Ace of Spades HQ

February 03, 2014

Why doesn't the GOP have someone like Nigel Farage?
— Monty

This relates in a way to the post Ace put up just below.

A fellow co-blogger wondered why the GOP House doesn't have someone like the UKIP's Nigel Farage in its ranks, a fearless firebrand who'll denounce the Democrat agenda in ringing tones.

You can thank the two-party system for some of that. Farage can be a firebreather because he's operating in a parliamentary system and only has to represent the UKIP, which has a fairly narrow and well-defined platform. The GOP and the Democratic party don't have that luxury -- they have to represent broad swathes of voters, many of whose points of view not only differ but are in fact sometimes in direct opposition. Even in "conservative" districts, a Representative is bound to some extent by his Party. The Tea Party is about as fractious as the GOP gets, and we've all seen how the rest of the GOP likes those people.

The Democrats benefit more from this kind of situation than the GOP does, for the simple reason that the Democrat platform has always depended on buying votes with broad-brush populism (the "party of the poor", the "party of the common man", all that rot). Democrats are perfectly comfortable using coalition-building to govern because they really have no core, animating philosophy. The latter-20th century Democrat party was explicitly tied to Marxism (whether they admit it or not), but when the USSR imploded Marxism took on a bad odor and the Democrats had to cast about for something else, and that something else turned out to be "gender/class/race" and "social justice". It's the same old wine in a new bottle, really, but it helps that most Democrats don't even believe their own bullshit for the most part. They are a coalition of interest groups, and always have been. Their power lies in giving each interest group a big-enough slice of the pie to keep them from bolting: women, minorities, unions, eco-nuts, "intellectuals", etc.

Republicans have always had a tougher sell. The party was born simply as an oppositional force: the Not-Democrats. The GOP was created because the Whigs failed, and the two-party system needed two parties. The GOP's "animating philosophy", to the extent that it even has one, has changed several times over the decades. During the Cvil War, it was maintaining the Union and preventing the secession of the South (The GOP was born as a big-central-government, anti-Federalist party. How's that for irony?) Then it became the party of plutocrats and robber barons during the Gilded Age. Then Calvin Coolidge made the GOP what it still is in some respects: a pro-defense, pro-business, low-tax, minimal-federal-bureaucracy party (at least in theory). But the GOP has never really learned how to govern by coalition, not even during the Reagan years. The Tea Party focus on federalism, small government, and government restraint is actually a fairly new development in GOP thinking. Ronald Reagan shared this vision to some extent, but it's never been widely held by the Party as a whole.

Then there's the fact that "collegiality" trumps principle in Washington, D.C. Most Congresscritters dream of being Senators or Governors some day, and you don't move up the ladder (or raise campaign funds) by pissing people off.

Posted by: Monty at 04:05 PM | Comments (174)
Post contains 555 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Why? Because the GOP have become pussies.

Posted by: EC at February 03, 2014 04:09 PM (doBIb)

2 First-ish ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 03, 2014 04:10 PM (6/+vz)

3 They want to get along more than oppose.

Posted by: EC at February 03, 2014 04:10 PM (doBIb)

4 Damn it .... missed it by THAT much !!!

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 03, 2014 04:10 PM (6/+vz)

5 Sorry Scogg.

Posted by: EC at February 03, 2014 04:11 PM (doBIb)

6
Well the GOP had me, but then I realized what they were.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 03, 2014 04:11 PM (n0DEs)

7 DOOM!!11!!

Posted by: The Hickster at February 03, 2014 04:12 PM (TI3xG)

8 Which begs the question, when did the GOP become pussies? I submit that it happened after Reagan.

Posted by: EC at February 03, 2014 04:13 PM (doBIb)

9 So, basically we're doomed then.

Posted by: blaster at February 03, 2014 04:15 PM (4+AaH)

10 GOP pussitude statistically correlates with the rise of rap music. Science!

Posted by: wooga at February 03, 2014 04:16 PM (c5TBq)

11 "... most Democrats don't even believe their own bullshit for the most part. They are a coalition of interest groups, and always have been. Their power lies in giving each interest group a big-enough slice of the pie to keep them from bolting: women, minorities, unions, eco-nuts, 'intellectuals', etc."

And it's getting more and more costly to keep that racket running. Note for instance the fury of the unions that Obamacare isn't giving them every dime of what they demanded in exchange for supporting the thing.

Anyone who hasn't read Jay Cost's _Spoiled Rotten_ really ought to.

Also, the environmental and labor factions are going to be at increasing loggerheads as the enviros push ahead with what John Holdren termed the "de-development" of the USA's industrial base.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 03, 2014 04:16 PM (gqT4g)

12 Reagan had no problem dismissing the Left's nonsense. We've tied our own hands with this nice-guy crap and the other side has never reciprocated even once.

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:17 PM (i+Vw2)

13 It's a two party system by custom, not design. I would favor some of the elements of the British Parliament. Fracture the parties, let's see who really wants what. I would love to see the State of the Union look more like this: http://youtu.be/rv5t6rC6yvg (ace or somebody mentioned this the other day I believe) The problem is that the Dems won't split. As Monty said, they essentially vote buy. They buy off everyone under the brand of Democrat.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at February 03, 2014 04:18 PM (GEICT)

14 8 I submit that it happened after Reagan. I'd counter that Reagan was just the time they forgot they were pussies. Other than that - pretty much cunts all the way down. But it's an academic argument. They're certainly pussies now. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 03, 2014 04:19 PM (6/+vz)

15
Because Cantor, Boehner, and all their committee chairs are not opposed to the Democrat agenda, that's why.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 04:21 PM (gYIst)

@13. I agree, the parties do need to be split up. Trying to represent 50% of the country with a single platform is madness. If it wasn't for the fact that the Democrats aren't about to fracture, I would be pushing far harder for the Tea Party to split.

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:22 PM (i+Vw2)

17 The representation I support at the Federal level is the representation that would collapse itself. That Republic of States was a good idea. Whatever happened to it?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 04:23 PM (eHIJJ)

18 13 - The problem is that the Dems won't split. And again - I'll throw out a counterpoint. Union Trade Unions have been ripe for the taking for quite some time. Unfortunately - it's tough for the GOP to overcome the label of "Party of Big Business" when it turns out ... get this ... they really are the party of Big Business. Just my two cents ... and tough to quantifiably prove. I base that outlook on my own anecdotal evidence - raised in a Union household and all.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 03, 2014 04:23 PM (6/+vz)

19 I'd counter that Reagan was just the time they forgot they were pussies. Other than that - pretty much cunts all the way down. After Reagan we had GHWB. A kinder, gentler president.

Posted by: EC at February 03, 2014 04:23 PM (doBIb)

20 "The GOP and the Democratic party don't have that luxury -- they have to represent broad swathes of voters, many of whose points of view not only differ but are in fact sometimes in direct opposition."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, sounds like a third party may not be such a bad idea after all...

Posted by: RoadRunner at February 03, 2014 04:25 PM (kw1xk)

21 During the Cvil War, it was maintaining the Union and preventing the secession of the South (The GOP was born as a big-central-government, anti-Federalist party. How's that for irony?) That's an important and often overlooked point. The Republicans started as the party favoring strong centralized federal government, while the Democrats supported states' rights. And also slavery and segregation, which poisoned the very concept of states' rights in many peoples' minds.

Posted by: rickl at February 03, 2014 04:26 PM (sdi6R)

22 Here's my Modest Proposal of the day. Why don't we start ballot initiatives to outlaw the Republican and Democratic parties at the state level? There's no law against doing that... and you could even use President Washington as a major point of reference for such campaigns. Not quite verbatim, rough paraphrase here "The alternating domination of two mutually opposed factions, sharpened by the spirit of partisan spite, would be the cruelest form of despotism." -George Washington, Farewell Address

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:26 PM (i+Vw2)

23 The GOP gets more personal benefit from "bipartisanship" theater than from representing their constituency.

How do you change that?

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 03, 2014 04:26 PM (gUoN4)

24 Republican Party elites have to embrace Tea Party types & return to small government, etc . Most importantly they have to STOP dissing other elected republicans. Do dems ever go on television & attack other dems? I don't remember hearing of any compared to likes of McCain calling Rand Paul & Ted Cruz whacko birds. Christie bitched like a two year old over Sandy relief bill & King from NY is another jerk to others. Reagan's 11th Commandment is extinct with this crew.

Posted by: Carol at February 03, 2014 04:26 PM (s0f54)

It's not just the GOP. Look at their opponents. True, a mechanical constituency-feeding operation has no particular need for smart, articulate people who understand and believe in important things, so you could say the Dems have pathetically unimpressive "leaders" (Clinton, Obama .... well, all of them) because that's all they need.

Evan Bayh and Harold Ford Jr. were far from the shallow, slick, unwise, and irresponsible mediocrities who pass for the cream of the Dem crop. But they got out, and were freakishly atypical besides.

The GOP has a few with potential. At given moments, the gap in substance and style between a Ted Cruz and just about any Dem, for example, is comparable to that between a Farage and a typical American politician.

Don't agree that "firebreathing" is structurally disallowed by the existence of broader umbrella parties in our 2-party system (which is/was customary, not planned or mandated, as noted above). Reagan got close to firebreathing with much of his rhetoric - and not only did it not derail him, it was part of what made him effective and electorally the most successful national figure since FDR (and against the media/popular culture tide, not with it, as FDR).

Posted by: non-purist at February 03, 2014 04:28 PM (afQnV)

26 Our Two-Party system is corrupt. I mean that in the most offensive way possible.

It is a game, mostly kabuki, to empower the select-ist few while they milk the great unwashed herd.

It has "progressed" into Potemkin Democracy.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 04:28 PM (eHIJJ)

27 @21. I don't see it as irony, I see it as changing times. For a Republic like ours to function right now, state vs. federal power is a thing that has to be carefully balanced. If the balance tips too far one way or the other, it leads to disaster. At a time when the central government wasn't strong enough, supporting a stronger central government makes sense. At a time when the states are being stripped of power, supporting stronger states makes sense.

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:28 PM (i+Vw2)

28
Why doesn't the GOP have someone like Nigel Farage?

Because the Institutional Republican Party views an attack on their allies, the Democrats, as an attack on themselves.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 03, 2014 04:28 PM (kdS6q)

29 Because we will never support someone named "Nigel." Sorry. It's worse than "Pierre" ("Pete" DuPont.) "Nigel," in America, you'd have to call yourself "Nick," or something similar.

Posted by: notropis at February 03, 2014 04:29 PM (bvlUm)

30 16 If it wasn't for the fact that the Democrats aren't about to fracture, I would be pushing far harder for the Tea Party to split. Again, totally anecdotal ... but around here (Louisville) - the notion of "Conservative Populism" is playing quite well. That's a hard notion to describe - and impossible for McConnell to embrace - but on a case by case basis totally understandable. My Short Story Long being - I could see how such a coalition could split BOTH parties - and redefine the currently accepted boundaries.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 03, 2014 04:29 PM (6/+vz)

31 @23. Call them out as being fake Republicans. The most important Republican principle is THE Republican principle, namely representative government, which depends on representing your constituency. When you begin to pursue your own career as priority #1 and forcing things toxic and detestable onto your constituency to further yourself, you have not only abandoned your duty, but undermined the function of the Republic.

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:31 PM (i+Vw2)

32 Ya know what?

As much as I love Nigel Farage and hate Newt Gingrich, Newt was the GOP's Nigel Farage when he was a back-bencher.

Maybe Nigel would be a fat arrogant sellout like Newt if he ever got into leadership.

Posted by: W.C. Varones at February 03, 2014 04:35 PM (QMAPJ)

As an addendum to post #31... What did our Founders say we should do to governments that begin acting against their function again? I think it was somewhere in the Declaration...

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:35 PM (i+Vw2)

34 Then Calvin Coolidge made the GOP what it still is in some respects: a pro-defense, pro-business, low-tax, minimal-federal-bureaucracy party (at least in theory). Zombie Calvin Coolidge for President!

Posted by: Keep Zombie Cool with Zombie Coolidge! at February 03, 2014 04:35 PM (XvHmy)

35 Which you you rather have, and American version of Nigel Farage, or an American version of Dan Hannan?

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 03, 2014 04:36 PM (XvHmy)

36 @35. Yes.

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:36 PM (i+Vw2)

37 After Reagan we had GHWB. A kinder, gentler president.

And then GWB. To say that other cultures and populations might not have the same aims or capacity for Western civilisation is *tilts head* the soft bigotry of low expectations *affects sad and concerned look*

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 03, 2014 04:36 PM (30eLQ)

38 "Nigel," in America, you'd have to call yourself "Nick," or something similar. Posted by: notropis

Nipple?

Posted by: Dang at February 03, 2014 04:38 PM (MNq6o)

39 Farage is regarded variously as both the reason UKIP is as popular as it is and the reason UKIP isn't more popular. UKIP is considered by a lot of folks to be long on rhetoric and short on competence.

Posted by: JEM at February 03, 2014 04:38 PM (o+SC1)

40 Nixon wasn't a pussy, but he wasn't a conservative either.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at February 03, 2014 04:39 PM (kxSZr)

41 @39. Given the state of the UK, I wouldn't say the parties in power score any better on competence. In that kind of environment, it gets really tempting to go with the option that has the virtue of not having been tried.

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:40 PM (i+Vw2)

42 The problem with BOTH parties is a regression to the mean, in terms of both intelliegence and all other human qualities. Instead of electing smart and able people, we elect mediocrities more often than not. Because it makes us uncomfortable to elect someone truly bright. And the Media will attack anyone with any real ability, especially on the Right. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are both very bright men. Ted Cruz is a Harvard Law graduate, and actually shows it (as opposed to the other one in the White House), and Rand Paul is an MD, prior to politics.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 03, 2014 04:40 PM (+1T7c)

43 Correct, #40. Nixon was basically the first big government RINO, and really a leading indicator of what his ilk would do to the party at large.

Posted by: Cato at February 03, 2014 04:41 PM (i+Vw2)

44 The only reason to be a Democrat is because there's a payout.

Posted by: --- at February 03, 2014 04:41 PM (MMC8r)

45 I recently read that Roger Daltry supports the UKIP because the Labour Party wrecked the UK with their immigration policies. Bet the heads of lot of old hippie Guardianistas exploded when they heard that.

Posted by: Donna V. at February 03, 2014 04:43 PM (R3gO3)

46 "That's an important and often overlooked point. The Republicans started as the party favoring strong centralized federal government, while the Democrats supported states' rights. And also slavery and segregation, which poisoned the very concept of states' rights in many peoples' mind" It was an odd inversion during the Civil War that the Republicans were central statists against states' rights but in favor of of the individual right to be free. While the Democrats were anti-statists but wanted to the right to enslave individuals. You had the big government side wanting emancipation at one level and loss of political autonomy at another, while the other wanted small government but favored government's power over the individual. Prewar both parties were hypocritical but far more principled than half the losers in office for personal power these days. Postwar, corruption, retribution, and hatred really wounded congress in a manner which I don't think really has been fully healed.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at February 03, 2014 04:44 PM (A1Dcl)

47 Correct, #40. Nixon was basically the first big government RINO, and really a leading indicator of what his ilk would do to the party at large. Posted by: Cato That would be the viewpoint from Today. From the viewpoint of 1968, he was more conservative than the opposition, Hubert Humphrey. Yes, Nixon was pragmatic and not as much of a conservative idealist as either Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan (Goldwater hated LBJ and didn't like Nixon very much either)/.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 03, 2014 04:44 PM (+1T7c)

48 FNC breaking news about Benghazi, Levin is reading it.

Posted by: Carol at February 03, 2014 04:44 PM (s0f54)

49 >>Nixon wasn't a pussy, but he wasn't a conservative either. This is why as many people said in the previous thread labels are a waste of time and often counterproductive. The definition of conservative has evolved. Take a look at Reagan's actual policies on spending/deficits, his reaction to the attack of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, amnesty and even his position on guns. None of those would be acceptable according to the standards of many conservatives today.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 03, 2014 04:45 PM (g1DWB)

50 there is no better advocate for limited government on the planet today than Nigel Farage

Posted by: Jose at February 03, 2014 04:48 PM (zc/sw)

51 I apologize for the momentary OT, but I thought the men-folk might interested in the elbows. NBC at 9 EST http://t.co/uXFoUoH7Y0 Carry on.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 03, 2014 04:49 PM (DmNpO)

52 here is Nigel on Cavuto http://youtu.be/GrsBfvug5VA

Posted by: Jose at February 03, 2014 04:51 PM (zc/sw)

53 Why? American politicians are terrible at expressing their ideas. He's a great communicator, we have no such thing in the states. Many politicians here equate great speeches with getting angry, that's just not the way it works. Farage can get across his ideas with a good amount of snark and passion without seeming like he's lost his marbles.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 03, 2014 04:51 PM (WdbF7)

54 labels are a waste of time and often counterproductive

True enough but remember that Goldwater got the nomination back then and you can't put a guy who created a really horrible new federal department and is responsible for wage and price controls in the same box as Goldwater.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at February 03, 2014 04:54 PM (kxSZr)

55 24 Republican Party elites have to embrace Tea Party types & return to small government, etc .

Most importantly they have to STOP dissing other elected republicans. Do dems ever go on television & attack other dems? I don't remember hearing of any compared to likes of McCain calling Rand Paul & Ted Cruz whacko birds. Christie bitched like a two year old over Sandy relief bill & King from
NY is another jerk to others.
Reagan's 11th Commandment is extinct with this crew.

Posted by: Carol at February 03, 2014 08:26 PM (s0f54)

RINOs won't EVER stop. No, the ONLY answer is to PRIMARY their butts outta office. Matt Bevin should replace McConnell and Winteregg should replace Boehner. That'll be a good start. Palin should never have endorsed McCain and Hatch in their primaries, either, and Cruz and Paul have vowed NOT to help conservatives running against incumbants in primaries which is not a help to the grassroots (I otherwise love both those men).

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 03, 2014 04:56 PM (KL49F)

56 Did Lorne Michaels admit in the sidebar that Democrats are big crybabies? Yes he did.

Case in point - Wendy Davis.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 04:56 PM (qAHwE)

57 What? You think you could elect someone like Nigel Farage? Don't you people understand that "your" choices are Huckabee, Christie, JEB Bush or our boy Ryan...but we'll take care to make sure it's legit and poll tested and all that jazz.... really those are the only "electable" republicans that will totes fall in line with OUR goals.....

Posted by: GOP Leadership counting the sweet sweet cash at February 03, 2014 04:56 PM (B/3gr)

58 Well consider what do the Tories stand for now, the wets that Thatcher spent a generation fighting, the UKIP somewhat like the Canadian Reform Party, encapsulates the core of the Conservative impulse in the party,

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 03, 2014 04:57 PM (Jsiw/)

JackStraw, correct on labels but dunno about the Reagan examples (though doubtless others could be found to make your point).

Deficit "policies" were in fact compromises with an irresponsible Dem House majority (for the most part) - ya know, that 1/3 of govt. explanation some here are so fond of?? Lebanon - debacle from the outset, confused and poorly thought through, so probably not much of a "conservative/non-conservative" thing regardless.

Amnesty? Again - and I was present at the creation and know exactly what key senators were expecting and believing - amnesty in that case was entirely part of a package that included enforcement and employer sanctions. Back then, the notion of widespread non-enforcement of the laws - much less executive orders or AG instructions to create de facto suspension of laws - was completely unknown and would have been (rightly) regarded as wacky and improbable. (*that* is how far and fast we have fallen) So it is misleading to the point of being simply incorrect to say that Reagan supported amnesty. He supported a package that was designed to neutralize the pernicious effects of amnesty (creating an incentive for more law-breaking, eroding rule of law).

Posted by: non-purist at February 03, 2014 04:57 PM (afQnV)

60 We didn't treat Beirut as an Iranian proxy attack, which is what is was,

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 03, 2014 04:59 PM (Jsiw/)

61 I apologize for the momentary OT, but I thought the men-folk might interested in the elbows. Bless you. Bless you. ::: tears of joy ::: And if there's ever anything I can get for you, please, just ask. And keep bringing those links while you're at it. Oh, and a sammich,

Posted by: Kramer[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:00 PM (yz6yg)

62 The British actually still have adult conversations about politics. Ours is like an AOL chat room.

Posted by: blaster at February 03, 2014 05:00 PM (4+AaH)

63 Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand: "Farage can get across his ideas with a good amount of snark and passion without seeming like he's lost his marbles."

That just reminds me of Milton Friedman. He was supremely adept at making a point that a) could educate b) very sophisticated concepts with c) a light touch. IOW he could convert those who could be convertible without assaulting the person or his senses. Granted, he was more paternal in his tone so the snark was heavily metered if it was even offered, but he was simply brilliant in delivery. And he was right.

I wish we had another like him in our quiver.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 05:00 PM (eHIJJ)

64 // off Seinfeld sock

Posted by: Sean Bannion/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:01 PM (yz6yg)

65 The British actually still have adult conversations about politics. Ours is like an AOL chat room. Annnnnnnd I'll be stealing that.

Posted by: Sean Bannion/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:02 PM (yz6yg)

66 AOL? Puleeeeaasseee... more like YouTube comments.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 05:03 PM (qAHwE)

67 #62, not really. They have libel and press laws which allow all the news to be legally sanctioned far left rags with the except of Murdoc's papers which are being legally bullied out of existence. Even online commentators and blogs are being harassed by the government. Their press and politics are a few years down the road as far as ours being terrible. The only difference being that in FOREIGN reporting their press typically will tell the truth since they aren't allowed to domestically.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston at February 03, 2014 05:03 PM (A1Dcl)

68 So it is misleading to the point of being simply incorrect to say that Reagan supported amnesty. He supported a package that was designed to neutralize the pernicious effects of amnesty (creating an incentive for more law-breaking, eroding rule of law). Posted by: non-purist The Democrats stabbed Reagan in the back every chance they had. Smiling like assholes every time, too. Whether it was Teddy or Tip, but that was all "legitimate dissent".

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 03, 2014 05:03 PM (+1T7c)

69 You wingnuts will never find anything that has quite the allure of good ol' free shit. Hah!

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at February 03, 2014 05:04 PM (Dwehj)

70 I don't know if this is important or not, but Kate Upton and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit special are starting now.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 03, 2014 05:04 PM (DHj6D)

71 Ummm, aren't you supposed to show a picture of a pussy with the DOOM threads Monty? I feel a bit of a let down here....

Posted by: Some Guy in Wisconsin at February 03, 2014 05:04 PM (B/3gr)

72 None of those would be acceptable according to the standards of many conservatives today.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 03, 2014 08:45 PM (g1DWB)

Sorry, but I disagree. I voted for Reagan in '80 and '84, and I don't think he'd ever be spoken of in the same breath with the likes of McConnell or Boehner.

Reagan gave a damn about America. Those fucks don't.

Posted by: some old guy at February 03, 2014 05:04 PM (2DunM)

73 blaster: "The British actually still have adult conversations about politics."

To be fair, we'll always be their offspring. They also still speak better English, gosh sarn it.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 05:05 PM (eHIJJ)

Further to my last comment, I am not one who gives a f**k what Reagan, or anyone else, would/would not do. On substance, that is (tactics or style may involve timeless elements or principles). What matters is what someone will do, or try to do, given the important issues of today, as they exist today.

For example, caving to amnesty as part of the Simpson-Mazzoli package cannot be compared to anything today. Today, even the ludicrous, un-American, and probably un-constitutional (even by real constitutional standards, not the crap that passes for "jurisprudence" in today's degraded nation) idea of a "non-citizenship legalization" idea would be a disastrous cave, with a 95% probability of a horrible outcome. The situation in 1986 was dramatically different. Very few players in 1986 openly predicted an outcome disastrous as has actually transpired, and that includes many who were quite strongly opposed to the whole package.

It's like advocating reducing US force size by 80% and disbanding heavy armored divisions in Europe in 1983, vs. the mid/late 1990s. No meaningful comparison.

Posted by: non-purist at February 03, 2014 05:06 PM (afQnV)

75 Speaking of crybaby demoncrats: http://tinyurl.com/lpmro6f Some delusional "journalist," and I use that term very loosely, has dreams of grandeur for our abortion Barbie. I'm in bed with, some flu like bug, and when I read the article, I think I threw up in my mouth a bit then laughed hysterically. If that ever became a reality I may really save myself the suffering. {{{shudders}}}

Posted by: lindafell at February 03, 2014 05:06 PM (PGO8C)

76 I was in the UK some years ago and I heard Tony Blair talking about immigration before parliament. He wasn't talking down to anyone. He was talking to adults, and he was saying things you simply couldn't say in the US regarding the impact of other cultures on the UK and British culture.

Posted by: blaster at February 03, 2014 05:08 PM (4+AaH)

77 We need a couple orators (at any level) that can articulate a platform that's not just "Me not that other jerk!" or "Back to Reagan!"

The progressives have their long-term Utopian vision. Anything moving that-a-way is a plus, and anything going the other way, well, clearly it needs to be overturned. Repeatedly if necessary.

But if you're thinking "Conservatism is -conserving- the status quo", the second any battle is lost, it's -LOST-, because that's actually the new status quo.

Articulate the long-term goals of: What -exactly- would Reagan's Shining City -look- like? When you say 'eliminate the EPA?', what are you -smoking-? (Answer: Well, NIST's rules, standards, and policies actually cover far more transactions than the EPA even -thinks- about regulating, yet they're the size of a freaking GNAT.)

Posted by: Al at February 03, 2014 05:08 PM (9ynpo)

78 Wait..., someone named 'Nigel' that isn't a lefty nut job?

Posted by: Progressives everywhere. at February 03, 2014 05:09 PM (aDwsi)

79 Lindafell, only Progressive-Socialist Democrats can generate an unreality field that strong.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 05:10 PM (qAHwE)

80 >>True enough but remember that Goldwater got the nomination back then and you can't put a guy who created a really horrible new federal department and is responsible for wage and price controls in the same box as Goldwater. True. I don't think Nixon was much of conservative either. Goldwater was about as hardcore a conservative as we've seen and really everyone else has been a compromise in one way or the other. >>Deficit "policies" were in fact compromises with an irresponsible Dem House majority (for the most part) - ya know, that 1/3 of govt. explanation some here are so fond of?? No, that's not completely true. Reagan spent an awful lot on the military and other areas. The deficit had been coming down through every presidency and every congress from from Truman right after WWII and continuing through JKK/LBJ, Ike, Nixon/Ford and Carter. And then it made a complete reversal under Reagan and hasn't stopped since. That can't be laid all at the feet of congress under Reagan. >>Lebanon - debacle from the outset, confused and poorly thought through, so probably not much of a "conservative/non-conservative" thing regardless. He was the CinC. He promised a swift and certain response. And did nothing. It's not intellectually honest to hold Carter and Clinton to account for their handling of middle eastern attacks and not do the same for Reagan. Every time we walked awry from terrorist attacks they got bolder and here we are today. >>Amnesty? Again - and I was present at the creation and know exactly what key senators were expecting and believing - amnesty in that case was entirely part of a package that included enforcement and employer sanctions. Me too. But what senators were expecting isn't the point. If amnesty is not a conservative principle now it shouldn't have been then. People here aren't objecting to congress talking now about triggers or border security, they are talking about being against the very idea of amnesty. I greatly admire Reagan, by far the best president of my lifetime. But we keep holding guys today to a conservative ideal that even guys like Reagan couldn't meet when the country has become demonstrably more liberal. Just a little perspective is all I'm saying. And now that the global warming has stopped falling, time to pick up the shovel.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 03, 2014 05:10 PM (g1DWB)

81 Ours is like an AOL chat room. Posted by: blaster at February 03, 2014 09:00 PM (4+AaH Its like a wildebeest giving birth

Posted by: Twit of the year at February 03, 2014 05:10 PM (LHgfw)

82 Vote for me. I promise that not a day will go by where I won't tell every donk and RINO to go fuck themselves.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 03, 2014 05:10 PM (zjT4v)

83 Which is why the Dems can manage to hold the union voters, and Hispanic voters that will take the union guys jobs. They can hold the majority of the gay vote, and pin opposition solely on the right, even when their minority blocks tend to hold the gays in as high of disregard as the socons do. None of that matters as long as the left can convince people there is still enough many to be confiscated, somewhere, from someone else, to be used for their personal benefit

Posted by: Dave S. at February 03, 2014 05:11 PM (UvR6d)

84 To be fair, we'll always be their offspring. They also still speak better English, gosh sarn it. Posted by: AnonymousDrivel --------------- Well bespoken.

Posted by: Progressives everywhere. at February 03, 2014 05:11 PM (aDwsi)

85 Vote for me. I promise that not a day will go by where I won't tell every donk and RINO to go fuck themselves. Need a campaign manager?

Posted by: Sean Bannion/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:12 PM (yz6yg)

86 Ugh. * disengages Prog sock *

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 03, 2014 05:12 PM (aDwsi)

87 Need a campaign manager?

Posted by: Sean Bannion/i] at February 03, 2014 09:12 PM (yz6yg)

Yeah but probably a bulletproof suit first.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 03, 2014 05:14 PM (zjT4v)

Jeffrey Pelt, correct about Beirut. In fact, I still don't think it really is pertinent to the labels question, but Reagan's policies towards Iran were a bizarre mix of the perfect and the disastrously bad. Summer of 1987, reflagging Kuwaiti tankers and then the Gulf naval operations pummeling Iran's navy - well executed and successful efforts to negate Iran's attempt at horizontal escalation against Iraq's financiers and allies (think of the USSR and the US in 1944 when you say that word "allies", too ....).

Then - the unimaginably stupid policy of playing pool with the Pasdaran on hostages in Lebanon. One of the dumbest, most dangerous things in post-war foreign policy history (WWII) - which is some competition, given almost everything done in the Carter, Clinton, and Bambi administrations. I dealt with one of the hostage families regularly. Terrific, regular people. And I still recall the brother - unbidden - bringing up the fact that it would be wrong and dangerous for the US to do anything to help free his brother that would endanger other Americans or US interests.

The friggin' brother of a hostage was more responsible than the entire Reagan admin. on the hostage matter.

And Jeffrey, to top off your point, even the GWB administration refused to engage Iran as they should have (in a war, I mean). The war's been non-stop from Tehran's side since 1979; but in 2006 they really went over the line, and at a time when the US had maximum options for retaliation. And? ........ nada .... (and no, sorry, I don't consider operations by TF Black or 120 that should have been monted anyway to be a response to Iran's open war on us in Iraq).

Posted by: non-purist at February 03, 2014 05:15 PM (afQnV)

89 Hey Sean we need to organise for Capt. Hate a Million Moron March on DC toute suite!

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 05:15 PM (qAHwE)

90 I would vote early and often for Captain Hate.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 05:16 PM (7Bo+h)

91 Articulate the long-term goals of: What -exactly- would Reagan's Shining City -look- like? When you say 'eliminate the EPA?', what are you -smoking-? (Answer: Well, NIST's rules, standards, and policies actually cover far more transactions than the EPA even -thinks- about regulating, yet they're the size of a freaking GNAT.) By: Al This is what my husband keeps saying. There is not a conservative that is articulate AND, more importantly, effective at getting a/the message across. He said that if there were not even the MSM could stop him/her. I disagree with him to a degree because I feel that there may be a few good people out there but they are being shut out like never before.

Posted by: lindafell at February 03, 2014 05:17 PM (PGO8C)

92 Are you kids into devil stuff? Sweetheart I am ready.

Posted by: Twit of the year at February 03, 2014 05:17 PM (LHgfw)

93 There will be plenty of press conferences, right? And bloodshed?

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 05:18 PM (7Bo+h)

94 Great post, Monty. I learned a lot.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at February 03, 2014 05:19 PM (ZEvg7)

95 The reason for no Fire Breathing Republican to lead the masses??? Its because the GOP is NOT the Party of the masses. Its the Party of Big Business... banks... and crony capitalism. Its the party of Kickbacks to farmers for not growing food... its the party of picking and choosing winners... because THAT is where their money comes from... Not... the Masses.... NOT the Public. Exhibit 1? Amnesty...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 03, 2014 05:20 PM (84gbM)

96 There will be plenty of press conferences, right? And bloodshed? Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 09:18 PM (7Bo+h) I can see I will quickly need a Director of Security. You're hired. Go find some kevlar vests. Oh, and a sammich too.

Posted by: Sean Bannion, Campaign Manager, Captain Hate for Benevolent Despot 2016[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:21 PM (yz6yg)

97 Sean, I would think semi-hungry 'raptors guarding the podium would dissuade even the most die-hard of Prog-Soc Dems.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 05:22 PM (qAHwE)

98 Libertarianism is a leftist poison that needs to die. The left promotes libertarianism whenever it suits them just so they can obtain more power later. The libertarians actively enable the left's agenda by insinuating we should stop collectively judging people, thereby permitting the left to make their insane judgments essentially uncontested.

Posted by: Realist at February 03, 2014 05:23 PM (LmD/o)

99 Well one would need to 'reconfigure' the EPA function, first step, CO 2 is not a pollutant,

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 03, 2014 05:23 PM (Jsiw/)

100 Sean, I would think semi-hungry 'raptors guarding the podium would dissuade even the most die-hard of Prog-Soc Dems. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 09:22 PM (qAHwE) It hasn't stopped Average Joe.

Posted by: Sean Bannion, Campaign Manager, Captain Hate for Benevolent Despot 2016[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:24 PM (yz6yg)

101 Sarah Palin has used the phrase "with a servant's heart" when speaking about the attitude and mission a politician should possess. I think that phrase and the fact only she has used it lately are why we have so many problems. Our political class wants to be and thinks it is our ruling class.

Posted by: eman at February 03, 2014 05:24 PM (AO9UG)

102 Vote for me. I promise that not a day will go by where I won't tell every donk and RINO to go fuck themselves. Posted by: Captain Hate at February 03, 2014 09:10 PM (zjT4v) And that's the campaign slogan right there, correct? Because it needs to be said often and out loud.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 03, 2014 05:25 PM (oFCZn)

103

Seems Jack has gone shoveling, but one last response. The idea of amnesty in 1986 was a craw-sticker on principle, as it should have been. In fact, and obviously, in hindsight it was a disaster to swallow that concession.

The word "principle" is vastly over-used (not to mention usually misspelled). In 1986, being against amnesty would have been a sound position based on principle - many went along only because, as I noted, most of the bill was "neutralizers" that would at least pre-empt and negate the practical (as opposed to principled) damage of amnesty.

Opposing "triggers" today, I think, doesn't rise to an issue of principle - it is fucking obvious common sense based on a well-founded contempt for the players, their seriousness, smarts, and character (I include Ryan here). Anybody who takes any - any - version of linked actions/goals/milestones involving amnesty seriously is either dumb, young and ignorant, or slimy and disingenuous.

No particular "expertise" is required (as usual). Any common sense observer can see the only serious approach is to enforce existing law while securing the border - for years, maybe even 10 years - and THEN see if there is a need for anything else. This is not even seriously debatable. Any approach involving amnesty, the current lawlessness at the state and federal level, and an open border will with 100% certainty lead to exacerbation of the problem.

Posted by: non-purist at February 03, 2014 05:25 PM (afQnV)

104 At last, a reason for Greek columns at an inauguration. Raptor perches.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 05:25 PM (7Bo+h)

105 And that's the campaign slogan right there, correct? Because it needs to be said often and out loud. ::: voice over ::: "It's go fuck yourself in AmericaÂ…."

Posted by: Sean Bannion, Campaign Manager, Captain Hate for Benevolent Despot 2016[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:26 PM (yz6yg)

106 Boy Roy feed my boy

Posted by: Twit of the year at February 03, 2014 05:26 PM (LHgfw)

107 Hey Sean this should stir up some debate...

http://www.ufunk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Cunene-photography-4.jpg

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 05:26 PM (qAHwE)

108 Well one would need to 'reconfigure' the EPA function, first step, CO 2 is not a pollutant,

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 03, 2014 09:23 PM (Jsiw/)

Day 1: Line up every EPA apparatchik and ask each one question: Is CO2 a pollutant? Those answering "yes": Enjoy funemployment/possible incarceration for being a fucking idiot. Those answering "no": We might find something for you.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 03, 2014 05:26 PM (zjT4v)

109 An old IMAO White house press conference riff.

http://www.imao.us/archives/003400.html

Posted by: The Hickster at February 03, 2014 05:27 PM (TI3xG)

110 We have a Nigel Farage.

His name is Ted Cruz.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 03, 2014 05:27 PM (9GG/0)

111 You have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House

Posted by: John McCain at February 03, 2014 05:27 PM (Pr6hk)

112 Hey Sean this should stir up some debateÂ… Gentlemen, I think we've found our campaign Director of Communications and Hobo Outreach...

Posted by: Sean Bannion, Campaign Manager, Captain Hate for Benevolent Despot 2016[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:27 PM (yz6yg)

113 The people are fed misinformation by musicians and other media, drowning out the real truth tellers????

Posted by: Pete Seeger at February 03, 2014 05:29 PM (Pr6hk)

114 Have to love the Brits, they don't mess around in Parliament. Tell it like it is. No crossing aisles or mamby-pamby polite stuff.

I'd say Sen Cruz and Rep Trey Gowdy come close to this Nigel guy. And I would stand up and cheer if either ran for President.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky survived 2014 Polar Vortex at February 03, 2014 05:29 PM (baL2B)

115 Plug the damn hole

Posted by: Twit of the year at February 03, 2014 05:29 PM (LHgfw)

116 The left has real bomb throwers, not just rhetorical bomb throwers

Posted by: Bill Ayers at February 03, 2014 05:30 PM (Pr6hk)

117 Dear God, they are doing an Anita Hill documentary (just caught in passing on Foxnews.) *sigh* Conservative alleged impropriety? Never ending scrutiny, even 30 years later. Liberal leaves woman at the bottom of a river for dead. Old news.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 03, 2014 05:30 PM (TGgNi)

118 How did this go from 'we need a Nigel Farage" to " the Brits are just better at politics"?

Puh leez. They sold their nation sovereignty to the EU years ago.

Posted by: typo dynamofo at February 03, 2014 05:30 PM (IVgIK)

119 I don't mind beating up teacher unions in between donuts.

Posted by: Chris Christie at February 03, 2014 05:31 PM (Pr6hk)

120 Are Mr. Farage's creases really that nice???

Posted by: David Brooks at February 03, 2014 05:32 PM (Pr6hk)

121 I don't mind beating up teacher unions in between donuts. Not that there's very much time between those donuts that is.

Posted by: Sean Bannion, Campaign Manager, Captain Hate for Benevolent Despot 2016[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 05:32 PM (yz6yg)

122 119 I don't mind beating up teacher unions in between donuts.

Posted by: Chris Christie at February 03, 2014 09:31 PM (Pr6hk

You use the donuts to hide the taste of the other unions taints you went licking didn't you fatso.

Posted by: buzzion at February 03, 2014 05:32 PM (LI48c)

123 Do you mean like your Tea Party friends????

Posted by: IRS Supervisor at February 03, 2014 05:33 PM (Pr6hk)

124 The GOP's problem is that it is too libertarian, but since the people who dominate the GOP tend to be covert leftists we are constantly told the opposite. This is done in order to make sure the GOP won't win elections. People fall for this because they are constantly told "big government" is the problem. Actually, the problem is not "big government" but the people running that big government--leftists. If patriotic people were running that same big government, I would bet 99% of you would not raise a peep about new social programs.

Posted by: Realist at February 03, 2014 05:33 PM (LmD/o)

125 Captain, you want to take the Christie question?

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 05:33 PM (7Bo+h)

126 eman: "Our political class wants to be and thinks it is our ruling class."

And we're DOOMed by it. I don't know when it was but when the citizen class made the habitation of office into transition from "service" to "profession", the die was cast. We shouldn't want professionals in office (though we might hope they'd seek assistance from them in the private sector). The politicians are supposed to be vessels for its constituents. They aren't for the most part. They are, almost all, free agents seeking the greenest pastures. Votes are playthings to be traded to, ultimately, further oneself.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 05:34 PM (eHIJJ)

127 But Obamacare is not the hill to fight on

Posted by: Mitch McConnell at February 03, 2014 05:34 PM (Pr6hk)

128 101 Sarah Palin has used the phrase "with a servant's heart" when speaking about the attitude and mission a politician should possess. I think that phrase and the fact only she has used it lately are why we have so many problems. Our political class wants to be and thinks it is our ruling class. Posted by: eman at February 03, 2014 09:24 PM (AO9UG) Yes. Our "public servants" have a knack for becoming very wealthy while "serving" us. So did Hugo Chavez, the great champion of the poor, for that matter. I don't remember who it was, but somebody said, "If someone calls themselves a politician, you may or may not be able to trust them. But if they call themselves a "public servant", run for your life."

Posted by: rickl at February 03, 2014 05:34 PM (sdi6R)

129 Meet the Minister of Justice appointed to sort out Eric Holder and his crew of thuggery and buggery.

http://www.ufunk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Cunene-photography-5.jpg

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 05:35 PM (qAHwE)

130 BTW, I have been very pleased to see some excellent venom coming out of DangerGirl.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 05:35 PM (7Bo+h)

131 Since this thread is related to the prior thread, let me throw this out there - There are some who look at human nature and decide that it is flawed, and they want to change it. And since human nature is what it is, changing it usually requires force and coercion. Communists and liberals come to mind. And there are others who look at human nature and acknowledge that it is what it is, and seek to harness it. Capitalists come to mind.

Posted by: weew at February 03, 2014 05:35 PM (0tmLY)

132 Conservative alleged impropriety? Never ending scrutiny, even 30 years later.

Liberal leaves woman at the bottom of a river for dead. Old news.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 03, 2014 09:30 PM (TGgNi)

"Alleged impropriety" was possibly joking about porn to some prudish dimwit who belonged in a convent for retards. Meanwhile all the crones who got the vapors over that were just fine with Slick raping Juanita Broaddrick.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 03, 2014 05:35 PM (zjT4v)

133 We can turn anyone like Mr. Farage into a Bircher in 30 seconds with a little creative editing

Posted by: NBC Editors at February 03, 2014 05:36 PM (Pr6hk)

134 "The deficit had been coming down through every presidency and every congress from from Truman right after WWII and continuing through JKK/LBJ, Ike, Nixon/Ford and Carter."

Er, this sequence is not quite in order.

"And then [the deficit] made a complete reversal under Reagan and hasn't stopped since. That can't be laid all at the feet of congress under Reagan."

Let's look at a deficit chart 1950-1980.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/keo4zdf

Gee, it sure looks as though the deficits in the second half of that window, 1965-1980, are a lot larger on average than those in the first half, 1950-1965.

Almost as though some big policy change had happened right around 1965 in the LBJ years. A big policy change involving regularly spending much more moolah then before. Alex, I'll take "Great Society" for $1000.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 03, 2014 05:36 PM (gqT4g)

135 But you guys don't understand the dinner parties

Posted by: Rino Senator at February 03, 2014 05:37 PM (Pr6hk)

136 Captain, you want to take the Christie question?

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 09:33 PM (7Bo+h)

That fat RINO can go fuck himself.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 03, 2014 05:37 PM (zjT4v)

137 ::: voice over ::: "It's go fuck yourself in AmericaÂ…." Posted by: Sean Bannion, Campaign Manager, Captain Hate for Benevolent Despot 2016 at February 03, 2014 09:26 PM (yz6yg) Read by Sam Elliot.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 03, 2014 05:38 PM (oFCZn)

138 Washington D.C. is Nouveau Versailles.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 05:38 PM (qAHwE)

139 Succinct. Heartfelt.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 05:38 PM (7Bo+h)

140 132 That is why I said impropriety instead of wrongdoing. Maybe at most boorishness?

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 03, 2014 05:39 PM (TGgNi)

141 The GOP has always been the party of liberal-light. Reagan's brand of conservatism was an anomoly. Today's RINO's are descendants of the Rockefeller Republicans.

Democrats will always beat Democrat-lite. RINOs don't seem to care. Why should they? They're only interested in themselves.

Posted by: Mike at February 03, 2014 05:39 PM (Rk8LS)

142 Like we would give a non-RINO even one column inch

Posted by: Pinch Sulzberger at February 03, 2014 05:40 PM (Pr6hk)

143 I love Ted Cruz. The problem is his message is not getting out there effectively. He is getting censored, no coverage, demonized by his own side, etc. The people who have actually heard him have got the message, how to spread it effectively is another story. The IRS targeting political speech really hurt the grass root movements that would normally spread this type of message like wildfire. Now people are afraid, they have families, jobs, mortgages, etc. Oh, that's right there's no scandal, FOX just made that up.....

Posted by: lindafell at February 03, 2014 05:40 PM (PGO8C)

144 All revolutions are an uprising of inferior elements. Ours was no different. The libertarian order that resulted in increasingly lowering standards of leadership (albeit gradually). The eventual result was victory of the left, which always appeals to the inferior element. We need to stop talking about preserving the Constitution and instead about replacing it.

Posted by: Realist at February 03, 2014 05:41 PM (LmD/o)

145 People you need to tone it down to a compassionate message... and you must not fight the media

Posted by: Karl Rove at February 03, 2014 05:41 PM (Pr6hk)

146 More tactfully put, if you bellow against Teacher's Union, yet throw a real reformer like Bret Schundler to the sharks, in order to appease them,

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 03, 2014 05:42 PM (Jsiw/)

147 We need a leader who will take care of all family business

Posted by: Michael Corleone at February 03, 2014 05:43 PM (Pr6hk)

148 I have a premium Staff of Smiting. Bois d'arc, six feet long with four ounces of lead poured in the smiting end. I should like to wear it out.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 05:43 PM (7Bo+h)

149 Are the burning times here yet? I think I am as ready as can be. I would like time to build a few howitzers from scratch though and get my kids trained on how to use them.

Details, details, why must I always be bound by silly little details?

Posted by: GMB 1340Z30 at February 03, 2014 05:44 PM (nkPV9)

150 A quibble, if one thinks a certain candidate is worthy of support, for say their stands against ACA, and the AGW scam, why not press those points and not follow the MSM's squirrel path,

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 03, 2014 05:46 PM (Jsiw/)

151 lindafell: "I love Ted Cruz. The problem is his message is not getting out there effectively...."

I wouldn't get quite so down here, and I'm an eternal pessimist. Cruz is one of the early participants in the long, hard slog. He was made by the Tea Party Brigade and seems to relish the position. He keeps to his and its message and it is gaining traction. His pockets are getting filled (at a direct cost to the GOP fundraising apparatus) and he is moving those funds around to help like-minded peers.

Will the Tea Party insurgency win in the long term. It just might given the trajectory we're on (and by we, I mean the Democrat-Republican Duopoly) is certain collapse. We could have other outcomes, of course, but an agitated Middle America is still a potent constituency especially after SMOD or zombie apocalypse.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 05:48 PM (eHIJJ)

152 Politics has gotten so cut-throat what sane person would volunteer ?

Posted by: seamrog at February 03, 2014 05:49 PM (n+CDR)

153 Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 09:43 PM (7Bo+h) I volunteew fo twibute!

Posted by: Bawney Fwank's Gaping Rectum at February 03, 2014 05:49 PM (rIk1N)

154 Heinlein's phrase that "civil servant is semantically equivalent to civil master" comes to mind when thinking about the "principles" of either the republican or democrat parties.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 03, 2014 05:50 PM (o3MSL)

155 Reagan was more than an anomaly. He was an insurgent who invaded and took command of the GOP, and they have studiously done all they can to prevent that from ever happening again.

Posted by: cynicus maximus at February 03, 2014 05:53 PM (H+j7N)

156 I enjoy listening to Nigel pull the trigger on his flamethrower at the EU parliament. Cruz is okay but he's a bit mild and too polite for my tastes.

Posted by: Angel with a sword at February 03, 2014 06:05 PM (hpgw1)

157 The gravy must flow.

Posted by: GOP Guild Navigators at February 03, 2014 06:06 PM (H+j7N)

158 Liberal leaves woman at the bottom of a river for dead. Old news. Posted by: Aetius ----------------- Stains on dress? Perjury? Have a cigar.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 03, 2014 06:08 PM (aDwsi)

159 Cruz is okay but he's a bit mild and too polite for my tastes. Posted by: Angel ---------- And that is the case for most conservatives...., it is at the heart of most conservatives.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 03, 2014 06:10 PM (aDwsi)

160 @32: Nigel Farage is already the leader of UKIP. But UKIP doesn't have even one seat in the House of Commons. Most of their success has come in elections to the European Parliament.

Posted by: Joshua at February 03, 2014 07:36 PM (oMznd)

161 We had one of those, his name was Andrew Breitbart.

Posted by: NJ libertarian (@NJ_libertarian) at February 03, 2014 07:48 PM (GE0Kl)

162 I greatly admire Reagan, by far the best president of my lifetime. But we keep holding guys today to a conservative ideal that even guys like Reagan couldn't meet when the country has become demonstrably more liberal. Just a little perspective is all I'm saying.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 03, 2014 09:10 PM (g1DWB)

Agreed.

Posted by: CQD at February 03, 2014 08:35 PM (d6iMX)

163 29. Instead of Nigel, call yourself Reince.

Posted by: Emily at February 03, 2014 11:19 PM (7Rn+/)

164 You don't want someone like Farage. Reqally, he leads a party of whingers who think it is still the 1950s. He is an MEP, ie, a representative in the European Parliament. He believes Britain should withdraw from the EU but is happy to sit in its parliament and receive a bloated salary and massive expenses from it. He says that the last UKIP manifesto was 'rubbish' - he was the party leader that wrote the introduction. I could go on but just accept he is an embarrassment who tries to be everyman but is quiet about making his fortune as a banker!

Posted by: Sean at February 03, 2014 11:28 PM (my5Gk)

165 They did/could: Palin.

Posted by: Um. . . at February 04, 2014 03:45 AM (yg+GO)

166 " (The GOP was born as a big-central-government, anti-Federalist party. How's that for irony?) " Fooey. Southern Democrats had no problem with a strong, centralized federal government that expanded slavery. Remember Dredd Scott? A slave in Alabama was property, and if he ran away to Ohio or New York, he was still property to be grabbed and returned by federal agents. Only when the rise of an anti-slavery radical party threaten the pro-slavery tenor of government, was the United States unacceptable. Read the diary of Mary Chestnut. Those freedom-loving individualists in Richmond hanged men for selling beef to the Union.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 04, 2014 04:01 AM (0eaBU)

167 "I greatly admire Reagan, by far the best president of my lifetime. But we keep holding guys today to a conservative ideal that even guys like Reagan couldn't meet when the country has become demonstrably more liberal. Just a little perspective is all I'm saying. " Nope. We need a political party to start shoving to the right, not a political party that recognizes the inevitability of liberalism.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 04, 2014 04:14 AM (0eaBU)

168 Republicans have always had a tougher sell. The party was born simply as an oppositional force: the Not-Democrats. The GOP was created because the Whigs failed, and the two-party system needed two parties. The GOP's "animating philosophy", to the extent that it even has one, has changed several times over the decades. During the Cvil War, it was maintaining the Union and preventing the secession of the South (The GOP was born as a big-central-government, anti-Federalist party. How's that for irony?) Then it became the party of plutocrats and robber barons during the Gilded Age. Then Calvin Coolidge made the GOP what it still is in some respects: a pro-defense, pro-business, low-tax, minimal-federal-bureaucracy party (at least in theory). But the GOP has never really learned how to govern by coalition, not even during the Reagan years. The Tea Party focus on federalism, small government, and government restraint is actually a fairly new development in GOP thinking. Ronald Reagan shared this vision to some extent, but it's never been widely held by the Party as a whole.

I have been saying this in comments for a long time (though not as eloquently) when I try to point out to people that the GOP is not, and never was, a conservative party.

Conservatives need to understand that in order to understand why the GOP actively hates conservatives and never actually pursues conservative policy/goals.

There is a large swath of conservatives - tons of commenters here for example - who believe the GOP is a conservative party and that the GOP pursues a conservative agenda. That is false.

The GOP sells itself to conservatives as a conservative party, but its actions never meet its words. In fact, its actions are almost always the opposite of its claims.

The GOP and all of its candidates always claim to oppose amnesty - yet the GOP and most of its elected officials pursue amnesty.

The GOP and its candidates almost always claim they are for cutting spending - yet the GOP and its elected officials always raise spending.

And the list goes on and on. there are conservatives on this site who will argue that the GOP is conservative, but just doesn't have the right number of representatives, or the control of the Senate, or control of the WH and that NEXT TIME, the GOP will act conservatively. This ignores history completely.

Until conservatives wake up and realize that not only is the GOP not a conservative party, but the GOP actively loathes conservatives, will it be possible for conservatives to take action that could potentially change the GOP. Until that day, conservatives will keep supporting the GOP and keep getting the same results.

The GOP is merely an organization built to obtain power. It was not created with any specific principals and therefore does not have any specific principals. As we know, any organization not explicitly created as a conservative organization will ultimately become a leftist organization.

The GOP will always take the path of least resistance to gain power. the path of least resistance is to give away "free" stuff and try to buy votes. The GOP (as it is presently organized and manned) will never actually do the hard work of reducing gov't, reducing spending, etc. Adding a few conservative voices through primaries to the GOP will not change the GOP. More radical means need to be used.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at February 04, 2014 04:15 AM (sOx93)

169 I greatly admire Reagan, by far the best president of my lifetime. But we keep holding guys today to a conservative ideal that even guys like Reagan couldn't meet when the country has become demonstrably more liberal. Just a little perspective is all I'm saying.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 03, 2014 09:10 PM (g1DWB)

this is actually false. The country became significantly more conservative since Reagan. It is the GOP that dropped the ball and failed to deliver. Clinton was forced to the right, welfare reform was accomplished. Clinton was forced to balance the budget.

The GOP gained majority in both houses. Polls consistently showed people against big gov't.

the time was ripe for conservatism, but the GOP decided to go on a spending spree instead.

If you honestly believe the country is less conservative than when Reagan was president and that conservatism is a lost cause - why do you bother. All people like you seem to do is come on sites like this and tell the rest of us we need to allow the GOP to embrace liberalism.

What is the point in your mind?

Posted by: Monkeytoe at February 04, 2014 04:19 AM (sOx93)

170 Sorry, but the two-party system is not to blame That's stupid. Blame the pussies who can't muster a ball amongst them to breathe fire the way Reagan did, unless it's to shout down the Tea party.

Posted by: haakondahl at February 04, 2014 06:04 AM (SGt7E)

171 Oh, and all that "had to cast about for something" like race? You don't know conservatism or progressivism.

Posted by: haakondahl at February 04, 2014 06:06 AM (SGt7E)

172 @168 MonkeyToe "The GOP (as it is presently organized and manned) will never actually do the hard work of reducing gov't, reducing spending, etc. Adding a few conservative voices through primaries to the GOP will not change the GOP. More radical means need to be used." --- WORD

Posted by: haakondahl at February 04, 2014 06:09 AM (SGt7E)

173 "A fellow co-blogger wondered why the GOP House doesn't have someone like the UKIP's Nigel Farage in its ranks" The House of Commons has nobody like Nigel Farage either, since he doesn't sit in it. He's a Euro MP. In fact, UKIP does not have a single MP in the House of Commons.

Posted by: jic at February 04, 2014 12:33 PM (GsOrg)

174 Wouldn't mind to see a "Daniel Hannan" in our senate. He would drive the libiots crazy.

Posted by: JP at February 04, 2014 05:51 PM (bLGNH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

172kb generated in CPU 0.1249, elapsed 0.3578 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3109 seconds, 302 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.