53% of right-0f-center bloggers, that is.
The tendency to lean right is about optimism. Isn't it? (That's what Rush Limbaugh is always saying.)
Right-of-center bloggers also think that Sarah Palin is wonderful and a big plus to the ticket, that the media is heavily biased in favor of Barack Obama (who is dishonest, unqualified and unpatriotic), and that what the GOP ought to do to fare better in elections is to get more conservative.
I might agree with that last point, if "conservative" got the definition I like. Yesterday, we got a bit of a discussion going under the heading "It there is an Obama landslide, how will the GOP retool." I consider this the same question. McCain seemed to represent the idea that the party -- or at least its presidential candidate -- needed to be less conservative. His choice of Sarah Palin backtracked from that idea and muddied the campaign's politics. Not that her conservatism appeals to me. I would have liked strong national security and smart economic policy, with little to nothing done about abortion and gay marriage and the like. Why is that so hard to do?
Ah, it's so frustrating. Remember when it seemed as though Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney was going to be the candidate? Those were the days. Some people complained about Rudy and Mitt's incoherence about abortion -- I defended them -- but the reason for that incoherence was perfectly clear. McCain is incoherent about all sorts of things. Really, did you see him on "Meet the Press"? That performance was wretched.
October 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
158 comments:
The only thing worse in this campaign than the conservatives dismantling of any and all republican presidential candidates, is the media's love affair with the idea of Barack (flawed consitution) Obama. But I digress.
The GOP will retool with the same intellectual arguments that the founding fathers deployed - that government is to be feared, and that a government in everything is most to be feared.
If Obama carries through on his seeming plans to radically redistribute the "wealth", the economy will stay in the crapper, and in 4 years the people will be begging for relief.
But sadly, probably the only way to counter Obama’s promises of circuses and free bread is to wait until the people realize they've given up too much freedom and power to get the cheap entertainment and bad crumb.
It may take time for the people to realize the cost of being enslaved to the big house of Washington DC, but when it does happen, the American system allows people to turn on a dime.
McCain has the big problem that philosophically he is either void or he agrees with Obama. How can he coherently ask for people's support when Obama also offers big government, socialism, but he offers to do it better?
McCain wants government to bail out business and keep them from the own deserved failures. McCain wants to institute socialized medicine. How can he differentiate this from being a democrat?
McCain can't win because he has given no reason to support him, he is only giving (very good) reasons to not support his opponent.
What has the McCain campaign done or said about abortion or gay marriage in the platforms? It has been the media and the Democrats who keep bringing them up. Palin said she did not support abortion herself but what has she done to implement outlawing it. Nothing.
It has been the MSM that keeps trying to paint the conservatives into this corner and they do not support it but how would the people ever know that. The media goes out of its way to protect Obama and then out of its way to paint Palin and McCain as racists and the Anti-Christ. Just a shame to see intelligent people buy into that garbage.
I have a serious question.
Sarah Palin is probably a "social conservative" in at least a mild sense -- she's pro-life and doesn't seem enthused about gay marriage and stuff. But I don't see that much evidence that she's a hard-core culture war kind of girl. I mean, as governor of Alaska she hasn't actually done that much culture war stuff.
Why is everybody so convinced that she's some sort of religious fanatic rather than a fairly conventional pre-Bush limited government Republican?
"Beer is a common drink among Australian men, and many claim they wouldn't drink any other than their favorite brand. However, data on actual behavior show that only 10% of these men are loyal to a single brand."
Similarly, 46 percent of Aussies polled said they always bought the same brand of gasoline. Researchers had them keep diaries. Result? Only six percent were brand loyal.
The point? Polls are right when they're right and wrong when they are wrong.
What with cellphones pollsters don't call and people who won't take polls, especially due to fears of being perceived as racist, I think McCain will pull the most mind-blowing upset in American political history.
Then there'll be a redistribution of optimism.
How sad for Hollywood.
Several weeks ago I had put in my blog, one a day, the ten principals of conservatism by Russel Kirk. The few remaining conservatives left in the Republican Party must trot those out and start keep saying them over and over in public from now until the next election. It works with liberal lies, so how about some conservatives do the same with the truth. By the way, you can get the ten principals by googling Russell Kirk. McCain and the rest of the wimpy Dem-lite RINO's have got to go.
Ooh, Althouse has a customized comment prompt. Fancy. (Or I just was very unobservant.)
***
How will the GOP retool?
I imagine that there'll be a move back to first principles -- limited government, strong national security.
If the people want something else for a while, that's fine and that's their right, but they'll have to go to the other party to get it.
Gay marriage -- I'm guessing that that'll become less and less of an issue. Abortion, however, will probably remain an area for principled disagreement.
Why is abortion so hard? Well, it's an issue that has stark and strong points of disagreement, and that's just kind of the way it's going to be. Can't split the baby on this one (so to speak). So pro-choice national security hawks will have to make a tough call.
I would have liked strong national security and smart economic policy, with little to nothing done about abortion and gay marriage and the like. Why is that so hard to do?
My question also.
But let's not forget to ask it of the Democrats as well.
Is it not the case that the Republicans and Democrats have switched bases? The Republicans have taken the Democrats working-class base and become more populist while the Democrats have taken the coastal elites and become more insufferable.
Both parties are intellectually incoherent. Their blocs are wholly incompatible. Not since Reagan (on the Republican side) and Clinton (on the Democrat side) has either party nominated -- let alone elected -- a presidential candidate with a consistent philosophy of government.
So let us ask the coastal elites:
Why, as people with a happy view of Europe and a desire to solve global problems, do you support the party that fears free trade and supports farm subsidies?
Why, as pro-science technocrats who profess great support for public education, do you support the party that is wedded to a rigid educational status quo?
Why, as people who have more economic freedom than anyone in the history of the world, do you support the party that would deny economic choice to the middle and lower-classes (on education, on health care, on retirement planning, on running a small business)?
"Why is everybody so convinced that she's some sort of religious fanatic rather than a fairly conventional pre-Bush limited government Republican?"
Because that's the narrative. Even if they're not convinced that she's a religious fanatic, it's imperative to convince the voting public that she is.
People in public life who seem to genuinely believe in God and participate in their religion are by definition fanatics according to the narrative. It's ok when Democrats like Barry O talk about their religion because we know they're smart and don't actually believe in it. But for the "progressive", the terrifying thing about Sarah Palin and her ilk is that they might actually believe in and be serious about their religion.
If Americans could have only seen the true honest-to-goodness hardest far right conservative had to offer them, it would have changed everything! Because we didn't have that this year America is going socialist instead.
Ann,
You are so smart. I really need to know something, in order to understand why you are supporting Obama.
Are you OK with socialism?
Batman: Mr. Freeze, give yourself up. We can get help for you... medical help!
Mr. Freeze: In prison? This I do not believe. No, you must PAY for what you did to me, for forcing me to live like this: never again to know the warmth of a summer breeze, never to feel the heat of burning logs in vintertime! Revenge. That is what I need! Revenge! I will have revenge!
Batman: Poor devil...forced to live in an air-conditioned suit that keeps his body temperature down to 50 degrees below zero! No wonder his mind is warped.
(Instant Freeze, Season 1, Episode 7, Batman the TV show)
"Are you OK with socialism?"
Um, she's a tenured university professor. Of course she's OK with socialism!
OK, that's a joke. But only just.
"So pro-choice national security hawks will have to make a tough call."
This should be easy: Neither the President nor Congress can do much about abortion as long as Roe remains un-overturned. A President and a Congress of the same party can pretty much gut the Military in short-order.
Hundreds of thousands of voters pulling the lever for Obama with their left hands will be holding their noses with their right.
It would interest me to hear your Obama-supporting readers articulate their specific reasons for voting him into office after having been Senator for less than two years. He'll support abortion "rights?" He'll support gay marriage? What else? He'll socialize health care? He isn't Bush and McCain is?
I'm afraid under an Obama administration, many will pretend to service the government and the government will pretend to serve us.
Ann:
"McCain seemed to represent the idea that the party -- or at least its presidential candidate -- needed to be less conservative."
I'd suggest that the problem wasn't that the candidate needed to be less conservative so much as they needed to be someone who wasn't Bush, wasn't tied to Bush, was a visible break with the Axis of Avarice, and could appeal to moderates and independents. (A conservative can appeal to independents if they're the right conservative, I think.) McCain seemed to fit the bill.
"Cheerful iconoclast" raises a good point for you, too. I take your observation that you'd have liked someone tough on national security and with a "smart" (presumably i.e. conservative) economic policy to stake your claim on what kind of conservatism you'd like, but who soft-peddled social conservative issues. What if you had a candidate who was all that but who really wasn't that interested in pushing the social conservative agenda - they're personally against gay marriage, for example, but they don't really make a big deal about it or prioritize it. Would that candidate be acceptable? And if so, couldn't one argue that Sarah Palin is such a candidate, at least to the same extent Reagan was?
Put another way, do you care what a candidate thinks, or just what they do? Obviously the one informs the other, but although Palin is plainly and strongly pro-life, for example, her record in office does not suggest that she has made it a focus or a priority. If that was to continue, would that be acceptable?
Several weeks ago I had put in my blog, one a day, the ten principals of conservatism by Russel Kirk. The few remaining conservatives left in the Republican Party must trot those out and start keep saying them over and over in public from now until the next election. It works with liberal lies, so how about some conservatives do the same with the truth. By the way, you can get the ten principals by googling Russell Kirk. McCain and the rest of the wimpy Dem-lite RINO's have got to go.
If I may, I would like to suggest that Mitt was not incoherent about abortion if you understand his Mormon theological underpinnings.
In the Mormon world view, there are two fundamental and foundational gifts from God, one of which is free will. God wants us to come home but He will not force us.
But Mormons also have a view that just governments make laws for the public and individual good, some of which are moral laws that protect us from the worse part of our natures, and convey ideals for a just society and a happy life.
Therefore, Mormons are always in a tension between taking stands on laws they consider moral issues, versus sticking to their knitting by making their case through missionary work and allowing others the right to make their own decisions.
Mitt was vacillating between those two Mormon principles, even if he did seem to pander to the evangelical right to try to win the primary (and who hate him and Mormons regardless of it.)
It was a poor decision at the time. No one to the right of Mitt ever materialized then, and now Sarah Palin is there.
"a redistribution of optimism"
Excellent.
"Palin said she did not support abortion herself but what has she done to implement outlawing it. Nothing."
They will not be happy until she pulls a Ted Kennedy and renounces her position. You must confess, then go and sin no more! Just knowing she thinks that way drive them crazy. Bad consciences -?
But I don't see that much evidence that she's a hard-core culture war kind of girl.
What would you call her calling for a national amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
So: are the 47% of right-leaning bloggers realists? Pessimists? RINOs?
Ah yes, ever "optimistic" that latent racism will carry the day.
But hey, I am still laughing over how Althosue fell for Sarah Palin, hook, line, and sinker, back in those first few days!!
Right now, the main rhetorical line of attack used by the Republicans is the culture war. This strategy is showing diminished returns, and looking at demographic trends, it's hard to imagine that changing. The country is getting younger, less white, and more urban. As Sarah Palin might say, it's looking less and less like real America.
Palin at the top of a ticket would be suicide.
If "real America" wants to be competitive in the next general election, it's going to need to be more respectful to actual America.
Penguin: [to his election crew] Plenty of girls and bands and slogans and lots of hoopla, but remember, no politics. Issues confuse people!
Henchman #!: But what about the press. Won’t they want to investigate the issuses.
Penquin: Don’t be a fool. Just tell them how much Batgirls underwear costs. That will occupy them. Oh, and tell them that penguin’s are half black. That should shut them up.
(Hizzonner the Penquin, Season 2 Episode 17, Batman the TV show)
with little to nothing done about abortion and gay marriage and the like. Why is that so hard to do?
Because those aren't conservative ideals. At least on the social conservative side. It's not that it's hard to do, but conservatives by-in-large think that homosexual marriage and abortion are two things that should be endorsed to be disallowed. There are many things that as a society we can't do, but these particular two issues are life issues. Homosexual marriage at it's core foundation cannot create life and abortion snuffs it out. We are a culture of life and these two things are anathema to it.
dbp said...
"A President and a Congress of the same party can pretty much gut the Military in short-order."
Can, and have said that they will: Frank envisages a 25% cut in military spending.
I doubt the Republican Party can 'retool' Mayyyyybe if an Obama administration is a bomb, but I doubt it.
We are very close to having 50% of Americans not paying federal taxes and the ability to vote.
Will they vote for less government?
they will:
I won't mind that at all if everything else is cut as well. Any bureaucracy is wasteful, and a military is nothing if not a bureaucracy.
Making sure that the cuts are where there is actual waste is the trick, and I rather doubt that will happen.
I think a McCain presidency will also cut the Military budget. There simply isn't enough money to go around.
2001 Obama Redistribution of Wealth Audio
Good. I want the disappointment to hit them hard.
"Good. I want the disappointment to hit them hard."
Does it bother you to think of the election of your candidate as some sort of retribution against your fellow Americans? Geez, so much for the whole "bringing the country together" lie.
It's troublesome to me that a portion of the electorate thinks of nothing but revenge, revenge against Republicans, revenge against the wealthy, revenge against business owners, revenge against "whitey". I've never felt that way when a candidate I supported won.
John McCain is John Wetteland.
Sarah Palin is Mariano Rivera.
Barack Obama is Armando BenÃtez
Why is everybody so convinced that she's some sort of religious fanatic rather than a fairly conventional pre-Bush limited government Republican?
To answer as succinctly as possible, we're convinced she's some sort of religious fanatic because she doesn't even think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion and she doesn't believe in evolution or manmade global warming. And on the limited government front, she made heroic efforts to bring home federal bacon like the Bridge to Nowhere, and Alaska is the closest thing America has to a socialist petrostate. She's like Hugo Chavez but cuter.
There are some books that are absolute required reading, for anyone who doesn't realize how evil socialism is.
GULAG by Anne Applebaum
LIFE AND DEATH IN SHANGHAI by Nien Cheng
Socialism is not a results-based system. Bad results don't make the socialists change...
Does it bother you to think of the election of your candidate as some sort of retribution against your fellow Americans?
No. I mean I'm moderately excited about an Obama presidency for policy reasons, but the suffering of the wingnuts is a huge plus.
In a campaign where Hillary was "inevitable" and McCain's campaign was pronounced "dead" you'd think we might be a bit less sure of ourselves as to the actual results. I know Ann's in almost 95percent but we have 8 days and ten percent undecided. If he wins I won't be surprised but if Obama wins it won't surprise me. Its just going to be close. Hopefully not "lawyer close". Always the damm lawyers!
I can't agree with that, Methadras. My concern with gay marriage is that it is an innovation that changes in a fundamental way the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage and no one has yet articulated a convincing way to let that in without opening the door to polygamy (Zach, to his credit, has tried, but not convincingly). I don't have any beef with homosexuality, I don't really have an objection to them marrying, and to the extent that I do, it really doesn't have anything to do with their ability to create life vel non. I don't think many conservatives think of it in those terms; when have conservatives ever focussed on the ability to reproduce as the sine qua non of marriage? And why would they, when it would cast aspersions on families that are unable to have children, or who for any reason adopt rather than bear? What conservatives have said is that a traditional two-parent female-male marriage provides the best possible environment for raising children, but I hadn't read that to imply that that is the sole function of marriage.
And I really think that it's extraordinarily reductive to imply that abortion and gay marriage are two sides of the same coin.
Lastly, I think that a while back, I tried to characterize a comment that Cedarford had made, and I suggested that perhaps what he was saying amounted to or pointed towards the premise that society can tolerate some things as a deviance that it can't absorb as "normal." Cedarford, I suspect, wouldn't tolerate even the deviance, given the choice. But I think that a conservative might well say, "look, we have no problem with people being gay. But we do have a problem with homosexuality being normalized. This is something that has not traditionally been recognized by society, and we don't think that society can adequately absorb its normalization. We think it's aberrant, we think it's deviant, and although we think it's your choice and you should be allowed to do what you will, we don't want children being brought up to think that it's normal or in some way just another lifestyle choice that they can make if they feel like it." Maybe I'm just projecting, because I don't feel that this really captures how I feel about the subject - I don't know that I have any particular conscious feelings on the subject - but to the extent it isn't just projection, I think it captures where many conservatives are on homosexuality: "Do it if you want, but don't throw it in my face, and don't tell children it's normal." Put another way, we've perhaps gone too far in destigmatization; there is, I think, an obvious distinction between 'okay' and 'normal.' Enjoying a taste of the lash is "okay"; it isn't "normal." In a perfectly reasonable effort to tell people who are coming of age that, look, this is okay, this isn't something to be ashamed of, this isn't something unacceptable that you have to repress, and you're free to indulge - but in truth, it isn't normal. Why are we so afraid to let the extraordinary be extraordinary? Does everything have to be brought within the boundaries of the ordinary?
A few unstructured, random musings bearing some, little or no resemblance to a coherent thought or my own.
"Homosexual marriage at it's core foundation cannot create life"
Neither can a heterosexual marriage where one or both of the parties is sterile. Neither can a heterosexual marriage where one or both of the parties is too old to viably procreate. Yet we allow them to marry. Your argument is flawed.
The government should not be in the business of engineering society. That defeats the notion of a limited government. The government should not be in the business of sanctioning a religious ceremony.
The country is getting younger, less white, and more urban.
Homosexual marriage at it's core foundation cannot create life and abortion snuffs it out. We are a culture of life and these two things are anathema to it.
Two separate observations, but might I say that as conservatives "retool" it might do to consider that the reason the country is getting "less white" is that minorities don't hate life the way liberal elites do. Hispanics, particularly, value family and children. Blacks, too, even while we despair at the percentage of children born to single mothers, seem prone to decide to have their children rather than abort them.
(I don't necessarily agree that homosexual marriage is anti-life, but will concede that the perception that it is, is part of the equation.)
"No. I mean I'm moderately excited about an Obama presidency for policy reasons, but the suffering of the wingnuts is a huge plus."
Oh, so you're only partially a sadistic asshole. Interesting.
Bearbee - that video has only four minutes of a forty minute program.
Joe Biden is Don Zimmer, after the head injury.
And conservatism *is* optimistic.
I mean... take this comment thread here and look at the remarks made by those who profess confidence that Obama will win and who *want* him to win.
They can't even be optimistic at the idea of pending victory.
While conservatives, in the face of possible/probable defeat are looking for the bright side.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional, nor do have I expertise in taxation.
OK, that said: my understanding is somewhere under 40 percent of tax filers end up with a zero or negative federal tax liability (excluding social security, which most of those people do pay, and which money is, of course, mixed in with the general pool of funds), due to various deductions and refundable credits. Remember, deductions and refundable credits are two different things.**
What's with the 50 percent figure? And 50 percent of what, exactly?
Or am I off base on the basics?
**Yeah, I'll throw it out there: I have a problem with the refundable credit concept (partly because it's sneaky) more than the deduction concept, though at heart I favor more of a flat tax approach with a generous per-person exemption floor.
Joe Biden is Don Zimmer, after the head injury.
McCain is Don Zimmer. And Obama is Pedro Martinez.
Oh, so you're only partially a sadistic asshole.
Well given how amazingly, unrepentantly wrong they were about everything during the Bush years, they're a pretty good contrary indicator. If they're miserable about something, it's probably good for the country.
Althouse said: "McCain seemed to represent the idea that the party -- or at least its presidential candidate -- needed to be less conservative."
Rush Limbaugh said:
I wish to reach around and pat myself on the back. Way back during the Republican primaries ... we were told Ty the Republican Party hierarchy that the only chance the Republican Party had (by the way, we were told this also by some of the intellectualoids in our own conservative media) to win was to attract Democrats and moderates; and that the era of Reagan was over, and we had to somehow find a way to become stewards of a Big Government but smarter that gives money away to the Wal-Mart middle class so that they, too, will feel comfortable with us and like us and vote for us.
In that sense, it was said the only opportunity this party has to regain power is John McCain. Only John McCain can get moderates and independents and Democrats to join the Republican Party, "and we can't win," these intellectualoids said, "if that didn't happen." Well, the latest moderate Republican to abandon his party is William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who today endorsed the Most Merciful Lord Barack Obama. He joins moderate Republican Colin Powell. He joins former Bush press spokesman Scott McClellan. He joins a number of Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska ...
Now, I wish to ask all of you influential pseudointellectual conservative media types who have also abandoned McCain and want to go vote for Obama (and you know who you are without my having to mention your name) what happened to your precious theory? What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents? How the hell is it that moderate Republicans are fleeing their own party and we are not attracting other moderates and independents?
... When I saw the Weld thing today I smiled and I fired off a note to all my buddies and I said, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! How can this be? How can this be? This is the kind of guy that our candidate was supposed to be attracting, and we were supposed to be getting all these moderates from the Democrat Party," and we will, by the way. We're going to get some rank and file, average American Democrats that are going to vote for McCain. But these hoity-toity bourgeoisie... Well, they're not the bourgeoisie, but... Well, they are in a sense. They're following their own self-interests, so I say fine. They have just admitted that Republican Party "big tent" philosophy didn't work. It was their philosophy; it was their idea. These are the people, once they steered the party to where it is, they are the ones that abandoned it.
Why is everybody so convinced that she's some sort of religious fanatic rather than a fairly conventional pre-Bush limited government Republican?"
Might have something to do with her opinion that all abortion
should be illegal except "life of the mother". Which in answering a question, she confirmed that - yes - abortion in the case of rape, child incest, health of the mother - should be against the law.
Then there was the story her campaign never disputed that 7-8 years ago she said that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time - because they have found human and dinosaur tracks side-by-side at excavations....
************************
"Are you OK with socialism?"
Of course. I'm OK with various forms of socialism that do not directly benefit me.
So were all Americans starting with the colonists to create socialist projects like militias, roads, dams, paying for public health services in an epidemic. Then after the Constitution, things like police, schools, public parks and libraries people may or may not use - but which are good socialist tax revenue redistribution goals most people agree we need.
I love socialism as expressed in National Parks and Monuments, though I personally benefit from visiting a fraction. I love socialist policy that allowed us to look and travel in space past the "commercially" viable close-earth orbit we would have been limited to if space exploration was privatized.
We are all socialists. The only question is to what extent.
Now the failures of the "Freedom-lovers!!" of the "free markets!!" has forced American taxpayers to becoming unwilling funders of socialism for various Ruling Elite edifices and institutions.
And with medical care twice as expensive in America as in any other country, with a million medical bankruptcies a year (nearly unknown anywhere else), 1/6th of workers uncovered for medical, 1/4th with no dental insurance we may be forced to socialize health insurance. That we have a lower life expectancy than 37 other nations and we have a substantial population "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition makes universal health insurance look as inevitable as were past "socialist" institutions like public libraries, the Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, State Universities.
*************
McCain has no real program. He ran on "character" not with a coherent political vision for the future. What policies he has are mainly reactive or pandering.
Bad candidate. Far more suited to "working with Democrats" in cloakrooms than leading the nation or rebuilding the Party.
John McCain is Brett Favre.
Sarah Palin is Eli Manning.
Barack Obama is Dante Culpepper
What would you call her calling for a national amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
I'd call it pandering, just like I called it when Bush did it. It doesn't make me think Palin would actually push the issue if elected, but it does disappoint me mightily.
Now that Barney has let slip the gutting of the military budget I'm wondering just what those union workers in Boeing and Northrup are thinking today? The Army knows its gonna get gutted (we always get gutted) but the real money will be shutting down the J-35, the shipyards, and of course the tanker deals. I wonder what the Boeing workers are saying to their union bosses today? Is this the change they wanted?
Same sex marriage is being promoted primarily by heterosexuals who have so devalued marriage that it's symbolic of equality and nothing more.
As odd-bedfellows go, homosexuals actually seem to value marriage (or at least a good number of them) itself as valuable... the traditional, meaningful, sort of marriage... which would make them natural allies with religious conservatives who are alarmed at the devaluing of marriage in our culture.
Which is very real.
The problem is getting both sides to see that.
And then we can get all the marriage and children valuing people on the same side.
The government should not be in the business of engineering society. That defeats the notion of a limited government.
WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John McCain is George Jones.
Sarah Palin is Tammy Wynette.
Barack Obama is Milli Vanilli.
Now that Barney has let slip the gutting of the military budget I'm wondering just what those union workers in Boeing and Northrup are thinking today?
Who knows, if they're employed on incredibly wasteful projects like FCS, they're probably not too happy.
You must be a Democrat, given your concern for union members.
As for taxes... probably everyone should pay at least *something* in order to feel (and be) a "tax-payer".
Not because it's patriotic to pay taxes, but because people behave differently when they've got to foot the bill for government.
Either that or limit the vote to people who pay taxes... even if it's just a few bucks.
What if you had a candidate who was all that but who really wasn't that interested in pushing the social conservative agenda - they're personally against gay marriage, for example, but they don't really make a big deal about it or prioritize it. Would that candidate be acceptable?
Simon, Althouse didn't answer your question, which was directed to me, but I'll answer anyway:
Yes. But I'm not convinced that Gov. Palin actually fits that profile. I gather that you think so, but I don't have that confidence. And I do think that at least in part, McCain chose Palin to send the opposite message, whether he means, in the event, to implement that message or not.
Trooper:
McCain ain't Favre, because you can count on Favre to win. McCain doesn't have the record; McCain doesn't have the ring. McCain is a good one to have in with the fundamentals are bad but you want to maximize your slim chance. McCain is the Hail Mary, the long ball...
McCain is Doug Flutie.
(Sarah Palin is Ryan Leaf.)
You must be a Democrat, given your concern for union members.
The Dems are talking about taking away the right to secret ballots for union organizing...
I realize this might be a hard concept, Doyle, but supporting *unions* is not the same as supporting union *members.*
sorry, WASN'T directed to me.
John McCain is Strothter Martin.
Sarah Palin is Ann-Margret.
Barack Obama is Kadeem Hardison.
I like the McCain/Favre comparison, in that both are well past their primes but the media pretends not to notice because they're both American Heroes.
McCain throws to many interceptions and he is always calling up the other team to help them out. He's Favre.
The Dems are talking about taking away the right to secret ballots for union organizing...
That "right" in practice gives management the opportunity to bring pressure to bear.
Everyone knows that Republicans don't care about free elections they just care about union busting.
Okay... small words for me then...
How does a SECRET ballot take away the rights of workers to vote without repercussion?
How does a PUBLIC ballot give workers to the ability to vote free of intimidation?
Please... explain this in a way that does not equate to... "But intimidation by union organizers is the GOOD kind of intimidation."
John McCain is aged limburger.
Sarah Palin is fresh and milky mozzarella .
Barack Obama is smoked gouda. (Comes in a red wrapper)
Simon,
"...society can tolerate some things as a deviance that it can't absorb as 'normal.'"
Certainly there's plenty of ready analogies in the physiology realm: think of blood alcohol content, or undesirable microbes in the body: a small enough concentration means nothing in a healthy person, larger amounts are problematic, and a large enough amount will kill you.
The early hype, the problems with the media, the disaster in the third week...
Palin is Leaf. Check it out.
"The government should not be in the business of engineering society."
If you mean re-engineering society to fit somebody's theoretical model, then I'm with you. Otherwise, heck no--if government isn't biased in favor of preserving our basic family arrangements, our economic and personal freedoms, etc, then what on earth do we even have it?
How does a SECRET ballot take away the rights of workers to vote without repercussion?
It doesn't. It makes it easier for management to scuttle union formation than card check would, which is why conservatives like it.
Note: workers could still do secret ballots if they wanted to under the law.
John McCain is To Hell and Back.
Sarah Palin is With Six You get Eggroll.
Barack Obama is Alien.
"The government should not be in the business of engineering society. That defeats the notion of a limited government.
WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Thank you! :) I wish more people understood this.
Trooper, Obama already has his own cheese.
reader_iam said...
"Yes. But I'm not convinced that Gov. Palin actually fits that profile. I gather that you think so, but I don't have that confidence."
I do think so, and I'm wondering what clouds your sky with doubt? Take abortion, for example. As we have been reminded at every possible opportunity by her critics, Palin is - at least in her personal views on abortion - a hardliner. Even more so than me! And she has made clear that she isn't one of the personally pro life politically pro choice brigade; she believes that government should protect the child in utero. Nevertheless, since she became Governor of Alaska, has she taken any steps to impose serious regulations on abortion? Has she made the issue a priority of her administration? To my knowledge, she has not. Ditto gay marriage: she voted for the amendment to the state constitution, and perhaps even endorsed it. But to my knowledge, she hasn't placed any significant emphasis on the issue. As I read her record, everything points towards the conclusion that while Palin has socially conservative views, she regards them as back burner issues that must wait while more serious issues are handled. And in Washington, I think that there is no shortage of serious issues that she would find to place ahead of social issues in the daily priorities.
"And I do think that at least in part, McCain chose Palin to send the opposite message, whether he means, in the event, to implement that message or not."
I think - apologies if I've already repeated this ad nauseum - McCain chose Palin for two reasons. He knew that with his veep selection, he had to hit several targets with one shot, but the one target he had to hit was that he had to unify the party. If possible, the ticket would benefit from some charisma, someone who could stir things up and improve fundraising. Ideally, the choice should allow him to reach to the middle. In addition to all this, I think that McCain sees himself as a maverick, an iconoclast who taked on entrenched special interests guided by a compass of what's right not what's popular. I'm not saying he's any of those things, but that's how he sees himself. And I think he looked at the list of possible veeps and said, by God this woman is perfect. She's just like me - a maverick who takes on entrenched intersts - but she can unify the party, has rock star charisma, she can appeal to the middle, and she can be the face of the party for a new generation. She can be the one to whom the torch is passed. That's why I think she was picked (which is why I find the idea that Lieberman was on the radar utterly ridiculous).
"Like its French cousin, [Barick Obama] is beefy, yeasty and salty (and snore-y and stinky), it has a woodsy pungency and a melting texture (especially when exposed to the heat of Iranians)"
John McCain is Rum DMC.
Sarah Palin is Queen Latifah.
Barack Obama is Vanilla Ice.
The 53% may be correct. We'll know in just a few more days.
I'm very interested to see the post-election bloodbath in the GOP if McCain/Palin lose. It's gonna be nasty. Sane vs. insane, excellent.
Gobama!
"Barack Obama is Vanilla Ice."
More like Milli Vanilli.
John McCain is Connie Hawkins.
Sarah Palin is Billy Melchioni.
Barack Obama is Marvin Barnes.
Joe Biden is Zelmo Beatty.
Doyle, my brother is union so I'm concerned. Just curious as to why Union = Democrat. May be that way for union bosses but maybe not so 1:1 for workers.
Yes, I suppose FCS will go. So will all the programs for soldiers. Because they won't have a congressional base to support them and allow them to limp along.
Just curious, as to what other programs you're wanting to see cut? And why hasn't Obama/Biden been up front on this? Well actually we all know why.
PS: please don't post the nonsense on cutting Iraq, that's not in the DOD budget.
1970 baby wrote: There are some books that are absolute required reading, for anyone who doesn't realize how evil socialism is...
Add to that A Fish in the Water by Mario Vargas Llosa. Llosa provides a close-up view of how socialism turns into kleptocracy on the left and lays the groundwork for authoritarianism on the right.
John McCain is diner meatloaf.
Sarah Palin is Dover Sole in a lemon butter sauce.
Barack Obama arugla salad. With endive.
Bearbee - that video has only four minutes of a forty minute program.
Simon, thanks for that link. I ran a search through 2001 and find he made several guest appearances.
Clowance's husband's name? The Stranger from the Sea.
Steven Carrington.
John McCain is George Jones.
Sarah Palin is Tammy Wynette.
Trooper, given all those "leaks" about how McCain's handlers are fed up with Palin's "going rogue," I keep hearing George singing "He Stopped Loving Her Today" -- one of the finest country songs ever. Ever!
I think of George Jones singing Choices, myself.
Jeeez Madison Man, now my comment doesn't make any sense.
Well they never make any sense but you know what I mean.
Trooper York said...
"Sarah Palin is Dover Sole in a lemon butter sauce."
Dude. Unfair. You can not be giving me images of Sarah Palin with lemon butter sauce dripping off her!
It makes it easier for management to scuttle union formation than card check would, which is why conservatives like it.
Note: workers could still do secret ballots if they wanted to under the law.
Management, Doyle? Or just the workers not voting for union formation? Is it inconceivable to you that a worker might not *want* a union?
And workers who pushed for secret ballots? Probably they want to vote against union formation anyway. Who'd push for secret ballots when they can stand proudly and vote for the union?
So the *option* for secret ballots is bogus since anyone who went against the union to get a secret vote would be assumed to be anti-union.
This is NOT democratic. It IS pro-union. But if the union can't win with a secret ballot, maybe being pro-union is just being pro-union and NOT pro-worker.
John McCain is Bette Davis.
Sarah Palin is Olivia De Havilland.
Barack Obama is Vivien Leigh.
Yeah, I realized I'd forgotten to put Barack as Steven Carrington, I'd only asked what his name was. Then I deleted it and got called away from my desk before I could re-post.
I guess I should add that John McCain is Francis and Sarah Palin is Elizabeth.
John McCain is your Dad's trusty oldsmobile
Sarah Palin is a souped-up 'vette.
Barack is a hybrid navigator.
But still... it's the *unions* that give so much money to the Democrats.
The workers who might not want to pay those dues, who might not want to be required to belong to a union at all, and who might not want their dues going to a political party they don't favor... well, the union is the one sending the money to Democrats.
How about this for a compromise...
Give the unions everything they want including card check voting (why this isn't good for national elections if it's good for workers still escapes me) but make them give money to any and all political parties in the exact proportions as their members stipulate.
They can still "endorse" the candidate the majority of their members favor, but they can't take the dues paid by a worker and give it to a candidate that member does not individually support.
How about that?
No doubt that's unfair, too, even though unions are *supposed* to represent workers to their employers over pay and work conditions.
John McCain is Audrey Hepburn
Sarah Palin is Marni Nixon
Barack Obama is Jeremy Brett
Conservatives don't realize that the country as a whole is not conservative because they spend too much time in the right wing echo chamber. They need to realize RINOs are good, and don't need to be shifted to the right. In California, Grey Davis preyed upon the weakness of conservative Republicans by suggesting their moderate candidate of proven statewide appeal was too moderate. The sheeplike Republicans bought the argument, and selected an ideologically pure candidate, allowing Grey to win easily and lead the monoparty government into a death spiral.
Because of the GOP base's insistence on ideological purity, it took a recall to get the (competent, moderate) RINO Schwarzenegger into office, to serve as a check on the Democrats.
Now, McCain, who appealed to moderates in 2000, has been bending himself into all sorts of odd positions to rally his base. Well, there just aren't enough base members to get him elected. He made his choices and must put up with the consequences.
It would interest me to hear your Obama-supporting readers articulate their specific reasons for voting him into office after having been Senator for less than two years. He'll support abortion "rights?" He'll support gay marriage? What else? He'll socialize health care? He isn't Bush and McCain is?
Obama is smart enough and temperate enough to get us out of the mess that W. and his Congressional henchmen have put us in over the past eight years. In contrast, McCain has neither high IQ nor high EQ. Further, the man McCain still looks to for economic advice, Phil Gramm, is the same man who got us into the current economic crisis.
Some errors need correction: Obama's been Senator for almost four years. It's the right's darling, Palin, who's been Governor less than two years.
Obama doesn't support gay marriage. The right to abortion is as well established as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Obama doesn't support socialized health care, but universal access without universal participation.
Neither can a heterosexual marriage where one or both of the parties is sterile. Neither can a heterosexual marriage where one or both of the parties is too old to viably procreate. Yet we allow them to marry. [Simon's] argument is flawed.
Same sex marriage advocates frequently use this argument, as if a menopausal woman somehow becomes a man, which is degrading to (for example) women of Ann's vintage. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, each of whom bring fundamentally different perspectives to the union in a way that two men or two women can never do.
Call same-sex relationships marriage if you want -- it takes away nothing from my marriage. But thinking that they're identical to marriage as it has existed for 10,000 years is just delusional.
The government should not be in the business of engineering society.
And yet Palladian wants government to regulate his intimate relationship. Irony much?
John McCain is Navy Bean Soup. Full of navy beans.
Sarah Palin is fresh chicken soup. Full of tender young chicken.
Barack Obama is gumbo. Full of red beans.
As long as America can be "gayer" it's alright with Althouse if the left scraps the whole American project. Well, at least she owns up to her priorities.
Y'know, I made chicken soup the other day, and it wasn't full of chicken. The broth was from a picked-over carcass (I refrain from comparing this to McCain after election day) and there were plenty of vegetables in it, and a bit of meat, and noodles. Just the thing on a cold autumn night.
Chicken soup that is full of tender young chicken is wasteful.
John McCain is Pat Nixon.
Sarah Palin is Julie Nixon.
Barack Obama is Tricia Nixon.
I just love the socialism references....its like when someone wants to kill a few rats they toss cheese in the water and the sillyones jump in and drown.
How anyone can buy into the Barama's gonna make us socialist crappola is beyond the pale.
lol, 53% of the rats who spot the cheese in the water are gonna get 2:1 at Kroger.
Skyler said...
"McCain has the big problem that philosophically he is either void or he agrees with Obama....."
He actually has a bigger problem, he is going to loose by about 9%.
Ya'betcha
John McCain is “The Girl I Left Behind Me.”
Sarah Palin is “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.”
Barack Obama is “Oh Girl.”
But still... it's the *unions* that give so much money to the Democrats.
The workers who might not want to pay those dues, who might not want to be required to belong to a union at all, and who might not want their dues going to a political party they don't favor... well, the union is the one sending the money to Democrats.
Unions today have a tiny fraction of their former power, covering only workers who can't be outsourced. The most powerful of these are the government employees' unions. These people vote for Democrats naturally, because neither side will bite the hand that feeds them.
Outside of government, almost all jobs that can't be outsourced, like truck driving or carpentry, have non-union alternatives. You can buy your own rig and hire yourself out to truck lines, or you -- like Joe the Plumber -- can work for a nonunion contractor. But if you are philosophically opposed to unions yet you want the wages and benefits available only to union workers, you generally can remain nonunion if you pays a collective bargaining fee in lieu of dues. You don't need to contribute to the union PAC; contribution to union PACs is purely voluntary.
John McCain is Pat Nixon.
America can't stand [P]at. -- Richard Nixon.
Call same-sex relationships marriage if you want -- it takes away nothing from my marriage. But thinking that they're identical to marriage as it has existed for 10,000 years is just delusional.
And how has marriage existed for 10,000 years?
I'm a hard-liner on marriage, really, but lets be honest about marriage "as it existed" because for the most part it hasn't, much. Even Jewish tradition, at least as I understand OT previous-era stuff, marriage could be ended by a "go away now, I divorce you."
After that time, just looking at common era, "common law" marriage was the norm... peasants lived together, usually moving in after the girl got pregnant. Formal marriage seems to have been a thing of rulers and the wealthy who had influence and money involved. Other than that it's been pretty informal... have a party, jump over a broom. If your community is a religious one, have the party at church before God and the congregation.
All in all, marriage has been about leaving one economic unit and creating another.
Except that we've refigured marriage to avoid that when at all possible... so that it's easier to come apart again after coming together.
Keep the finances separate?
Family, either the one you're born to or the one you create in marriage, provides the basic social building block and unit of economic support... home is where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in... it's an obligation of support.
But that's not *fun* and so we get rid of that part.
former law student said...
"[Simon's] argument is flawed" (alteration in original).
You're misrepresenting Palladian's comment. He said that Methadras' argument was flawed, not mine. My argument may be flawed too, but the comment by Palladian that you quote didn't address my comment.
simon: sorry I misattributed meth's comment to you
synova: To quote myself, "Marriage is a union of a man and a woman." While the specific formalities may have changed over the past 10,000 years, marriage hasn't required any specific formalities till quite recently in our history -- we all recognize a couple living as man and wife.
Obama is smart enough and temperate enough to get us out of the mess that W. and his Congressional henchmen have put us in over the past eight years.
Funniest damn thing I've read all day.
I also believe McCain will win, and I don't think it will be close.
This year the polls are even less indicative of America's mood than usual. Hang-up rates frustrate the most rigorous attempts to get honest voter reactions.
Party identification is out-of-whack due to people who registered Democrat to vote in the primaries, but who have no intention of voting Democrat in the general election.
PUMAs have openly stated they will profess support for Obama but vote for McCain. They intend for Obama to be not only defeated but humiliated.
Many McCain supporters are keeping their heads down, for fear of being labeled racists, but they'll vote Republican in the privacy of voting booths.
We have in the past lamented low election turnouts, and I believe that historically more conservatives than liberals have been election-day slackers. I believe many people who don't usually vote will vote next week, and they will vote predominantly Republican.
The media is part of the Obama machine, so we can count on them to overestimate Obama's position and underestimate McCain's -- not because they're confused but because they're running a conscious disinformation campaign.
Fortunately more people than ever before have Internet access, and can bypass the media to get facts the media refuse to report.
"The government should not be in the business of engineering society.
And yet Palladian wants government to regulate his intimate relationship. Irony much?"
Reading comprehension problems, much? I ended my comment with this:
"The government should not be in the business of sanctioning a religious ceremony."
I don't want the government to regulate anyone's intimate relationships. The government should not be in the business of sanctioning religious ceremonies.
mariner said...
I also believe McCain will win, and I don't think it will be close.
This year the polls are even less indicative of America's mood than usual. Hang-up rates frustrate the most rigorous attempts to get honest voter reactions.
Party identification is out-of-whack due to people who registered Democrat to vote in the primaries, but who have no intention of voting Democrat in the general election.
PUMAs have openly stated they will profess support for Obama but vote for McCain. They intend for Obama to be not only defeated but humiliated.
Many McCain supporters are keeping their heads down, for fear of being labeled racists, but they'll vote Republican in the privacy of voting booths.
We have in the past lamented low election turnouts, and I believe that historically more conservatives than liberals have been election-day slackers. I believe many people who don't usually vote will vote next week, and they will vote predominantly Republican.
The media is part of the Obama machine, so we can count on them to overestimate Obama's position and underestimate McCain's -- not because they're confused but because they're running a conscious disinformation campaign.
Fortunately more people than ever before have Internet access, and can bypass the media to get facts the media refuse to report.
If Obama should win in a landslide I will be using your post as the prime example of the right-wing delusion which we have watched do major damage to our country over the last 8 years. Your model counts on mass racism, and may be exactly what happens. If my instincts are correct, you will be revealed as the snake oil salesman you are. You may get lucky though, if not I'll be crucifying you on November 5th, 2008. All in fun, of course.
We'll see.
John McCain is Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama is Chelsea Clinton
Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin
I just found this, it's perfect:
Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin’s critics as “cocktail party conservatives” who “give aid and comfort to the enemy”. He told The Sunday Telegraph: “There’s going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?
What a great idea! Cocktail party conservatives have no place in the modern GOP! Good riddance! Don't spill your non-beer beverage on the way out, fake americans.
Palladian:
"The government should not be in the business of engineering society."
No, but society should engineer government.
A society in which somewhere north of 80% of people are opposed to same-sex marriage is entitled to see that preference observed in law.
John McCain is Golda Mier.
Sarah Palin is Russ Meyer.
Barack Obama is Oscar Meyer.
I don't want the government to regulate anyone's intimate relationships.
I did not understand that Palladian opposes government recognition of both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.
Palladian said...
I don't want the government to regulate anyone's intimate relationships. The government should not be in the business of sanctioning religious ceremonies.
I could not agree more. Look, married households are finally a minority in America. Let's do everything we can to keep it that way.
As to marriage and Obama's policies, if you and your spouse work and make more than $250,000 combined your better off getting a paper divorce (or if you and your betrothed are about to get married and your combined income will exceed $250,000) and staying as co-habitants.
Obama's tax rates for singles will not increase until $200,000. So you and your loved one can make a combined $400,000 as long as your not married to spare yourself from Obama's vision.
I get a tingle down my leg when Integrity tells me that if McCain wins it will be because of "mass rascism". Now that simply can't be really true. It will a large number of voters who individually vote against BarryO. It may prove to be a mass movement, a majority in fact. But it will happen one voter at a time.
Integrity, Who's a bitter clinger now? Only rascism is the reason about half the country is gonna vote against him. Really? Not his inexperence, his policy aims, none of it. Just rascism. Crucifiation will be a double-edge sword. And with that you must now admit Obama has already failed in two regards. We are no more united than under Bush. And he has proven to be noting more than a politician.
John McCain is matzo brei.
Sarah Palin is latkes.
Barak Obama is treyf.
John McCain is Gene Mauch.
Sarah Palin is Billy Martin.
Barack Obama is Willie Randolph.
Integrity:
"If Obama should win in a landslide I will be using your post as the prime example of the right-wing delusion which we have watched do major damage to our country over the last 8 years. Your model counts on mass racism, and may be exactly what happens."
I may be wrong in my prediction, but I don't think that makes me deluded. It means I don't have perfect information (in part due to the polling problems and the media I mentioned).
Interesting that you style yourself "Integrity". If you actually had it you wouldn't mischaracterize my argument or slander me while doing so.
I have no doubt there are some racists in America, both white and black. White racists will vote for McCain because he's white, and black racists will vote for Obama because he's black. But I didn't refer to them at all.
I DID refer to McCain supporters who were reluctant to stand up in public and be counted because Obama supporters would call them racists -- and along you came to prove my point.
If Mort was awake he would say it is racist for you to disagree with people who call you racist. You racist.
Trooper:
I hope Mort has a nice long nap. ;)
John McCain is a broken bat double with runner on second in the bottom of the ninth with two outs score tied
Sarah Palin is a stolen third base
Barack Obama is a game winning home run that bends just left of the foul poll
John McCain is a two handed set shot.
Sarah Palin is going to the hole.
Barack Obama is traveling.
Listen retards, I said I was going to crucify you in the name of fun. Fun being the operative word. Read the whole post.
Crucify as in make fun of.
Geesh, you have no sense of play.
I said all in fun.
And just think, impeaching Bush in late 2002 would have saved you all this sturm and drang. But that would have required intelligence, honor and integrity. Just kidding.
trooper york said...
John McCain is a two handed set shot.
Sarah Palin is going to the hole.
Barack Obama is [double dribble]
Meade said:
John McCain is my parents happy marriage.
Sarah Palin is holding hands with my first sweathart in a swing on the porch.
Barack Obama is my first marriage.
Of course McCain has a real chance to win.
He is closing fast in the polls and the Obama campaign is foundering.
Obama has a whole slew of new scandals to deal with (AVS, his workers in Ohio, his comments about redistribution, and the videotape of his speech praising R. Khalidi . . .)
Obama and Biden stopped giving press conferences a month ago. Cowards.
Barack Obama has not been vetted. In this last week, we will hit him with everything that the MSM let him keep secret until now.
John McCain is ho hum
Sarah Palin is oo la... eh
Barack Obama is a rainbow bubble of irrational exuberance
Barack Obama is gumbo. Full of red beans.
Trooper, now you're just wrong. Ain't no beans in gumbo. Well, maybe some strange hybrid gumbo, but that's not real.
Gumbo: make a roux, walnut dark. Add the trinity (creole mirapois: onions, celery, green pepper), garlic, and some sliced okra. If you want a chicken and sausage gumbo, you should have made a stock with the chicken. Strain it and add the stock to your roux and veggies. Season with bay leaves, pepper and salt, a little thyme, some Tabasco. Then add the chicken and chunks of sausage - use a good Italian sausage, or an andouille. If you prefer seafood, add some chicken or shrimp stock to the veggies, then add your shrimp, crab meat and crab claws. Crawfish tails are good, if you have them. (Seafood is more pricey so call it special occasion gumbo.) No beans! Serve over rice with a little sprinkle of file on top (file = ground sassafras root). I don't know how to make an accent mark, but it's fee-lay, you know, not file, as in rasp.
If Barack is Gumbo, count me in.
Can we have some gumbo? Oui, on peut!
John McCain is a two handed set shot....
One of your best.
John McCain is Trot Nixon.
Sarah Palin is Otis Nixon.
Obama is Nixon.
John McCain is Don Zimmer.
Sarah Palin is Morganna.
Barack Obama is Willie Mays.
Beth, let's cut Trooper some slack -- the poor bugger lives in Manhattan.
He's just confusing gumbo with red beans and rice (and he probably doesn't even know how to say "red bean ann raahhce"). ;)
John McCain is Jed Clampett
Sarah Palin is Elly Mae Clampett
Barak Obama is Jane Hathaway
John McCain is Jed Clampett
Sarah Palin is Elly Mae Clampett
Hillary Clinton is Jane Hathaway
John McCain is crunchy peanut butter
Sarah Palin is creamy smooth peanut butter
Barak Obama is Jimmy Carter peanut farmer
I'm wondering what fellow conservatives think about these comments from David Frum today:
While a sizeable majority of voters say Republicans have lost in 2006 and 2008 because they have been “too conservative,” a sizeable plurality of Republicans say, it is because they have “not been conservative enough.”
Over three-quarters of Republicans say Palin was good choice, while a majority of the electorate says the opposite.
Two-thirds of Republicans say McCain has not been aggressive enough, but a majority of voters think they have been too aggressive.
Looking to the future, a large majority of Republicans say the party needs to “move more to the right and back to conservative principles,” while an even larger majority of all voters say, it should move to the “center to win over moderate and independent voters.”
Beth...it was a joke...but thanks for the recipe.
And mariner...I live in Brooklyn...not Manhattan...don't make me come looking for you dude.
1) MadisonMan said...
Chicken soup that is full of tender young chicken is wasteful.
You're not Jewish, are you?
2) Beth, as a liberal you may be ineducable ;>, but to make the é character you hold Alt and type "130" ON THE KEYPAD. Thus, Alt-130. This works for many other ASCII characters as well.
Beth is an oyster po'boy.
Trooper York is a messy meatball hero.
Meade is what Beowulf puked all over Grendel when he saw what she really looked like.
Donn, it tells me that the polling data Frum relies on is either wrong or the electorate has a grossly wrongheaded view of what conservatism is. How can they claim that the GOP lost because it was too conservative when the party governed in a way utterly contrary to every tenet of conservatism? That makes no sense to me.
John McCain is a tired, old White man.
Sarah Palin is a sexually attractive White woman.
Barack Obama is a relatively young, tall, charming, vigorous black man.
Single White women are the most important swing vote BY FAR!.
Do the math.
Simon,
While I agree that the polling data may be wrong as it relates to the Country at large, it does reflect the situation in California (and I'm guessing other liberal States), so the question to me is; does Frum accurately predict the future of the Republican Party, or is this an isolated incident (i.e. the distaste for anything to do with Republicans after 8 years of Bush)?
Here's Frum's comment as it relates to the polling info:
Take a look at this poll from Stanley Greenberg. (Yes Greenberg's a Democrat - but he's long proven himself a realistic analyst of American politics. Greenberg is the guy who identified Macomb County, Michigan, as the heartland of the "Reagan Democrats" - and warned Democrats that they were losing both Macomb and the nation.)
I would have liked strong national security and smart economic policy, with little to nothing done about abortion and gay marriage and the like.
I dunno. He's doing the first; nobody much notices. Incoherence? You got a problem with an FDR Republican? I suppose he's identifying with his Admiral forefathers being 'brothers' of FDR. I also(?) would've preferred a VP choice of Bloomberg. The economic game got moved from softball to the World Series. Bloomberg would've improved the R attack and defense. Re: abortion, all Bloomberg would've needed to say was he would go with originalist judges. Why can't the R's have a capitalist on the ticket?
Beth...it was a joke...but thanks for the recipe.
Trooper, it's true; I'm too serious about gumbo.
"The tendency to lean right is about optimism."
Realistic optimism, self determination, and personal responsibility.
Hoo ha.
Trey
Meade at 5:35: I like that one the best! Jimmy Carter Peanut Farmer! Isn't that the truth?
The mainstream media illuminati will only poll those Dems in favor of socialism. I won't go by those polls, nor will I count the GOP out.
You lost me at "Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia".
I should care about this guy's opinions why?
Stever:
"The only thing worse in this campaign than the conservatives dismantling of any and all republican presidential candidates, ..."
was the Republican dismantling of any and all conservative presidential candidates.
Post a Comment