
They won't pounce on a Democrat president so why do you think that they'll pounce on a Democrat candidate? (Pouncing on a candidate can swing an election. Pouncing on a president can't.)
He may be getting mixed up about all the recalls because there were so many, but he repeatedly says "two" with reference to Walker, and it's just plain wrong.
You appear to be under the misapprehension that Rush is the least bit concerned with getting the facts correct. He made two blatantly untrue statements (that undermine his point if he corrects them), yet you are willing to give him a pass.
Now I don't know if he is just misinformed or deliberately lying, but does it really matter?
President McCain says Limbaugh's theory about the press turning on GOP candidates is absurd.
I like Walker too, but if the past is any indicator, as soon as he gets on the national stage, he'll pull the Tim Pawlenty act.
If he doesn't, he'll get my vote.
There's another issue which Limbaugh has previous cited - the Buckley Rule. The Buckley Rule is to vote for the most conservative candidate who can get elected. Christie in New Jersey was that candidate in the gubernatorial race. He is what passes for conservative in New Jersey. The rule was meant for local races only. I don't think that Buckley intended for his rule to apply in nationwide races.
"The Crack Emcee said...
Boy - a Rush endorsement!
That's sure to make the country get all warm and fuzzy for a guy with a racist staff,..."
His producer is, like you, black, and unlike you, not a whining loser.
I've been saying the same thing for quite a while now.
If the GOP can't convince Mitch Daniels to leave Purdue (where he's managed to keep tuition frozen for 3 years straight now), reenter politics, and run for president, Scott Walker is a pretty good facsimile of the kind of candidate Republicans need.
But its gonna take a candidate that understands the electorate and how to engage them with ideas that work. Guys like Paul do this well. They have that Breitbart fearlessness to intellectually engage the enemy.
Agreed ... the GOP Establishment lacks the courage to do this.
That is because they don't want to tell the unpleasant truth: a lot of the ideas that work will not come from the Ruling Class they belong to and feed from ... but from US, as individuals and neighbors, because we are far closer to the problems than they are.
Politics is built around electing heroes who will swoop down and "save" you, to the fanfare of the media trumpets ... even when they can't.
It's harder to get elected by telling the voters you are going to do less FOR them, and instead focus on keeping them free to do for themselves and take care of each other ... but the politician who is able to convince the voters of the truth in that message, and live it out when elected, will be worthy of placement on Mount Rushmore.
For he (or she) will be the one who will persuade this nation to save itself, by returning to the respect for personal liberty/responsibility/initiative that took this nation from an appendage of England to a superpower in its own right.
RL's thesis is that Reagan and Walker succeeded, and were re-elected, because thay implemented conservative based policies that improved the places they governed. Strong point if you ask me.
chillblaine said...
"...a guy with a racist staff..."
This reminds me of the Seinfeld bit about his Uncle Leo
It's actually worse than that, chill: some dude (with an especially cracked world view) says that more-or-less all whites are racist. He says it a lot. But he consistently fails to understand the very obvious implications of his view, leading to the conclusion that he is either hypocritical to an impressive degree or incapable of understanding pretty basic logic.
As an example, take a recent comment regarding someone's racist staff and remember his oft-stated views. A syllogism is immediately apparent:
All whites are racist
Walker's staff contains whites
Walker's staff is racist
But because the major premise is categorical this means the following must also be true:
All whites are racist
X politician's staff contains whites
X's politician's staff is racist
where X politician = any politician with whites on staff (ie all politicians). Yet this poster nonetheless uses this fact as evidence against a particular politician! Pres. Obama's campaigns certainly had a lot of whites...
As I said, serious hypocrisy or profound ignorance. Hey, maybe a mix of both!
The US hasn't had a conservative President since Coolidge.
It's only had three liberals since then: FDR, LBJ, and Obama. Hillary will not run as a liberal.
Since Gov Walker is so popular, he should pretty easily match Christie's 61 percent re-election performance. He'll have all the money in the world and is running against a political nobody, conditions very similar to the fundamentals of the NJ race last year.
Yep. If Walker can pull 60+ percent, he will be national news and a legit 2016 candidate, should he choose to run. Of course, if Jeb decides to go for it, even Rush Limbaugh won't remember that Walker exists.
The test for Republicans is going to be whether they are far more motivated to prevent four more years of the Dems holding the White House (and likely putting a couple more people on the Supreme Court, pumping more of the Treasury into Obamacare, expanding the regulatory state ever further) than they are motivated to oppose their own candidates for being too RINO or too right wing. Maybe the prospect of a third straight loss--and Lord help us, a second Clinton presidency--will get them pragmatic enough to not hamstring their eventual nominee.
Primaries can be useful testing grounds, producing battle-readied candidates and an energized party. I think the 2008 primary helped Obama in his general, and the 2012 primary both helped and hurt Romney (helped, in that his debating skills were honed; hurt, in that his primary opponents made sure he emerged from the nomination with the highest negatives of any nominee in recent memory).
What makes 2016 remarkable is that there really is no GOP front runner, and the Democratic front runner is all but a lock if she wants it. This can be a big opportunity to try some new direction, come up with new ideas. Counting on capitalizing on voters' disatisfaction with Obama won't be enough to get across the line and make up for the electoral and demographic disadvantages the GOP has. Enough voters will be told by the Democrats that "hey, hope and change may look pretty bad now, but the Republicans are going to gut everything you want paid for (education, roads, services, entitlements--depending on who they're talking to) to cut taxes for millionaires, and that's only when they take time off of controlling women's bodies and keeping minorities from voting". That same old game won't work on all swing voters, but enough of them to keep the GOP under 50%.
The bigger issue is what will the GOP candidates be in favor of--what response will they have to the fact that jobs are becoming harder to come by, due to cheaper foreign competition and efficiency gains resulting in fewer jobs needed? How exactly will the GOP plan to reduce government dependency among the poor (without the plan simply being "cut 'em off")? How will the GOP make a better business environment without increasing the abuses that regulations were set up to counteract?
And of course the GOP should be putting the Dems on defense--make them defend the entitlement programs that will go bankrupt if they continue at the rate they're going. Make them defend their kowtowing to teachers' unions that prevent otherwise popular and sensible education reforms (such as expanded school years, merit pay, etc.). Make them defend an overly complex tax system that enables the rich to pay taxes at much lower rates. But the voters the party needs are going to want to see why a GOP presidency would be worth voting for in its own right.
Walker is going down this November. Too much criminal activities to ignore.
Curious George,
"His producer is, like you, black, and unlike you, not a whining loser."
I know - we call those Uncle Toms.
Funny how whites who love Toms never know THAT,...
1. Christie lost any chance of ever becoming a GOP nominee when he literally embraced El Commandante'. I seriously question his political instincts.
2. If Hilary! doesn't run to the left, she'll get trumped again in the primaries by whoever emerges to her left.
3. Crack killed Applejack.
I have to take exception to the use of "Uncle Tom" to smear black people who are viewed as overly subservient to whites. First, it's almost always unfairly used to disparage blacks who don't fall for the cheap opiate of blaming whites for every problem black people face.
Second, it betrays a profound ignorance of the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and demonstrates that the person using the insult is an idiot. In that book, Uncle Tom never betrayed the slaves who chose to escape, and ultimately sacrificed his own life as a result of sticking by them. He obeyed his masters, this is true, but he never sold out his own people and gave his own life for them.
Using "Uncle Tom" as an insult to suggest that someone is selling out the black race is just a way of saying "I haven't read a lot of books, but I can certainly make incorrect comparisons!"
And how the hell does every single discussion about every single post on this blog get turned into a discussion of racism?
I swear--Ann could post about how coffee houses are serving fancy sodas, and suddently the comments section would devolve into an argument about how white supremacists prevented black people from inventing soda or something like that.
Either Crack's certainty is frightening or delusional. Either way he's laying down the gauntlet.
I think Rush is correct in his assertion that Republicans have to win on policy. He sees many Republicans trying to win the media when the media cannot be won. It doesn't matter what Republicans do, it will be spun negatively and Rush knows that. So Republicans can only win on policy and Walker has won on policy in Wisconsin over vicious opposition. I agree with him, Walker is the best candidate for 2016.
Rush always goes back to the fact that Reagan was hated by the media and became popular as a result of the policies he advocated that brought about relative prosperity. The media and the establishment, never liked him. He's popular now, because things were good under him.
"The Crack Emcee said...
Curious George,
"His producer is, like you, black, and unlike you, not a whining loser."
I know - we call those Uncle Toms.
Funny how whites who love Toms never know THAT,..."
We know that. It's what loser blacks always call successful blacks.
I gave you the answer to this 2 months ago, here:
Sorry, I wasn't persuaded by the first three points, and the fourth will be attacked as fraudulent, no matter the truth of it.
I'd love to see Walker as President. I just think the lack of degree thing will be a visceral (as opposed to logical) problem for too many people. But again, this is a case where I hope I'm wrong.
Governor Walker led the fight to de-unionize public employee unions. Who knew California would decertify public employee (teacher) unions via a court ruling?
Curious George,
"We know that. It's what loser blacks always call successful blacks."
Let's see - Jay-Z? Nope, never called a Tom.
Michael Jordan? Nope, never called a Tom.
Chris Rock? Nope, never called a Tom.
Gee, I don't think you understand the Tom concept at all. Maybe, instead, you're just a guilty white guy, unnecessarily playing defense - badly.
It's like when whites talk about how they "know" MLK - and even claim they love MLK - but then what they say bears no resemblance to MLK.
MLK was for reparations - they're not.
MLK was for black power - they're not.
MLK didn't make excuses for racism - they do.
MLK took the country to task - they demand blacks salute it's evil.
In other words, you "know" nothing - but will lie to make other whites think you all know,…something. And you do:
That you're racists, fighting for your cultural lives and losing.
And you'll praise to the stars any Tom, stupid enough to help you, as the "good negro" of your forefather's dreams.
I met Nazis in Europe who make the same excuses whites here do - South Africans, too. Poor things go kinda mad without control.
It must really suck to be part of a sick and murderous culture, all dressed up to look nice.
The whole set-up, from the nasty brew in your brains to the societal lies told to maintain it, is as sinister as it gets,...
"I have to take exception to the use of "Uncle Tom" to smear black people"
Why? Any weapon to hand for a monomaniac. He is sure we never see it coming (rolls eyes) since we "don't know that."
Curious George;
"We know that. It's what loser blacks always call successful blacks."
Thank God I wasn't drinking my tea when you said that. I'd have spit it all over my computer.
Hilarious!
"I know - we call those Uncle Toms."
Ah yes, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. An oldy but a goody.
Wow, what a devastating list of successful blacks who were never called Uncle Tom - a comedian, a hip-hop mogul, and somebody who can jump real high with a ball, all part of the circus world of entertainment, which serves to distract us from real life on occasion.
Little more than the modern day minstrel show, and they serve as the unrealistic role models that encourage poor black youth to drop out and not aspire to be doctors, lawyers, skilled tradesmen, or have other productive careers that can be realistically attained by anyone who works hard at it but don't have the glamor and glitz.
But Uncle Toms like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, and many other conservative leaders who have had real impacts on the intellectual or judicial sectors or created lots of jobs in the business world must be trashed and smeared as lawn jockeys and house Negroes because why exactly? Because they don't believe in reparations, or race based preferences?
What happened to you Crack? Several years ago your comments were worth reading. Then you went away for a while and came back radicalized.
The bigger issue is what will the GOP candidates be in favor of--what response will they have to the fact that jobs are becoming harder to come by, due to cheaper foreign competition and efficiency gains resulting in fewer jobs needed? How exactly will the GOP plan to reduce government dependency among the poor (without the plan simply being "cut 'em off")? How will the GOP make a better business environment without increasing the abuses that regulations were set up to counteract?
How about ... clearly stating and operating within the TRUTH:
> That the value of exercising personal initiative to adapt and overcome is NOT dead ... and that top-down government intervention is no substitute for it; in fact, it can impede it. We have been lied to ... and millions of us are now more vulnerable because they trusted our "experts" and "leaders" to solve such problems FOR you, to the point that you gave up a lot of your flexibility and ability to work around their errors, mendacity, and self-service.
> That a government that CAN'T tell you apart from a statistical average ... much less "discriminate" to deliver the precise solutions YOU need, that helps you get out of poverty instead of subsidizing you to stay in it ... is no substitute for YOU and I taking a personal role - or at least, a local role - being your brother's keeper. We don't have to "cut 'em off" ... we have to change who is delivering the aid, and how it is funded, so that we don't keep propping up socio-economic dysfunctions and intergenerational poverty at a price of billions, by relying on myopic bureaucracies that politics renders practically immortal.
> We can start by getting rid of the regulations that were "set up" yet DO NOT WORK to interdict abuses, and/or created worse problems like regulatory capture ... and remind people that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, and WE need to watch out more in our own affairs.
In other words, lead the people into acting as mature adults in a rights-respecting, free society ... instead of treating them like helpless serfs that must be saved from themselves.
"how the hell does every single discussion about every single post on this blog get turned into a discussion of racism?"
People seem to enjoy being trolled.
It takes action and effort to respond to Crack, thus further derailing any existing thread. People *could* just ignore him. But they don't
---Walker is going down this November. Too much criminal activities to ignore.
You're behind on the headlines and just continuing the lying smear.
John Doe 2 is exploding and some of the prosecutors (I mean leftists stazi's) are in danger of civil lawsuits.
__________________________________________
Another John Doe Disclosure
The more we learn about the Wisconsin speech probe, the worse it looks
http://online.wsj.com/articles/another-john-doe-disclosure-1402265159?KEYWORDS=John+Doe
geokstr,
"What happened to you Crack? Several years ago your comments were worth reading. Then you went away for a while and came back radicalized."
Let's see - Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, Ramarley Graham, Timothy Stansbury Jr., Jordan Davis, Ousmane Zongo, Jonathan Ferrell, or Renisha McBride.
Pick one,...
People *could* just ignore him. But they don't
The last twenty years has shown me that you have to answer idiots like Crack loudly and in public. Otherwise the LIVs assume he is telling the truth. You have to counter bad speech with good speech, or soon people only hear bad speech.
And how the hell does every single discussion about every single post on this blog get turned into a discussion of racism?
Althouse indulges and celebrates the troll who does it.
The media are now shining their light on Chris Christie, but only, the theory goes, so he'll get the nomination, at which point they'll do what they can to wreck him
The McCain gambit.
Yes, he deserves to have that hung around his neck. McCain has never really grasped the difference between being the media's favorite Republican, and being the media's favorite candidate.
Post a Comment