That's hardcore. But is it unfair? Fair or unfair, it's what's coming if Newt is the nominee.
In that vein, here's Erik Tarloff in the Atlantic:
In my lifetime, I can recall only two presidential candidates who were patently anathema to their respective parties' establishment: Barry Goldwater and George McGovern. In both cases, the system sputtered and malfunctioned. Otherwise, the more extreme contenders have all been derailed before they could pose much of a threat.Like Ron Paul?!
My prediction is, that's what's going to happen to Newt Gingrich. He may have the wind at his back right now, but one way or another, he will be brought down. Opposition research will be leaked to compliant news outlets. Devastating anti-Gingrich commercials will be produced by campaigns that have no chance of winning.
People who have served with and under Gingrich will trash him in public. Personal scandals will be revisited, with new and uglier details provided. Reputable conservative newspapers and magazines will run editorials questioning his fitness. Much of this has already started to happen, and I'm willing to wager we ain't seen nothin' yet.Okay, but Ron Paul is on his own. He's at least as "patently anathema" to the establishment as Newt.
Also in the Atlantic, from Elspeth Reeve: "Newt Gingrich's Women Problem":
There's a group of Republicans eager to nominate a Not Romney candidate but having trouble embracing Newt Gingrich: conservative women who don't like his history of adultery....
Former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott told Politico that while Romney might have a hard time selling himself to southerners, when he gets in a room with them, he can win them over. Lott "recalled that Romney had successfully worked the room during recent campaign stops in Mississippi: 'The ladies loved him.'"Oh? But Erik Tarloff says "there's something positively repellent about" Romney.
He combines a sort of feigned bonhomie with an air of profound, pervasive superciliousness. His public self in fact mirrors his politics, opportunistic and inauthentic. He's always reminded me of a very specific type peculiar to American educational life, one familiar, I should think, to most American males of a certain age: The Boys' Vice Principal. The one who pretends to be a regular guy, who kids around in the halls and sometimes permits himself the odd "Damn!" or "Hell!", but will bully you into doing something you don't want to do with a false smile of feigned friendship, and who will cheerfully, and with a little too much zeal, deliver stinging corporal punishment on your ass when he deems it appropriate.Uh... okay. Well, that seems to be some wacky "male" perspective. The ladies loved him.
पोस्ट्स
१२४ टिप्पण्या:
At the super K-street consultant session last evening (which was attended by WH hotties, DNC, CAP, etc.), we came to a great conclusion.
GOP nominates Newt/Perry as their ticket. We not only win 2012, but have the next 8-years as well.
Why? GOP will be destroyed.
So, what do we do now:
We continue to think of Romney as the candidate. We aim on him. We do not touch Newt/Perry at all. We ignore them. So, we ignore Paul's advert.
Our focus is making Romney look bad. We want him to be defeated by Newt so bad that Newt is the nominee by default.
We love GOP. We love Newt. We love Perry.
We absolutely hate, hate, hate Romney.
Could be worse.
At least he's not Mitt.
The Erik Tarloff bit is weird.
Romney gets the Palin treatment from some men, I think.
I'm telling you, some operative has to come up w/ a Pillsbury Dough Boy ad. It will hit home and be a perfect riducule, of this ridiculous man.
Brutal.
And true.
If Paul doesn't do it, Obama's operatives in the media or political world will.
More importantly, the truth (as expressed) is that Newt represents everything wrong with the system.
Yeeechhhhh.
conservative women who don't like his history of adultery....
Winston Churchill. Misogynist and drunkard. But without him, the Nazi hold on to Europe and very likely spread their madness into the Americas.
Should a patient care if our heart surgeon abuses his wife?
Tarloff's right. Vice Principal Romney---the conservative petty-bureaucrat to a tee. That doesn't mean the other gumps in the running are superior. He's slightly superior to the rest of a sad-assed lot
He combines a sort of feigned bonhomie with an air of profound, pervasive superciliousness.
Less so than Gore. If I weren't leaving to run some errands I would try to see what Tarloff said about him.
"[Romney]'s slightly superior to the rest of a sad-assed lot"
Especially Obama.
Tarloff's points about Newt, I think, are right, but, regarding the ad, wouldn't one call Ron Paul as much a career politican as Newt and how much Does Paul make these days as a Congeresscreep?
More to the point, using Lefty psycho Mike Papantonio (who I think has even been banned from MSLSD) to dredge up the trumped up "ethics" charges from which the IRS vindicated him is going about as low as you can and is probably more of an indictment of Paul than Newt.
Ann Althouse said...
People who have served with and under Gingrich will trash him in public.
Already started.
Newt appeals to the country club Reaganites, aka wannabe-GOP-nazi crowd (as does Santorum to much less extent). Romney's for the burbs, moderates, techie-bourgeois (tho'..some country clubbers). Paul, Perry and Miss Bachmann on the other hand are for the losers in the Heartland. Larry the Cable guy fans. Difference between yacht club GOP and evinrude club.
J reveals the ignorant bigotry of the Left.
Thanks for the reminder.
"Less so than Gore. If I weren't leaving to run some errands I would try to see what Tarloff said about him."
The last time Gore was a presidential candidate Tarloff described him as a sexless Frankenstein.
Fen reveals the ignorant bigotry of the Evinrude club, aka freepers (e.g., those who insist Romney's a "leftist").
Ron Paul is probably the biggest hypocrite out there with some good ideas. But his push button ad should show Iran wrecking Nuclear destruction on Israel. With any of the numerous clips of Ron Paul saying it's not my business let them sort it out. Then fade to pictures of the horror in Hiroshima. Ron Paul's world?
If it's anybody but Obama, then Romney's your guy.
If it's anybody but Romney, you're in a bit of a pickle. There's always Obama.
Patrick
How is Paul a hypocrite?
J.
What's an Evinrude?
What's a freeper?
No one that I know of insists Romney's a "leftist"). Many call him a Rino. Or Obama lite because of the institutional romney care similar to Obamacare.
Are you just fringe talking?
So any bets if we are going to see some Romney/Newt debates? If Romney can hold his own, perhaps he can take on Obama, but that is yet to be proven.
I do think Newt's history and long time association with Washington will make it tough for him to get the "throw all the rascals out" crowd on board.
And let's face it, Romney can self-finance and his private wealth makes it a lot more difficult for corruption charges to stick.
Is it just me or do the graphics in the Ron Paul 2012 "Restore America" credit look like they were produced by the same folks working for the Obama campaign?
J, you try to say Republicans are racist. Please comment on the Freedom From Religion group and other bigoted hard core anti-Christian hate groups that dominant the Wisconsin Democrat party.
Tank, by saying he is all for peace and love and then producing a foreign policy plan that leads to nuclear destruction. I am sure he doesn't think that. But he is a person that has thought out a lot of issues based on some moral precepts.
I don't see how any one could take Ron Paul seriously based on his foreign policy viewpoints.
Ron Paul would be a good presidential candidate in 3012 when the OWS protesters finally kill off enough people to reach a utopia for the masses. His ideas will work fine then. But not today in a world of conflict where strength is still the medium of payment. Just his use of the word "blowback" shows he is on the wrong track.
Ron Paul would have been a tory in the Revolutionary Way, He would have let Hitler have his way in WWII
J: Fen reveals the ignorant bigotry of the Evinrude club, aka freepers (e.g., those who insist Romney's a "leftist").
I never said one word about Romney.
And freepers don't think he's a leftist, they think he's a RINO.
Stick to your ignorant assumptions about the GOP and "flyover" country.
Ron Paul has some good ideas and he keeps things honest to an extent, but I would vote for half-of-Newt over Ron Paul any ole day and so would anyone else other than the Ron Paul worshipers who are the libertarian equivalent of the Man Child Obama cult.
Sometimes I like Ron Paul - but this decidedly turns me against him. The ad is patently dishonest, especially where he used the ethics CHARGES, when we all know they were almost all dismissed.
Also the choices he uses as the voices, the statements, the authority, c'mon - the worst of the mainstream/lamestream.
He's acting as an amplifier for the DNC-in-the-tanks for-Obama-media.
What a crying shame.
On the FLIP SIDE - there's Roger L. Simon's piece on Newt, which is much more aligned with my thinking:
Explaining Newt
And we have a president who wants us to stay there, who is banal, irritating, humorless, reactionary, self-righteous, and narcissistic all at once. He hasn’t said one interesting thing or proposed one creative idea since being in office.
Unfortunately, the Republican candidates aren’t much better. Romney, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, even Paul, are no more than critics of a system gone moribund. They do not inspire us. Their ideas, even when worth investigating (flat tax, etc.), are no more than rehashes of proposals we have heard for decades.
Only Newt dances. Only Newt, on occasion, is original. Only Newt — and here is the important part — has the capacity to wake us up.
What attracts me about the man is the very thing that Romney criticized, the part that wants to explore the moon and stars, maybe even mine them.
Sure Gingrich has an idea a minute, many of which are bad, but at least he has ideas. At least he is thinking. And — guess what — he says what he thinks. Politicians aren’t supposed to do that.
But Gingrich reminds me more of a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson than he does of a politician, and that is a good thing because politicians these days are the kind of people that make me want to bang my forehead against the desk.
Boy do I agree! Ginrich lacks character (the frequency with which one adheres to their principles). He is, therefore, unelectable. If you want four more years of Obama - nominate Gingrich!
Take that Roger L. Simon piece and substitute "Obama" for every "Newt" or "Gingrich". Now that might make you "wake up".
Rose above has it...
"Newt dances"
I can see it on bumper stickers now.
Patrick said...
Tank, by saying he is all for peace and love and then producing a foreign policy plan that leads to nuclear destruction. I am sure he doesn't think that. But he is a person that has thought out a lot of issues based on some moral precepts.
I don't see how any one could take Ron Paul seriously based on his foreign policy viewpoints.
Ron Paul would be a good presidential candidate in 3012 when the OWS protesters finally kill off enough people to reach a utopia for the masses. His ideas will work fine then. But not today in a world of conflict where strength is still the medium of payment. Just his use of the word "blowback" shows he is on the wrong track.
Ron Paul would have been a tory in the Revolutionary Way, He would have let Hitler have his way in WWII
What you're saying here is that you disagree with his views on foreign policy. That does not make him a hypocrite.
I agree he is too soft in some areas of foreign policy, although I do believe his approach overall is far better than what we've been doing. It is a legitimate concern.
On the other hand, with Newt, Mitt and Zero, we're just going to go over the cliff Greece-like, and foreign policy won't mean s***.
Devastating ad.
Love it.
Things are heating up and I am getting real horny.
Hog is Hard.
Newt should bring out the big guns...Candy! Candy is the best and I love her. I don't think we have heard her speak yet. She is the key.
Tits and Clouds.
Paul's the Goldwater. Romney and Gingrich, Nixons. With Galthouse as...Miss Ayn Rand
first tragedy...then farce..
Byro-Sorepaw-Jay, touched a nerve, dissing your hero Larry the Cable the Guy, eh Gumpronius. Sad, yr hero Cain gone.
keep your stalking on, okie-doke (Annie herself , taking the stand soon).
Is NG a possible Veep candidate? Or is it "beneath" him -- and the fact that he can make tons (more) $$$ out of government. $60,000 a pop and rising... (Kind of negates MR's $10,000 bet -- which was a made-up, trivial issue to begin with.)
Freeper-Fen,--when your tweek buzz subsides, go back to the David Duke site with yr new klan-queer pal Byro-sorepaw the tee-shirt salesman of Sac, perp.
The last time Gore was a presidential candidate Tarloff described him as a sexless Frankenstein.
Thank you. Seems an accurate assessment to me, although right once doesn't mean right twice.
Perhaps "Governor" Romney should refer to Newt as "Disgraced Former Speaker Gingrich" in debates.
sorepaw-byro, gomer --get that AA in meth studies. Even Ayn Rand 's a bit much for a flunkie tee-shirt sales-dolt (and you've been traced to David Duke, puerco).
I believe an ad with just Candy's face for 1 minute would be so powerful.
No words just her face.
The "party establishment" bit gets way overdone, and it's especially insane when the opening shot is an ad by Ron Paul. Anyone surprised that we haven't seen a lot of speculation about who the Trilateral Commission is about to install as the nominee?
But it's certainly true that Newt makes a lot of Rep pros, including particularly those he served with, uneasy. Very few are supporting him. His support is coming from elsewhere.
Romney gets lots of scorn thrown his way for being the bland, uber-successful corporate man. Because, I suppose, conservatives need a bomb thrower of their own. Or something. And conservative Reps hate, hate, hate guys who make it big-time on their own in business, unlike (say) those who enter public service to do good and leave it having done quite well.
What a weird political season this is.
I can't see the ad on my browser, but - Ron Paul? The man who's never disavowed his Stormfront connections? The man who just vomited that the Bush administration was "gleeful" over 9/11? Sorry. I'm sure he'll get the all-important Cedarford demographic, but as far as I'm concerned, the man is a disgrace. Newt only shines to the better compared to that lunatic.
Now, if Romney wanted my respect (which, having seen the clown in action here in the godforsaken Commonwealth, he'll never get), he'd throw that disgusting comment right back into Paul's face during the next debate and walk off stage, insisting he would never participate in another GOP debate so long as that horse's ass continued to be included.
Did you guys know Candy is from Wisconsin?
It's hard for me to imagine another 11 months of this.
Obama can't lose. In fact I hope wins. I'm so conservative that I've gone full circle.
America is a Bad Bad country we're Horrible, and we really need to be punished.
And I can't imagine anyone doing a better job of punishing us than Obama.
Anyone surprised that we haven't seen a lot of speculation about who the Trilateral Commission is about to install as the nominee?
That's because I told them no. It's not the right time yet, plus I'm still a young man.
I believe on any given day Newt is a historical construct and not an actual person with definable boundary.
Can America stand full frontal Newtity?
No.
Thanks for the image you created with that comment, Pogo. I could delete it - the comment - but the damage has already been done to my poor vulnerable hapless brain. I hope you are happy with yourself.
@Meade
Pogo still leaves something to the imagination though.
Pogo still leaves something to the imagination though.
Well, he did specify "frontal".
Well I am glad the Republican establishment is grabbing the reins from the loony Teabaggers and going to make sure Romney is the nominee over Newt. The Republican establishment realizes that we do need some sensible national health system like Romneycare. They also realize that we need to balance our budget like Clinton did by moderately raising taxes. They also know we need to pass greenhouse emissions legislation. Romney is probably the best person to do all of this and I have no doubts that if he is elected he will get the job done.
This is one liberal environmentalist who is going to vote in his first Republican primary and is going to vote for Mitt!
Mid-Life Lawyer,
... I would vote for half-of-Newt over Ron Paul any ole day ...
You vote for the half you like, but you *get* the half you don't like.
That Gingrich profited by being inside the buttercup bothers me less than that he has absolutely no intention of reining the size of the buttercup in.
Anyone, like Gingrich, who ranks FDR as our greatest president is a creature of the state.
The Tea Party is going to protest Eric Holder in Austin.
ARE YOU READY TO HAVE UN BLUE HELMETS OUTSIDE YOUR POLLING PLACE?
Now I don't see any permits being given, so I hope to hell lots of tear gas and pepper spray are on hand to take care of these mobs.
This is the same GOP establishment that did not want Reagan in 1980 and tried to make Gerald Ford co-president at the Detroit convention. This is the same GOP establishment that gave us George H.W. Bush over Jack Kemp in 1988 and had him run against Reagans's great record. This is the GOP establishment that gave us Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008. Now this GOP establishment want to give us Romney.
Well I will vote third party before I vote Romney because voting Romney is the same as voting Obama without the right to bitch about it.
He combines a sort of feigned bonhomie with an air of profound, pervasive superciliousness. His public self in fact mirrors his politics, opportunistic and inauthentic.
Yeah, I sense that about Mitt myself. I have two basic questions that I'd like to see Mitt answer, and without good answers I have to support whoever the leading "not Mitt" turns out to be.
First, what did he learn from the Massachusetts healthcare debacle? And I don't think "debacle" is too strong a word -- everything I've read indicates that it is bankrupting the state to provide worse healthcare coverage to most residents. With Obamacare hanging over the next administration, and given that there are more similarities between it and the Massachusetts prototype, he'd better have an answer the day he takes office.
The second question is whether he has the gonads to trim the fat from government agencies the way he trimmed corporate fat as a turnaround artist. Because every single one of those programs has a constituency, and the left wing loonies and their enablers in the MSM long ago developed the script for combating efforts to trim them. Does Romney have the courage to stand up and say that we have to cancel programs that cost too much for their benefits conferred? Nothing I've seen so far answers in the affirmative.
Mitt's gotta go.
Romney is like Obama. They both pretend now to be more conservative than they really are.
OTOH, the lamestream media and the GOP establishment know that Gingrich has pretended to be more moderate on a few select issues so as to get the "conservative radical" stink off of him.
I personally think Newt is mistaken to take the above tack, because the establishment will never want him no matter what.
Look folks, the media and GOP insiders don't want Newt because he is a ladies man or too blunt spoken. It is because they know that if given the chance he would try to be a transformative conservative leader in the mode of Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan.
That is why they hate him.
@Meade "I hope you are happy with yourself."
What about me?
PTSD, for sure.
PTSD, for sure.
Post Talliwacker Stress Disorder?
"Post Talliwacker Stress Disorder?"
Post seems generous. How about button mushroom?
Sorepaw - "Citing unsupported ethics changes is slimy. Paul should have left that kind of stuff to Nancy Pelosi."
Oh, they are supported. And supported by the evidence. And the vote to censure Newt was done by the Ethic Committee Republicans, with Pelosi joining them.
The thing with Ron Paul is despite his other weaknesses, mainly from loopy libertarian ideology - he is one of the honest ones that detests the Newts and Daschles as corrupted Beltway insiders making tens of millions off their connections once they leave office.
The attack on Newt is natural and heartfelt, and Ron Paul is hardly alone in Republican ranks as seeing Newt as one of the worst revolving door pols..up to their necks in Fannie/Freddie, defense constractors and entitlements corruption.
It makes sense that montage of half truths and out right lies came from Ron Paul who is an adept at occult mind control techniques perfected through his career as a John Birch Society false prophet.
Newt is not my favorite guy, but he knows how to fight for fixing the corruption in DC; and it takes one to know one.
I agree with the idea of Newt as the crazy man Winston Churchill whose time had come in 1939 for his off putting style of leadership for 5 years or so.
"Newt appeals to the country club Reaganites, aka wannabe-GOP-nazi crowd (as does Santorum to much less extent). Romney's for the burbs, moderates, techie-bourgeois (tho'..some country clubbers). Paul, Perry and Miss Bachmann on the other hand are for the losers in the Heartland. Larry the Cable guy fans. Difference between yacht club GOP and evinrude club."
Cool. So none of them is a low-life, piece of shit America-hating Communist? Gee. What a shame we can't vote for them all. Anyone would be better than the 135 pound sewer rat occupying the Oval Office now.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that Thatcher and Reagan were derided in their time as being verbal bomb throwers and intemperate in their remarks. When the Establishment says that about a conservative it really means "a conservative who tells the truth."
Patrick said...
Ron Paul would have been a tory in the Revolutionary Way, He would have let Hitler have his way in WWII
Agree with Patrick on the WWII front, but a lot of good people were Loyalists in what was our first civil war, probably close to the number of active supporters of the Continental cause at some points.
In the 1770s, Paul would have been the one to tell the survivors of Indian massacres that it was their own fault for settling where the Indians claimed land.
Reagan, HW Bush - both were rejected, then nominated, and elected. Good presidents both. Romney will be the same. Newt needs to show he has the right stuff by coming back and trying again after first a rejection. Won't kill him, might make him stronger.
Agree with Patrick on the WWII front
A whole lot of Libertarians have contrary opinions about how a wholly libertarian federal government in 1939 would have handled Germany and Japan. It's an uncomfortable subject, akin to Libertarian dirty laundry.
I got two of them, both from the same group, to argue about it on the air once. Hell, I got uncomfortable just listening to them being so caught off guard and I was responsible for it.
Speaking of Glibertarians, it's Chuckie, from the Dondero glib. gang.
What about Doc Paul's wingnut isolationism (and occasional approval of extreme muslims)--is that acceptable as well ?? Paul's like some crazy okie doctor from Green Acres who thinks he's qualified to be PotUS. ...these confounded ..monetarists
He would have let Hitler have his way in WWII
Whatever that means.
Germany declared war on the United States. Self-defense is one of the clear-cut cases in which libertarians believe war to be justified.
Patrick,
It is often argued, with considerable evidence, that WWII was a direct result of the USA getting into WWI where we had no business being.
What was the threat to the US?
Then, in 1939-41 we meddled and meddled (to the point of sinking German ships and occupying German territory) until after PH Germany finally declared war on us.
Where was the threat to the US from Germany prior to Dec 1941?
This is precisely the kind of thing Ron Paul is talking about.
This is why I support him.
John Henry
Proud Liberal
Now I don't see any permits being given, so I hope to hell lots of tear gas and pepper spray are on hand to take care of these mobs.
Unlikely; Tea Partiers are a law-abiding bunch. :)
Meade you believe that the 1st president Bush was a good president?
You must not really be a conservative, or your memory has failed you. George H.W. Bush ran against Reagan's legacy in 1988 (remember "gentler, kinder America"?) and he followed through by not governing as a conservative. He signed in to law bills that Democrat presidents could only dream of passing. Ted Kennedy had his most productive run in getting his bills passed while the 1st Bush was president.
Romney will surely be worse. In your desire to get an "R" instead of a "D" will you completely throw away principled conservatism?
BTW: I would point out that of the 6-8 people in the race currently on both sides, Paul is 1 of only 2 to have actually served in the military. Perry is the other.
All of the others could have served but either chose not to (in Obama's case) or were somehow able to avoid the draft.
Bachman didn't serve but as a woman and given her age, I'll give he a pass on that.
John Henry
Elspeth Reeve? I knew I recognized her name. Her husband was the ex-soldier who fabricated his Iraq War experiences:
From 2007:
"In an interview Friday, U.S. Army private Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s wife Elspeth Reeve, a former reporter-researcher at The New Republic, told the Observer that she was excited when someone at the magazine assigned her to fact-check one of her husband’s dispatches from Iraq.
“I was like, ‘Sweet! I can talk to Scott on TNR’s dime!’” Ms. Reeve said.
Ms. Reeve was working at TNR when Mr. Beauchamp–whose articles described soldiers killing dogs and mocking wounded civilians–was accused by critics of fabricating some of his material.
Mr. Foer has since written and published a 7,000-word piece retracting Mr. Beauchamp’s articles for TNR, noting that assigning Ms. Reeve to fact-check her husband’s work was a mistake. "
Librul media ! Has to make you wonder how Reeve can get a paying job.
p.s. Don't give your kids odd names because when they do notorious things, people will remember their odd name.
Big Mike -
I have two basic questions that I'd like to see Mitt answer, and without good answers I have to support whoever the leading "not Mitt" turns out to be.
The root problem is you are a rightwinger too dumb or lazy to go past 'what Rush said' and find the answers yourself. Romney has answered both in detail.
"First, what did he learn from the Massachusetts healthcare debacle? And I don't think "debacle" is too strong a word -- everything I've read indicates that it is bankrupting the state to provide worse healthcare coverage to most residents. With Obamacare hanging over the next administration, and given that there are more similarities between it and the Massachusetts prototype, he'd better have an answer the day he takes office."
Romneycare is endorsed by Massachusetts residents 3-1. They do not see it as a debacle but something they needed. Rightwingers object because they are no different than Obama - they want to force their values on the rest of the states - rather than let States forge what healthcare insurance their residents - in liberal Mass or Ayn Randish Idaho - want. And Romney said he expects Obamacare will be unconstitutional, but if not, he will sign an order the day he takes the Presidency exempting all states that want to be exempted from it, to be exempt. And has most Reps agreeing with him - state exemption, then repeal if it is somehow found Constitutional.
Have you listened to a single debate or read a single article on Romneycare - Big Mike -...or is it just Rush Limbaugh when you are driving around??
The second question is whether he has the gonads to trim the fat from government agencies the way he trimmed corporate fat as a turnaround artist. Because every single one of those programs has a constituency, and the left wing loonies and their enablers in the MSM long ago developed the script for combating efforts to trim them. Does Romney have the courage to stand up and say that we have to cancel programs that cost too much for their benefits conferred? Nothing I've seen so far answers in the affirmative.
Be honest, Big Mike. Nothing you have seen or heard on Rush's show mentions it. And you haven't looked elsewhere.
But Romneys book, multiple articles, and several debates have gone into Romney negotiating with Dems and leading Mass out of a 2 billion dollar hole to a 600 million state surplus WHILE CUTTING TAXES..by cancelling programs, taking on unions, eliminating redundancies. Democrats hated it, and said Romney was a disaster that forced them to give up far more than they would have had to under a progressive Gov like Deval Patrick (Mass is deep in the red, again).
If Romney can get an 80% Democrat state to accept some fiscal responsibility, it stands to reason he will have better prospects leading a less Democrat nation - with two big problems - flaws in our Constitution. First, no line item veto. And the 2nd Constitutional flaw is Congress is not forced to balance a budget between spending and revenue. It can borrow and it can print new money.
It is a strange world we live in when a career politician and former Speaker of the House is being spun as running *against* the "Republican establishment".
Then, in 1939-41 we meddled and meddled (to the point of sinking German ships and occupying German territory) until after PH Germany finally declared war on us.
Where was the threat to the US from Germany prior to Dec 1941?
Wow, "John Henry's" sounding nearly like the psychotic byro-sorepaw. Of course, manana he'll probably argue the exact opposite of what he's arguing today.
The German military build-up in the 20s/30s was directly opposed to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, for one, Paul-tard, (the English and US mostly looked the other way). Then that was a zionist plot too, right. Yo, get your Protocols OTEOZ rants on (Doc Paulquack probably has a link on his site).
Odd: I have always thought of Obama as being the prototypical vice-principal. I guess people project vice-principalness on whomever they don't like.
@C4
Again...please explain how a middle-class is "resurrected" under the thumb of a ruling military junta.
Revenant said...
He would have let Hitler have his way in WWII
Whatever that means.
Germany declared war on the United States. Self-defense is one of the clear-cut cases in which libertarians believe war to be justified.
Like 9/11?
In DC, the Republicans are also culpable in spending recklessness. Bush gave us the temporary tax cuts so the Jobs Creators (TM) could grow the economy and create more jobs than Saint Reagan did with the same tactic before he was FORCED to raise taxes to eliminate wealthy tax shelters and save social security.Bush gave us an unfunded Medicare Part D for his Big Pharma donor's windfall, two wars more expensive than Vietnam he didn't pay for, and grew the Fed Government faster than LBJ did.
And yes, Obama was worse than Dubya. In the sense that the Kymer Rouge was worse in the atrocity area than the Vietcong.
If we are to fix our nation, a lot of sacred Republican cows have to be slaughtered along with the Democrat ones.
No more neocon wars of adventure for us or Our Special Friend. Military cuts, including some of the more extravagent Vets programs. We may have to seriously cut fat from Homeland Security. Reconsider a Draft to lower the cost per "Hero".
Seniors means tested for prescription drugs, price of drugs negotiated down to what Canada or France or Japan pays. Estate taxes on the wealthiest may have to come back as a way to cut the vast disparity in wealth as well as regain a lost revenue source we sorely need.. Tariffs return because free trade was a jobs disaster.
The pain will be bad, but sacrifice is acceptable if everyone has to sacrifice.
"First, what did he learn from the Massachusetts healthcare debacle?"
Debacle? In what bizarre sense is The Massachusetts Health Care Law a debacle? One certainly could complain about the rising costs, but it did accomplish the major goal of insuring nearly 100% of the state's children. (What a fiasco!)
Romney's been increasingly more adamant that "the states can do whatever they heck they want" to address health care coverage and costs, so I don't buy that he necessarily sees the Massachusetts solution as a model for the country.
John said...
BTW: I would point out that of the 6-8 people in the race currently on both sides, Paul is 1 of only 2 to have actually served in the military. Perry is the other.
=================
I'm a Vet. But I don't hold it against the like of Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Romney, Clinton, the Goddess Palin, Newt, Obama that they never SERVED!!! Or that Reagan SERVED!! on a Hollywood movie lot.
Or that very few neocons or OWS people ever wore a uniform.
A lot of ways exist to serve America outside wearing a uniform.
Ron Paul did - in part to keep his med school expenses down. But like many Vets, he is very wary of wars and an overextended military with pretensions of being the world's free 9/11 service, sustained by America's unlimited wealth. With dozens of friends and even "special friends" we are told we have a special duty to shed blood and treasure for, past protecting the best interests of the United States,
I thought I would never do this...
but I am going to defend Meade.
"Dane County Taxpayer" you are a complete Teabagger loon. We need compromise in this country, not crazy ideologues like you and Newt.
Romney being open to compromise with the Democrats is a sign that he is a reasonable adult. Romney would never had shut down the government like Newt did back in the 90s.
Gerald Ford was the last good Republican President. I believe even Ann Althouse voted for him.
"Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: ... I got better."
Have you listened to a single debate or read a single article on Romneycare - Big Mike -...or is it just Rush Limbaugh when you are driving around??
This will be a rude shock to you, Cedarford, but I don't pay the slightest attention to Rush -- I don't even know when he's on or what station.
Here's one of the articles that evaluates Massachusetts healthcare reform, and everything I've read says that healthcare costs in Massachusetts are now the highest in the nation.
Be honest, Big Mike. Nothing you have seen or heard on Rush's show mentions it. And you haven't looked elsewhere.
But Romneys book, multiple articles, and several debates have gone into Romney negotiating with Dems and leading Mass out of a 2 billion dollar hole to a 600 million state surplus WHILE CUTTING TAXES..by cancelling programs, taking on unions, eliminating redundancies. Democrats hated it ...
I am honest, if only because I avoid lying to myself. I realize that tactically he can't at this point come up with specific federal programs to be cut, but the pushback he would get as President is vastly worse than he had to deal with in "80% Democrat" Massachusetts. Sorry, but I don't buy it that he has the guts to stand up. I saw him in person debating Teddy Kennedy back in '94 and he was pushed around verbally by that stupid old drunk.
I'll add a third thing -- he needs to heed Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. Stop tearing down your fellow Republicans and start telling us why we want to vote for you. If he can't do that then there must be no go reason to vote for him.
Cedarford,
I am a vet too (7-1/2 years USN) and I do not hold it against people who did not serve.
It is certainly a point in a candidate's favor but only a point.
As you pointed out, some people who didn't serve got us into some pretty major wars. Wilson and FDR both ran against US involvement in Europe.
You forgot to mention LBJ (8 weeks active duty) who said "Vote for Goldwater and we'll be in VN" So people voted for Goldwater and shore nuff, we had almost 600m men in VN.
You forgot to mention LBJ and his 8 weeks active service in the Navy.
It took another vet, Nixon, to get us out.
Is it a coincidence that all the candidates who want to attack Iran have no military service? The two that either don't or are hesitant about it, do have military service?
John Henry
Romney being open to compromise with the Democrats is a sign that he is a reasonable adult. Romney would never had shut down the government like Newt did back in the 90s.
The Democrats long ago perfected a game where they ask for 200% of their wildest dreams, and "settle" for half of that when reasonable adults agree to meet them halfway. We cannot afford that anymore. We're broke. Now it's up to Republicans to play "Daddy" and start rolling things back.
I'm thinking of voting for Obama. Just take the Althouse reasoning from 2008 - rinse and repeat.
Obama was a godsend for conservatives and libertarians alike, but we just aren't sick enough yet to take the medicine. Four more years should do it. Then we can run the Ryan/Rubio express to a 45 state landslide.
While I have made fun of Ann in the past for pandering to her "Althouse Hillbillies," I would like to commend her and Meade for taking a more mature turn at this critical juncture.
I have noticed this change has caused her number of comments on her website to decline, which to me proves that I was right that her Teabagger pandering was a way of ginning up comments. I will try to post here more as a way to compensate for this loss.
Although I agree with John that the United States had no reason (in the sense that its security was directly or even indirectly threatened) to enter either WW I or WW II, realistically a nation both powerful and youthful is going to assert itself on the world stage, and the U.S. did.
You would think that Ron Paul's call for a less interventionist role, befitting not only a modest republic (our supposed ideal) but a nation past its prime (our reality) would be agreeable to many in power. Such is the vainglory at the center that his message (essentially G. Washington's) is derided as kooky by our two partied establishment.
What is an Althouse hillbilly?
How very measured and mature of you, Jay Retread, to label TEA Party advocates Tea Baggers.
An "Althouse Hillbilly" is a Teabagger who comes to Ann's porch hoping she will throw out some red meat for them to gnaw on.
John - "Is it a coincidence that all the candidates who want to attack Iran have no military service? The two that either don't or are hesitant about it, do have military service?"
I don't see a straight correlation. Most warthirsty neocons wouldn't want themselves or their children caught dead in a low status military uniform - service is a 'distraction' from law school...
But same is true of most of the military despising Leftists - who have also learned over the years to call Armed Forces people "The Heroes" for PR purposes.
Many pols who have never served are bigtime war enthusiasts...Bachmann, Santorum, Romney, Newt..
Many Vets are outspoken against war, the ruinous "hidden foreign aid" expense of 160 billion given to the Noble Iraqis, the 80 billion the Afghan drug lords, 22 billion given to Pakistan our nation-building "friends in need" have gained from Bush/Obama.
But many other Vets like Bush, McCain, and Perry are cheerleaders for present and future wars of adventure.
I would say one difference is that Vets tend to honestly believe that any war they are for must be in our interest..or at least think that shedding blood and massive treasure will forever win us the gratitude of the Noble Iraqis, Noble Israelis, Noble Iranian Freedom-Lovers, etc.
Sorepaw, you and other Teabaggers are my red meat.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that Thatcher and Reagan were derided in their time as being verbal bomb throwers and intemperate in their remarks. When the Establishment says that about a conservative it really means "a conservative who tells the truth."
Sometimes. Other times it means, "a verbal bomb thrower who is intemperate in his remarks."
"Self-defense is one of the clear-cut cases in which libertarians believe war to be justified."
Like 9/11?
Are you asking if the terrorists were acting in self-defense on 9/11? That would be a "no".
How about just voting for the boring, competent guy and spending the next four years relaxing and reading only about art, mathematics, and theology because nothing enraging or bank breaking is going on in politics?
Imagine there's no protest
It's easy if you try
No sign to carry
Nothing going awry
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no drama
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to yell or scream for
And no poli-hacks too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
There was nothing the crew could do once they saw the iceberg, but the band played beautifully and it was very reassuring.
We could have a truly amazing nation once again to pass on if we just wanted it bad enough and believed we were capable.
We have lost so much of the intangible, immeasurable American spirit in our politics.
Freeman Hunt for President!
Or at least mayor of Green Acres.
J-k. You are correct in perceiving the hysteria of extreme right and left, however (perhaps sounds a bit trite to some. But the neo-nazi tweekers are not so different than the jihadists.).
Freeman, you dreamer.
The US entered WWII for the same reason the war got started by Hitler in 1939.
We knew we were targeted by a Military Dictatorship with bombers being developed just to reach America with a nuclear fission devices. To the winner of that race to build and deliver nukes went all there was, or ever would be.
Of course the evil rat Ron Paul wanted us tricked into believing we should stay out of that race. He would sincerely lie and tell us that his advice was for our own good.
Quick, can anyone name a single Swiss politician in the past 100 or so years?
No? I can't either.
Switzerland is arguably the most powerful nation in Europe economically. Certainly in the best shape. The only one not going bankrupt.
It is the birthplace of a number of world class and world wide companies in industries and services.
It has never, that I recall, had a problem with terrorism.
It has perhaps the strongest, best trained and best equipped army and air force in Europe. It has never needed to use it.
And it is so isolationist that it makes Ron Paul look like a flaming one worlder.
Anyone think there is any correlation between Swiss behavior and the behavior of the rest of the world?
John Henry
Freeman Hunt said...
"How about just voting for the boring, competent guy and spending the next four years relaxing and reading only about art, mathematics, and theology because nothing enraging or bank breaking is going on in politics?"
Rush says "Hush!"
You seem to have quite the stiffy for Teabagging, Jay Retread. It's always a hoot to see the fascination with the practice from a certain crowd.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Still, me not having any direct knowledge of the practice, I'm a bit curious about one aspect that you, seemingly being an aficionado and all, might clear up. Is it common courtesy that the teabagger be freshly showered before the teabaggee assumes the position? In your experience?
I am loving this! Yall made Newt, now lie down with him. I can say that right? Cruel Neutrality and all?
Or lay down with Mitt. Same outcome: Obama re-elected.
master cylinder, why don't you tell us what you believe the pros of Obama's accomplishments in office are that warrant his re-election. It would be a better use of everyone's time if you gave us a well considered rundown about Obama, (giving your personal assessment and not progressive doctrine), rather than just bray out some superficial nonsense concerning his challengers.
Otherwise, leaving things at just what you wrote, the reader is left with the impression that you aren't a person to be taken seriously and you shouldn't assume that our time is yours to waste.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा