July 23, 2017

"I live in a double-wide trailer. It's not like I require a lot... It comes, delivered to the door, in 2 weeks..."

"Very easy to clean. Simplicity at its finest. Sure, you don't have some of the finer luxury things like big thick shag carpet... but that stuff's never really meant a lot to me."

Kid Rock explains to Dan Rather why he likes living in a double-wide trailer (even though he has money and will spend it on land and a private plane):



This gets the "tiny house" tag, of course. And I wouldn't make a new tag for carpeting, but I already have one, so I'm interested to publish this post so I can click on the tag and find out whatever made me blog about carpeting intensely enough that I — with my resistance to the creation of new tags — made a tag for it.

114 comments:

Chuck said...

Let me know, if the Althouse blog needs help in Michigan reporting of any in-kind donations of media space to the Robert Ritchie for U.S. Senate campaign.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Chuck, let it go, brother. Get your own RobertYoungForMI blogspot and quit hassling Althouse over what she chooses to discuss.

Ann Althouse said...

Campaign finance law as free-speech intimidation against the citizen.

Fascist.

Scott said...

Basically what Kid Rock is saying is that things don't have intrinsic value beyond their utility. That is so wise. He has it figured out.

Earnest Prole said...

Isn’t that the same kid who played banjo in Deliverance?

Freeman Hunt said...

He had an 8,000 square foot house in Malibu that he sold. Wonder if it was the maintenance nightmare.

I'm with him on appliances. Get ones that are quick to change out when they break.

Ann Althouse said...

"He had an 8,000 square foot house in Malibu that he sold. Wonder if it was the maintenance nightmare."

Sounds like it.

I've also read that Pamela Anderson expected him to spend a lot of money fixing up that house (back when they were married for like 4 months).

Ann Althouse said...

Here's an article in Variety from just last month about the Malibu house: "Kid Rock Dumps Point Dume Mansion at $2 Million-Plus Loss."

"[Kid Rock]has finally sold his white elephant estate on Malibu’s Point Dume. The $9.5 million sale price is a huge number by all but a billionaire’s standard but, unfortunately for Mister Ritchie, it’s also a hair-raising $2.1 million less than the $11.6 million he paid for the Bali-inspired residence in the fall of 2006. Mister Ritchie first put the property up for sale in September 2013 at $13.45 million..."

Photos of the place at the link.

As for Rock's double-wide ethos, consider:

"[Rock] presides over a prodigious portfolio of luxury properties that include: a semi-rural, multi-residence equestrian compound about an hour outside of Detroit; a lakefront mansion about 5 miles east of downtown Detroit; a townhouse type residence in a gated development in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville; a 68-acre hilltop spread about 10 miles north of downtown Nashville; and a 5,429-square-foot ocean front home in Jupiter, FL, scooped up in early 2012 for $3,225,000."

robinintn said...

So awesome he has a condo in staid upper-middle-class Green Hills.

Fernandinande said...

"I live in a double-wide trailer."

Wow! Since he doesn't live in a double-wide trailer, he's already talking like a professional politician!

Birkel said...

Fernandinande would be happier if Senator Rock said "I feel most at home in my double wide and spend more time in it than the other homes I own. But I own several properties so just ignore the fact, Dan Rather, that you are standing in my double wide."

Because that would not sound like a pokitician.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck, you raise stupidity to new unbelievable levels. Seriously, dude, are you really unaware of how a comment like that first one comes across to a normal human being?

Humperdink said...

“If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find,” (James Carville)

LLR's party has a ready made campaign commercial.

Chuck said...

lol. I've been one of the most vociferous pro-Citizens United and pro-SpeechNow v FEC (how many even know anything about SpeechNow v. FEC?) commenters in the history of this blog. I was the guy who linked to Mitch McConnell's great speech against McCain-Feingold on the day of its final vote in the Senate. The "You're lookin' at the plaintiff" speech.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4507868/senator-mitch-mcconnell-bipartisan-campaign-reform-act

One of the great 2-minute speeches in the U.S. Senate in a generation.

(It is actually elsewhere in the debate that Senator McConnell used the line about "One provision in this bill seeks to make people go to the federal government and register and raise hard dollars in order to mention people like Chris and me within 60 days of an election. That's going to be struck down in court, and you're looking at the plaintiff." But this was a speech that foresaw almost all of the next 10-15 years of federal campaign finance litigation.)

I am not threatening anybody's speech. I am just trying to identify political speech.

And until today, I am not sure that I understood quite how much "abject paranoia" factored into the Trump/Kid Rock political calculus.

Sort of like the left wing's victimization mentality, only with xenophobic twist.

Yancey Ward said...

What was the purpose, then, of that first comment? You clearly are in a snit that Althouse continues to give Kid Rock serious attention, so why resort to an attack you claim not to believe in? Identifying political speech doesn't make sense in that context if your second comment wasn't just an attempt at distraction.

If the second comment was true, then walk the fucking walk and quite behaving like big baby.

Fritz said...

My parents sold a house overlooking the ocean at Pismo Beach for a million, and bought a single wide trailer in Murphys CA. It all depends on what you want out of life.

Birkel said...

Nobody on the right favors restrictions on political speech. McCain does, but then he's not on the right. You cannot be more 'vociferous' than other people who are 100% committed to a free and fair dialogue. And I would say Althouse has demonstrated her commitment to open discussion more than anybody else on HER BLOG!

And you start with this:
"Let me know, if the Althouse blog needs help in Michigan reporting of any in-kind donations of media space to the Robert Ritchie for U.S. Senate campaign."

Your Obergefell hatred is showing.

Paco Wové said...

Any of us can grasp the thick shag carpet of life, if we work hard at it. But grasping the the thick orange shag carpet – truly, they are like unto gods, those that achieve this.

Darrell said...

Oh, pointy bird
Oh, pointy pointy
Anoint Chuck's head
Anointy nointy

Fernandinande said...

Birkel said...some goofy stuff

Right after he said he lives in a trailer he said it's being delivered in two weeks.

Chuck said...

Your Obergefell hatred is showing.

Geeze, I sure hope so. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas and the late Justice Scalia all got to place their opinions in the record of the U.S. Reports. All I've got is the internet.

With any luck, Justice Gorsuch might get a chance to opine as well. Only need one more after that. How's Justice Ginsberg feeling?

Really, doesn't Obergefell represent the ultimate in Obama-era cravenness? With virtually all Democrats in 2000-2012 campaigning on the basis of no federal force on same-sex marriage, but with the Dems' sinecures on the federal judiciary deciding it for the rest of the country? And then, all of the Democrat politicians turning on a dime and declaring that if any Republican didn't switch sides in a matter of weeks the way that Democrats did, that those Republicans were bigots?

I don't know why you chose to bring Obergefell into this, Birkel, but I can't say I'm sorry you did. You've made your point, and I have responded, and maybe we can both just leave it at that.

J. Farmer said...

Strange how in this country the very rich have to adopt an everyman ethos to prove that their money, status, and privilege has not made them out of touch. In Britain, it seems to be going in the opposite direction. David Cameron went to great pains to appear as a commoner, and people largely loathed him for it. Jacob Reese-Mogg, a social media darling and rising Tory star, is doing just the opposite. He is a posh Etonian right out of central casting, makes no bones about being anything other than posh, and people absolutely love him for it.

Fabi said...

You're a big hit at cocktail parties, aren't you Chuck?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Dear Chuck, she's talking to you:

Ann Althouse said...
Campaign finance law as free-speech intimidation against the citizen.

Fascist.
7/23/17, 8:21 AM

Known Unknown said...

Which residence does Ritchie consider his permanent one?

William said...

Kid Rock comes across as the rock star next door. He seems sane and likable in the interview, but the actual data points of his life indicate that he lives in a different dimension than the rest of us. He talks about the sacrifices he would be willing to make to keep his private plane. He sings about the life lessons he learned from his marriage to Pamela Anderson......Give him credit for discussing his life in such a way that people might mistake it for life on earth, but there's not much of a Venn overlap between his life and mine.

Sarah from VA said...

The carpeting tag is well worth clicking on! The next most recent is even a Trump post. In politics, we are all very concerned about the carpeted ground upon which we stand. (Though now the trends it's hardwood floors with expensive rugs. Wall to wall carpeting, no matter how luxe, is so passe.)

Kate said...

I clicked on the carpet tag. Justice Kennedy rates two posts on the same topic. Interesting how elitism -- his carpet isn't grand enough -- reared its head back way back when. And now we would consider Kennedy one of the elite class. He persisted.

Gahrie said...

Let me know, if the Althouse blog needs help in Michigan reporting of any in-kind donations of media space to the Robert Ritchie for U.S. Senate campaign.

Honey! The dog shit on the carpet again!

Bill Crawford said...

...he paid for the Bali-inspired residence...

Missed is by that much

Gahrie said...

I am not threatening anybody's speech. I am just trying to identify political speech.

Wow...sounds an awful lot like Hillary's excuse.

And until today, I am not sure that I understood quite how much "abject paranoia" factored into the Trump/Kid Rock political calculus.

We did...from your side of course.

Sort of like the left wing's victimization mentality, only with xenophobic twist.

Wow..the dog shits on the carpet, and we're the ones who are in the wrong because we don't like carpets with shit all over them.

Gahrie said...

Your Obergefell hatred is showing.

I can't hold that against Chuck...I hate it too.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Fernandinande said...
Birkel said...some goofy stuff

Right after he said he lives in a trailer he said it's being delivered in two weeks.
7/23/17, 9:22 AM



I believe that what he said is to the effect that when one orders a trailer, one's trailer is delivered in two weeks.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Wow! Since he doesn't live in a double-wide trailer, he's already talking like a professional politician!"

Heh. Guess he's qualified.

Laslo Spatula said...

Maybe Robert P. Young Jr could take a clue from Kid Rock and come up with an identifying tune...

My name is Boooooooobbbbbbbb!
Harvard Law, bitches!

And I'm with the Republicans that don't have an answer
The spineless Right, and the legislative dancers
The can of worms, a useless Speaker
The politicians happy to be Losers-Weepers
A Harvard Grad and Harvard Law
Eating caviar while you're eating coleslaw
To all the RINOs, the Ryans, and those who pander
And to all my heroes at the Weekly Standard
I said it's all good and I ain't Trump-dumb
Now I'm fronting the Establishment and trying to get some...

I am Laslo

buwaya said...

Thats a rather nice beach house he had in Florida, except it does not seem to be on the beach. I have seen a lot better. He did have some pretty carving by the stairs.

I spent the month before becoming something of an aficionado of beach houses again. Hardwood floors upstairs, marble downstairs and tile/slate in the veranda are, I think, necessary for happiness, as is a beach of course. Also very high ceilings, enormous fans, a small swimming pool, and servants. And a sizable balcony from which to harangue the populace.

A nearby volcano is also a comfort, for me anyway. Why I can't say.

Freeman Hunt said...

There was once a real estate listing for a house that had an obviously not lived in perfect upstairs, and a regular basement with a few rooms where the people actually lived. That idea has some appeal. You live in your actual space, which is private, and you have a nice space for guests and entertaining that is always ready to go and keeps people out of your private space.

Gahrie said...

Right after he said he lives in a trailer he said it's being delivered in two weeks.

You weren't paying attention.

1) The interview took place in his double wide trailer.

2) He said one of the reasons he bought it was that it could be delivered in two weeks, and that if it was destroyed, he could have another one delivered in two weeks.

Fake news.

Freeman Hunt said...

My husband will not stay in a beach house or condo that does not have carpeting. Hates the feeling of sand underfoot.

buwaya said...

That is why you wash your feet when you leave the beach, and if you do manage to track sand into the house, well, thats why you have servants.

Fabi said...

At my beach house I have a hose at the base of the beach stairs and a shower a few steps up at the landing. I use both to rinse off after each foray onto the beach and still drag sand inside. My servants hate it.

Fernandinande said...

Gahrie said...
1) The interview took place in his double wide trailer.


No it obviously didn't. Look at the background: it has a big stone fireplace, double barn doors and tons of gizmos and it's huge. And the trailer "comes in two weeks" because he doesn't have it yet: he didn't have a trailer at the time of the interview when he said he lived in a trailer.

Laslo Spatula said...

Tiny houses?

"Doublewide homes start at around 1,067 square feet and go up to 2,300 square feet. Doublewide homes have a width of 20 feet or more and their length is 90 feet or less. They most often measure 56 feet long by 26 feet wide with a square footage of 1,456."

Double-wide floor plans.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

"I actually just bought a new property in Nashville. I have 100 acres there. It’s a beautiful place, staring right down at the city. I put a double-wide trailer on it. That makes two double-wides I have now: one in Alabama and one in Nashville. I absolutely love them. They’re very simple, easy to take care of. I’ve passed the stage where I need to have Sub-Zero refrigerators or high-end stoves or furniture. I buy what’s at the upper end of what the middle class buy. They go to Best Buy and get their best refrigerator, maybe a Maytag or something. I’m done with the show of having to be where I’m constantly bragging, “Hey, look what I’ve got.” That’s a pain in the ass."

Two Double-wides, actually.

I am Laslo.

Birkel said...

Fernandinande,
You're wrong. That's ok but you won't be right of you repeat the wrong thing.

Gahrie,
Do you allow your hatred of Obergefell to drive you to criticize those who don't? Do you feel a need to do so, constantly? Do you think running on an anti-Obergefell platform will win elections?

Do you think satisfying the fopdoodles of the world while driving libertarians and young people away is a winning platform? In a world where economics - regulations and unbridled exercise of power amongst those economic concerns - is the #1 through #5 issue, what is the winning platform?

Do you want 90% of a loaf of must you have 100%?

Michael K said...

Malibu beach houses.

My in-laws' house burned down in the 1961 Bel Air fire. Jane Russell, a personal friend and the employer of my mother-in-law offered her Malibu beach house to them until they could rebuild their house.

They lived there until about May or June 1962. Then she offered to sell it to them for $64,000. They declined.

Jane Russell made a lot of money in real estate. They didn't.

Yancey Ward said...

Fernandinande,

You should watch the interview from the beginning rather than the truncated part that plays on clicking the play button. It is made clear that the interview takes place at the double wide residence, and that he owns two of them- Tennessee and Alabama. The interview takes place in the party room, which I assume is the basement under the double wide- a not uncommon modification if one chooses to purchase such a structure. His, of course, is quite more high end than most people would construct, though.

Howard said...

Pt Dume is an incredible fishing spot that was taken away because the Hollywood jagoffs that infest that location didn't want to look at blue collar redneck peons fishing in their picturesque seascape. When I was in high school, we would go down there before dawn via Westward Beach road, also known as Free Zuma. If the swell was big, we would bodysurf all morning. If the swell was small, we would hike around to Pirates Cove and go scuba diving around the rocks off the point. Giant spider crabs, big red-lipped scallops, skiddish calico bass, lingcod, cabizon... but no abalone. This is one of the most popular beach filming sites because of the cliffs that butt up to the ocean. Good times.

Etienne said...

About 400 sq feet is my limit. Past that, it requires a maid.

Two toilets are only required if there are women involved. They seem to require higher levels of disinfectant. To me, new crap is on the same level as old crap.

Alas, I live in a mansion, only because my wife owns it. My man-cave is actually at my farm, where I will die when the tractor finally consumes me. It has only half-heartedly (is that a word) tried so far. I think the grand mal thrashing will come.

I will laugh at the tractor as it consumes me. No mere machine can defeat my willingness to let God kill me, if he thinks it is time.

I would be highly pissed if he killed me with a heart-attack or a stroke. What a wimps way out. No, I want blood, detached limbs, and crushed skull. Why else spend $ 30 k on a tractor!??

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Freeman,

It's called "the parlor" but you probably know that. What the living room was supposed to be until the kitchen became too small in postwar housing to act as a living room. Plus, where else are you going to put the tube?

Achilles said...

The new Republican party is going to be so much more fun and successful than the old republican party. With the old GOPe even when we won we lost.

The new republican party is going to be a whole bunch of different people who love this country and love freedom. The rest will just be details. And it will actually fight for the things that the voters care about.

It will be the death of the uniparty.

Birkel said...

Achilles,
I hope you are correct. But the powers that are arrayed to pursue their own power and wealth and do not care about is are unwilling to go easily.

We must make them understand our positions should be their positions.

SPQR said...

The "Jupiter" house is really in Tequesta, the part on Jupiter Island. And it is indeed on the water. Always wondered what his neighbors think of the giant American flag he painted on its front.

Fernandinande said...

Yancey Ward said...
You should watch the interview from the beginning ... His, of course, is quite more high end than most people would construct, though.


OK, thanks. I didn't even watch as far as them showing a picture of it...but he DID say "I WILL LIVE in that trailer", future tense and matching "it comes in two weeks". Lo siento mucho and the joke's on me for not caring enough to watch it for more than a few seconds and then watching it 4 times.

Some "trailer" though, I guess I'm used to Navajo trailers; they don't have interior brickwork and stone fireplaces (though maybe "the rock" is fake, so to speak?)

Mountain Maven said...

What has he done besides sex drugs and rock n roll?

Bruce Hayden said...

"Two toilets are only required if there are women involved. They seem to require higher levels of disinfectant. To me, new crap is on the same level as old crap."

Yes, that is the problem. In AZ, we have two up and one down. I am supposed to use my bathroom upstairs, instead of the "guest" bathroom downstairs. Right. I am supposed to run upstairs, while she gets to use the one downstairs? Ain't gonna happen. Reversed in MT. We haven't turned the water on upstairs this year (don't want frozen pipes over the winter, so fill the toilets with antifreeze). Unfortunately, my bathroom downstairs is closer to the front door, so she uses that when we are walking. A lot. Which means that she stands over me to make sure that I clean it to her standards (which are that we can eat off the floor there) a bit too often. Unfortunately, the floor has this rock-like tile on it, which looks nice, but is hell to clean. (It matches the kitchen, of course, which has similar problems). Comes from living with an interior designer, who expects each of her houses to be magazine worthy. My solution (that I use in my bathroom in AZ - that no one is supposed to see) is to use one of those bathroom rugs that wrap around the toilet. Just pop it into the washing machine on occasion, and the problem is solved. Too logical for her. But, then, tile on bathroom floors is stupid in my mind anyway, and esp decorative tile like we have (though carpeting is worse - unless it is indoor/outdoor carpeting like we have at the ski condo in CO).

Char Char Binks said...

Legend has it the Kid was born in a double-wide log cabin, and kill't himself a b'ar when he was only three.

Michael K said...

tile on bathroom floors is stupid in my mind anyway, and esp decorative tile

We have saltillo tile throughout the house. The two last bedrooms get done next week. Fortunately, we have a covered patio so the furniture will be covered, what with daily rainstorms for weeks.

There is a small rug in the bathroom by the shower so I don't slip and kill myself.

Fabi said...

"What has he done besides sex drugs and rock n roll?"

What more could you possibly want?

Darrell said...

What has he done besides sex drugs and rock n roll?

He shot a mime just to watch him do nothing silently.

Achilles said...

Birkel said...
Achilles,
I hope you are correct. But the powers that are arrayed to pursue their own power and wealth and do not care about is are unwilling to go easily.

We must make them understand our positions should be their positions.


History is a river.

The people of this country have a few things they really agree on and anyone who comes here quickly sees the benefit. Freedom of speech, of self defense, private property are foundational beliefs. The left/llr's, otherwise known as the uniparty, will never be able to take that away.

The changes that are coming to our society are coming. Period. Health care is going to be cheap and widely available within a generation. People are going to be able to choose how long they live. They will choose what kind of body they want to have. Most of the population is not going to need to do more than cursory work. The poorest american will live in wealth that no person could dream of in 1980.

Kid Rock is the embodiment of the future of the Republican party. People who want to go live without some asshole like Chuck or bitch like Inga looking over their shoulder telling them they are doing it wrong and some poor person needs stuff so we are going to take yours.

It is really that simple.

DanTheMan said...

Tune in next week, when Dan Rather will present Kid Rock with authenticated copies of memos that prove he went AWOL from a concert in the 70's...

DanTheMan said...

>> Kid Rock is the embodiment of the future of the Republican party

I don't think so. I think he might be the leading edge of a movement away from both parties. We have had enough.

The challenge will be to go down that road, and not end up at Idiocracy.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"I go to Best Buy or Home Depot. What's your best seller? Give me the one above it. That's my high class living right there."

Achilles said...

DanTheMan said...

The challenge will be to go down that road, and not end up at Idiocracy.

That wont really be an issue. Humans will have many "upgrade" choices.

It is a standard projection to view groups of people as dumb or progress in a negative direction. But people in the future are going to be smarter than they are now in pretty much every way.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It isn't a mobile home unless it has axles and wheels. He is talking about a modular home that comes in two pieces or sometimes three (triple wide) Modulars are wood framed, have traditional siding, and all the features of a standard constructed house. Many are 1200 to 1500 square feet and have nice floor plans as Laslo has posted. They aren't tiny at all.

They CAN be ordered and delivered in a short time. Two weeks delivery is pretty optimistic, especially if he is getting custom features.

I note that when he references his house, he gestures to someplace outside of the building/room that he is in. That room has a slab floor so it is impossible to be 'the' modular he is discussing. Maybe he built himself a separate 'man cave' which seems to be a replica of a country type bar/saloon.

KJE said...

I'm sincere when I write that I genuinely hope that Senator Rock hires a lyrical midget as his chief of staff.

KJE said...

I don't think so. I think he might be the leading edge of a movement away from both parties. We have had enough.


I think that most old school Republicans who from the party have forgotten that their party is still end stage and began dying on November 9.

If they recognized that we could have Obamacare repealed tomorrow.

And as someone that unquestioningly voted for them, it was long past time for its demise. The conservative voting options are shifting towards a Rock/Trump view of the world. It's not perfect, but it's better than the status quo of governance that we've had in the past 20 years.

The cruel irony is that the Democrats still haven't figured out that their party needs to suffer a similar death.

Pinandpuller said...

Houses in Malibu get hooked up to septic tanks.

Pinandpuller said...

A lot of people in Tennesee turn old barns into houses or studios. That could be where he "stays" until the house is set.

The Mennonites around here build cabins that they set onto a foundation. One of my neighbor's MIL lives in a she shed behind their house.

Kevin said...

I'm sure Stab-me-now's campaign is already working on a consultant-fueled response.

"Kid Rock gets two trailers like Trump gets two scoops! Trump, Trump, Trump!"

I bet that gives them a Chuck-le at Campaign HQ.

MayBee said...

Matthew McConaughey lived in a trailer home in Malibu for years.

Gahrie said...

What has he done besides sex drugs and rock n roll?

Millions of dollars of charity, in time, resources and money. Raise a Bi-racial child as a single father. Bring jobs back to Detroit, and promote Detroit in a positive manner. Use his music to bring different types of people together.

Gahrie said...

Do you think running on an anti-Obergefell platform will win elections?

If done correctly...yes. The case is not just about legalizing gay marriage. It is also about Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench. It is the whole reason why supreme Court nominations are important. If Gorsuch had been on the court..it probably goes the other way.

Birkel said...

Gorsuch replaced Scalia. Nothing would have changed. The question was not about good and right policy, federalism, etc. The question was about politics.

The question stands. How many votes do you win taking a strong anti-Obergefell stance and how many do you lose in the states that matter? Just because I agree on policy, law and federalism doesn't mean it's a winning platform.

And Chuck is so out out (and voted for Trump anyway) because of so-called social conservative issues.

Big Mike said...

And the first poll is in. Ritchie 54% to Stabenow 46%. This far ahead of the election it's meaningless, of course, but interesting. Stabenow might actually have to work for her living.

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

The question stands. How many votes do you win taking a strong anti-Obergefell stance and how many do you lose in the states that matter? Just because I agree on policy, law and federalism doesn't mean it's a winning platform.

One of the reasons I am a Conservative is because I believe that ideas matter. If we are willing to abandon our ideals to win, what is the point of winning?

My precise problem with the Republican Establishment is that they refuse to act on the ideas that elected them, because they fear not being re-elected.

Republicans control the House, Senate, Presidency and Supreme Court. They dominate the state governorships and legislatures. Yet they still refuse to pass a budget. They still refuse to repeal Obamacare. They still refuse to enact entitlement reform. We are still running $500 billion deficits based on Democratic spending priorities.

I can't wait to hear the excuses in 2018, and the shrill promises that if you vote Republican we'll actually do something this time. Pinky promise.

So why exactly should anyone vote for them?

richard mcenroe said...

Piss off Kid Rock and the Memphis Music Mafia may have to pay you a visit... https://youtu.be/d5LlkvWexvA

Birkel said...

Gahrie,
You failed to answer my question.

I agree wholeheartedly that the current crop of Republuucans is worth a cup of spit. So let's not pretend we are arguing about principles.

We must limit the centralized government and the power people wield over us. Without that everything about which you care will be lost for your progeny. I would prefer a chance to none. If being a conservative means losing to the absolute power of the federal government wielded by Obama and worse to follow, in order to stand on principle, then we must part ways.

As with the Founders, we must compromise.

Gahrie said...

We must limit the centralized government and the power people wield over us.


How do we do that by supporting and defending the actions of activists judges on the Supreme Court? Obergefell is the perfect example of centralized government and the power of nine people to rule over us. Nine unelected people at that. I'd rather have a monarchy.

Without that everything about which you care will be lost for your progeny. I would prefer a chance to none. If being a conservative means losing to the absolute power of the federal government wielded by Obama and worse to follow, in order to stand on principle, then we must part ways.

What has changed? Obamacare is still the law. We are still governed by Democratic budgets with Democratic spending priorities and Democratic deficits. There are still no efforts at entitlement reform.

The leftwing deep state still runs our institutions. Lerner has still never been punished. Neither Lynch nor Holder have been punished. Hillary has not been punished.

As with the Founders, we must compromise.

The Founders achieved something through compromise. What have the Republicans achieved?

Birkel said...

I can't make you read my typed words.

Gahrie said...

I can't make you read my typed words.

Re-type for me please, in small words....what exactly have the Republicans accomplished?

"We're driving the country into ruin at a slower pace" is a pretty shitty campaign slogan. "At least we're not Hillary" is only marginally better.

Then please explain to me how supporting Obergefell is an example of limiting centralized power.

All I have seen so far is "we can't piss off the gays (most of whom aren't voting for us) because they might not vote for us.

Gahrie said...

Trump is objectively the most gay friendly president we have ever had. He was pro-gay marriage long before Obergefell, long before Obama supported it, long before Hillary supported it.

The Left and the MSM still call him a homophobe and accuse him of wanting to persecute gay people. Do you really think telling these people that we're OK with Obergefell will matter one little bit?

MikeinAppalachia said...

Buwaya said....

A nearby volcano is also a comfort, for me anyway. Why I can't say.

Olonapo?

Birkel said...

I agree wholeheartedly that the current crop of Republicans is worth a cup of spit. (corrected from above)

So you keep mentioning Republicans as if I am defending them. What sort of thick is that?

Birkel said...

No, dumb ass. I don't think we will win the press. Does it hurt when you think so you actively avoid it?

I think making an issue of social issues has been a net loser for Republicans because those fights mean the fights we can win are never fought. There is only so much time in the day. There are only so many votes.

Was Terry Schiavo a good issue for Republicans? Being correct on an issue doesn't make it a good issue.

Try to use the framing of your own mind instead of the Leftist and LLR framing.

I cannot make you think.

Gahrie said...

I think making an issue of social issues has been a net loser for Republicans because those fights mean the fights we can win are never fought. There is only so much time in the day. There are only so many votes.

WHAT FIGHTS ARE THE REPUBLICANS WINNING?

You argue that Republicans should abandon their ideals on social issues so that they can win other fights that are important.

What other fights? The Republicans won. They totally control all three branches of the federal government and dominate the state governments.....what have they done? If not now ...when?

How do you spend six years promising to repeal Obamacare...and not have a plan and a bill written and ready to go in January? How do you spend six years promising to reform the budgets, and not have them ready in January?

I might be able to accept your argument if the Republicans had passed budgets, or repealed Obamacare..or anything really. But they haven't. they haven't even brought them up for a vote.

Pelosi and Reid are both batshit crazy...but they got shit done.

Gahrie said...

"Vote Republican! We don't stand for anything, and we won't do anything...but hey at least we aren't Hillary!"

ken in tx said...

The only shag carpets I have ever had in my home were both in rental single-wide trailers.

Fernandinande said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
It isn't a mobile home unless it has axles and wheels....I note that when he references his house, he gestures to someplace outside of the building/room that he is in.


After obsessing over this important question for a day*, I decided that I was right in the first place: he doesn't live in a double-wide trailer and he's already talking like a politician.

*until a couple of days ago I thought he was a stand-up comedian, a la Bobcat Goldthwait.

Birkel said...

You can't help avoiding my point, can you? You cannot concede that the straw man you constructed is yours and not mine, can you?

Why is that? What is the hang up with addressing the point I am making?

I cannot think for you.

Mike said...

Chuck said...
Let me know, if the Althouse blog needs help in Michigan reporting of any in-kind donations of media space to the Robert Ritchie for U.S. Senate campaign.

7/23/17, 8:15 AM
Blogger I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
Chuck, let it go, brother. Get your own RobertYoungForMI blogspot and quit hassling Althouse over what she chooses to discuss.

7/23/17, 8:18 AM
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Campaign finance law as free-speech intimidation against the citizen.

Fascist.

7/23/17, 8:21 AM


What an iconic and contemporaneously typical set of comments.

Gahrie said...

You can't help avoiding my point, can you?

Maybe I don't understand your point.

You say conservatives (and I suppose Republicans) can't oppose Obergefell because that might get voters angry at Republicans and prevent them from doing more important things. Right? If that isn't your point then come out and explicitly say so and tell me what it is. Simply repeating you're ignoring me when I ask for clarification is a sort of fallacy.

if that is your point, and I think a fair reading of this thread would say it is, my reply is that the voters it would get angry at Republicans aren't voting for Republicans anyway...and that now when the Republicans have absolute control of the government they aren't doing any of the things they promised.

Birkel said...

Let me know when you get done supposing.
Who said can't?

You can't read what another conservative wrote and avoid attributing things that the author didn't write?

And you suggest the Republicans failure to deliver on other issues has any bearing on what I'm actually writing?

Gahrie said...

You can't read what another conservative wrote and avoid attributing things that the author didn't write?

How about instead of repeatedly saying either I don't understand your point, or I won't address your point, you simply repeat your point in a plain manner using small words like I have repeatedly asked you to do.

What you are doing is an ad hom fallacy meant to keep you from having to actually defend your point.

Gahrie said...

Very passive-aggressive by the way.

Birkel said...

My point is quite simple. Chuck, a social conservative of the first order, believes that only social conservatives deserve support. Therefore, Chuck cannot support Trump or Kid Rock and goes out of his way, without consideration of the available alternatives, to demand purity from his candidates. However, politics is about trade-offs between competing interests.

Take the words of Christ "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and flip it around. What Christ was also saying is that what is spiritual is not Caesar's and Christ would not render those spiritual things to a worldly politic. But social conservatives argue that the state should be used to stop other people from doing what social conservatives don't want them to do.

Then, when the argument about having a less intrusive government happens, Leftists correctly point to the hypocrisy of Republicans who want government to intrude into the private sphere. (We can agree they will exaggerate and lie about these things, I expect.)

A more modest goal of government - restricting intrusions and protecting the broadest freedom to individuals that does not impose on others - is foregone, therefore. This is what classical liberals have always defended. Classical liberals, like the Founding Fathers, wanted to restrain future governments from imposing themselves on others. Both Republicans and Democrats have failed to maintain the relationship between the state and the individual, if for different reasons.

This is a classic Bootleggers and Baptists problem.

The Baptists refuse to see that they are furthering the goals and power of the Bootleggers by pursuing their own strategy. And the amoral Bootleggers are happy to have the help toward price maintenance because that allows them an opportunity to buy the right influencers and avoid the punishments that the Baptists encourage.

Birkel said...

To conclude:
1) The Baptists (metaphor) help the Bootleggers whether they realize it or not.
2) If the state continues to grow at its unsustainable pace, financed by debt, then none of these discussions will amount to anything. All will be consumed by the state as it goes into an inescapable debt spiral. Virtue will be impossible to maintain in such a state.
3)A politic that rewards an expansion of personal freedom is highly preferred versus a politic that rewards an expansion of the state.
4) Since politics is the art of the possible, and not the Pareto-optimal solution, conservatives will either consolidate their message around fiscal matters or continue to be sucked into the eventual debt crisis.
5) Republicans and conservatives are overlapping categories but are not coincidental. Quit confusing those two things, please.
6) Voters seem to have accepted that financial issues are the most important issues. Look at any public polling. It is the political class (that uses social issues to divide us!!) who wish to prioritize other issues. They want the music to stop after they are off the dance floor, when other people will have to race to the chairs. And there are not enough chairs for each of us to have a seat.
7) Social Security has been projected for 40 years to run out of money in the late 2020s or early 2030s. It still is.
8) Five of the 10 richest counties in America are DC suburbs. The people taking a skim off your tax dollars have no incentive to stop doing so. They are living well.
9) Trying to stop spending while arguing about any other issue is a fool's errand.

Finally,
10) Quit thinking that because somebody disagrees with you about priorities that they disagree in absolute terms. Relatives and absolutes are different things. I think the Terry Schiavo distraction was worthless, long-term, compared to doing the difficult things required to correct the financial state of this country. Similar distractions must be avoided. The ship of state is taking on water to the tune of 1.3 trillion dollars of debt a year. Arguing about anything besides keeping her above water is useless. Or, like buwaya, make arrangements for escaping this particular ship in the hopes that some other ship might not sink.

Gahrie said...

The ship of state is taking on water to the tune of 1.3 trillion dollars of debt a year. Arguing about anything besides keeping her above water is useless

The Republicans control the whole government! They can do anything they want to do! What more is needed? If not now. when?

They have been promising to repeal Obamacare for at least six years. Why wasn't a repeal and replace bill already written and ready to be submitted in January? Why haven't we had even a vote on repealing Obamacare yet?

Congress has been passing continuing resolutions with Democratic spending priorities embedded for at least six years. Why weren't Republican budgets with Republican spending priorities (and hopefully cuts) written and ready to be submitted in January? Why haven't they been submitted yet?

Republicans have been in favor of entitlement reform for decades. Why weren't there reform bills written and ready to be submitted in January?

Let me let you in on a secret...the answer to none of these questions is "because most Republicans oppose Obergefell".

Gahrie said...

And for the record, I am the one promoting big tent politics, while you are attempting to use a litmus test.

Gahrie said...

But social conservatives argue that the state should be used to stop other people from doing what social conservatives don't want them to do.

Everybody except anarchists does. I think it is reasonable that you think the state should be used to stop people from committing murder..right? Why? Because it is wrong. What makes it wrong?

Your beef isn't that social conservatives want to impose values on everyone...it is that you disagree with whose values should be used. That is what politics is all about.

Birkel said...

You immediately started typing about Republicans.
See #5 above.

Birkel said...

Please read #10 above to find that you are wrong in your 6:14PM post.

Birkel said...

You see, you pretended to want a detailed answer and then you disregarded everything I typed. But before that you pretended that I hadn't been clear and that my talk about priorities and the relative importance of things was somehow passive aggressive.

Birkel said...

This truly is a gift that keeps giving. You went directly to the reductio ad absurdum and called anarchist. It's as if you knew you were close to breaking the Godwin barrier so you pulled back and went with the standard received Leftist insult.

I have written any number of times on these pages that the right to swing ones fist stops just shy of another's nose. And with that realization your bad argument takes an awful misstep, falls, and cracks its skull on the bathroom tile. You're going to need another argument.

My typing about trade-offs might have clued you into the fact that murder might fall into Caesar's bailiwick.

Gahrie said...

I have written any number of times on these pages that the right to swing ones fist stops just shy of another's nose.

My typing about trade-offs might have clued you into the fact that murder might fall into Caesar's bailiwick.

Those are called "values". You think your values should be promoted by the state. Fine. Good for you. I think my values should be promoted by the state too. (By the way, I am not a Christian)

Because our values disagree on Obergefell, you seem to think I should be ignored or excluded along with Chuck as a distraction. I have never said the same about you, nor do I believe it. I believe it is the function of politics to resolve these issues.

Look I get Libertarianism. It is attractive in a Utopian way, but unfeasible. It is also a system that requires the government to enforce its values on the population. But your litmus test today is every bit as wrong headed as the Moral Majority was in the 1980's.

Gahrie said...

You immediately started typing about Republicans.

If your argument isn't that opposition to Obergefell is preventing Republicans from achieving their goals, and you agree that the Republicans have the means but seem to lack the will to achieve those goals....why does Obergefell matter?

Birkel said...

No, I think the state properly balances the freedoms of one party against another. The value there is to respect individual liberty that must be balanced by a disinterested arbiter.

Your thinking is stilted.

Birkel said...

"Because our values disagree on Obergefell..."

Please see #10 above. Why are you so thick?

Gahrie said...

Arguing about anything besides keeping her above water is useless.

Ahem.

You're the one starting an argument about something other than economic issues.

Birkel said...

What did "The Moral Majority" accomplish?
You think I am a utopian but all I type is about empiricism.

I see your point clear as day. If I were a utopian I might be inclined to pursue all my policy preferences.

Why do you need me to fit nicely into your intellectual cubby holes?

An impoverished country will not lead to your preferred moral outcomes.

Birkel said...

Are you willfully ignorant?
I am saying focus only on economic matters because the rest is trivial when the bills cannot be paid without massive inflation.

Birkel said...

Obergefell matters to Chuck. But it distracts from the central message which is that the economic ship is taking on 1.3 trillion dollars a year in new debt that will be cured by massive inflation.