1 One thing I took from yesterday--get the House back. I see that. But why? If they still refuse to go to war--and I see little indication that they're ready to do that--why bother? Just more of the same shit.

2
I really think that to save offshore drilling -- and most energy production -- we need to come in a little closer to the mediator's -- the public's -- best estimate right now of what seems "fairest."

Okay, but the public is only seeing one side of the issue because the other side is inept at articulating their side. So the mediator, in this case, is ill-informed.

3

My scan of this post leads me to believe it has neither boobies nor bacon.

4 I really think that to save offshore drilling -- and most energy production -- we need to come in a little closer to the mediator's -- the public's -- best estimate right now of what seems "fairest."

What will "save" it will be when folks are shelling out $4/gal.  Nothing gets the attention of the stupid quicker than when something like buying gas interferes with their ability to buy lottery tickets.

5 Lets keep it civil, we're on the same side.

6 My preferred GOP negotiation.

7
I mean, why indulge the mediator if right now the mediator is hell-bent on bleeding BP dry for the wrong reasons?

8 Gawd this makes my brain hurt...

9 This place wore me out yesterday.

10 I'm feeling a lot like the chicken

11
 You'd be putting us in a postion to cater to a skewed and perverted public perception due the Democrats propaganda machine. It doesn't really seem like a fair or even a wise place to start negotiations.

12 6 My preferred GOP negotiation.

Sweet. Very sweet. It may come to that.

13

I think this is a good video to watch, that might be surprising to some who missed parts of it. Even the excerpts didn't do it justice.

14 These claims that maximalist outcomes are best secured by maximalist demands before an election fail to take into account that the public gets to decide who will be sitting at that negotiating table.

I think the efficacy of your conclusion depends upon how long one side is prepared to wait for the desired outcome.  The Left waited decades and sustained repeated losses for HCR, but they finally did get it.

15 Talking about unions, here's the new UAW's version: ""If we don't win social justice for everyone, we don't win!" King told a block-long crowd." From todays Detroit News (detnews dot com).

16 You can't assume the max right position for negotiation in national politics, because of the democratic MFM complex.  That position takes you away from the table altogether.

If its not for negotiation and you go max right, go for it, it might be a little lonely out there.  The max left politicians don't have to worry about it.

17 It's really not necessary to bring Joe Barton into this. Whenever you want to know what Joe thinks, I'll tell you.

18 If the title of the post is 'two theories of political negotiation', shouldn't you have, and maybe I'm Crazy here for thinking this, two theories in your post?

19 No comment.

20 I've had a couple of thoughts regarding yesterday that may be appropriate.  (I was arguing that Barton had erred when he apologized to BP, not that it matters.)

1)  I was reminded of Kissinger's quote to the effect that academic feuds are so bitter precisely because they are so meaningless.   Here we are, a bunch of guys who would rather read posts than do actual work, the world is not waiting with bated breath for our opinions, we agree about far more things than we disagree about, and we engaged in a Polish Scandinavian firing squad/cannibalism BBQ,  It's like we were a bunch of university professors, or, even worse, politicians!

2)  The problem with pragmatic conservatism is that it's not pragmatic.  Case in point:  2008 election. 

21 So it's kind of like when I come home drunk and slap the old lady on the ass and say "let's fuck", and she says "Go to the couch.  You reek", and I say "How about a blowjob instead?" and she hits me, right?

22

new meds ace, or better lifestyle?


I haven't seen you post so many early (pre-3:00) posts (Wednesday with a long one, and then again today) in a dog's age

23 It almost feels like you are saying "look, we have to play by the left's rules or they won't let us play at all, and you don't want that do you?"

Reading this just made me totally nauseous.  that and the CNET article about Lieberman's bill allowing the prez to shut down "selected" networks and such.

24 I always have a comment.

25 First of all, what the hell kind of ADR are you using?  Your scenario bears no resemblance whatsoever to the types that are in actual use.  I get what point you're trying to make but the scenario you proposed is nothing like what actually happens.  /legalwonkery (this is why I don't watch legal shows, I sit there screaming at the tv)

Second, we're back to the same old arguments about how the public is not aware as to why the offer of $10,000 is so stupid.  The entire point of mediation is to educate the mediator as to why your opponent is a total jackass whose evaluation of the matter is incorrect. 

Third, as has already been stated, what is the point of taking over the House if the GOP isn't going to fight for basic principles, not even maximal principles.  The BP slush fund is merely the most recent example of the Obama Administration's attempt to undermine the rule of law and is merely the most recent example of the Obama Administration's thuggery.  What is too far?  What is enough?  When will someone stand up and say "this, this is too far"?  Fine, you don't think Barton should have done it the way he did or how he did.  Fair point.  But the GOP has shown absolutely no indication to stand up and fight back. 

ace, you're all about using marketing tactics and sneaky methods to sell positions.  Well, what many of us are asking is what positions does the GOP have to sell?  Being Demslite isn't going to be enough for me.  And you know what?  My fucking vote counts for just as much as some undecided voter.  The damn GOP has to get my vote too.  There's a fundamental presumption you're making that I will pull the R lever.  Do not make that assumption. 

26 So it's kind of like when I come home drunk and slap the old lady on the ass and say "let's fuck", and she says "Go to the couch.  You reek", and I say "How about a blowjob instead?" and she hits me, right?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2010 01:14 PM (5aa4z)

No.  That's coming from the center to farther right in your negotiations.

27

Stake out a postion on safety and better practices, of course.  Even everyone in the industry aggrees with that one now - and that's not a "leftist" position, that's a common sense position based on best technical practices. (btw, agree that Barton's outburst was stupid.)

BUT - what you DON'T give in on, not even an inch, is any kind of "Carbon Tax" or CO2 emissions scheme - this is where Lindsey Graham and yes, John McCain got themselves in trouble.  (both have backtracked out of that mudbog now)  Reasonable areas should be compromised; but some things should NEVER be compromised, and it would be far better for the Senate to filibuster everything and force there to be no bill at all rather than let a single line of "Climate Change" nonsense get passed.

ESPECIALLY since all the Dem's want is a skeletal framework bill that they can rewrite in a lame duck session before they get booted, and which can then be sustained by Obama's veto.

And this brings up another aspect of the analogy that you left out - we are not "negotiating" or dealing with honest, responsible adversaries.  We are dealing with liars, cheats, and thugs who will twist the rules and behave as badly as they possibly can - and who will also scream as loudly as possible while projecting their black thoughts on us no matter WHAT we do.

Dealing with liberal dems for us is like the Isrealis having to deal with the Palestinians - they are always going to hate us no matter what we do, so our efforts should always be focused on crushing them, not compromising with them in any way.  Because any compromise will always be used to attack us.

28 21 So it's kind of like when I come home drunk and slap the old lady on the ass and say "let's fuck", and she says "Go to the couch.  You reek", and I say "How about a blowjob instead?" and she hits me, right?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 18, 2010 01:14 PM (5aa4z)

At that point you have to wonder is you should have suggested anal sex instead...

29

So, it appears the man in question was far, far more critical in his 2:42 min speech than was previously reported. Why isn't the MFM resporting the middle portion? Is it because it doesn't fit their agenda? An entire paragraph blaming BP, & that gets cut from the transcripts.

30 "Third, as has already been stated, what is the point of taking over the House if the GOP isn't going to fight for basic principles, not even maximal principles." Trust me. I know what's best for you.

31 Judge Wapner at 1:00.

32
alex, today you are alextheawesome.

33
The logic that gave us John McCain and hopes to lead us to some weak ass wonk like Tim Pawlenty.

34 Ace. Methinks you still believe in the two party system. Let me simplify this for you.

There are two sides. Them and us. They conspire to screw us and we continue to believe in the "fantasy illusion" that one thief is better than the other thief. Now I gotta feeling you still believe in the tooth fairy.

Doing the same thing over and over and over again gets the same results. I will only point to the last 40 years as proof. Now when the country finally gets completely pissed at the Dems we spawn Repubs. And when the country gets completely pissed at Repubs, we get Dems.

I suppose this repeated cycle of insanity is interesting but in fact it is not very useful. Not now. Not 40 years now. It is groundhog day for us and we cannot find our way out of the nightmare. Kratos is right.

35 Here we go again....

36 I submit this is precisely the position we are in now. This was how health care was passed: We were spectators to the negotiations, which occurred completely with Party B/Pelsoi wing and Party B/Stupak block.

I have to disagree in the strongest terms possible on this.  The way health scare passed was because we have a Precedent who holds us and our institutions in absolute contempt and was willing to break our legislative processes and institutions in his attempts to pass that un-Constitutional, un-American monstrosity.  No American (meaning someone who was actually raised in America, not Indonesia surrounded by communists) would have done that.  Americans are restricted, subconsciously, by the culture they grow up in.  The proof of this is that the health scare was declared dead no less than 5 times (though I kept warning people that the Indonesian Imbecile was not bound by any American traditions or mores and would keep pushing it, since his intention was not to pass health scare, but to break our systems) and it finally got through after criminal bribes and un-Constitutional processes were applied (along with The Precedent and the MFM playing the race card every 5 minutes).

Health scare passed because the Commander-in-Chief is someone who hates America and has nothing but contempt for our traditions and institutions.  There was nothing that the GOP could have done that could have stopped this, and one cannot compromise on destroying the Constitution and the nature of America.  We saw how an actual American moves on that sort of health scare attempt when Shrillary tried it in the 90's.  She gave up after it was killed once.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you need to understand what we are really up against.  This is not American view versus American view.  This is American view versus third world view.  There is no compromise to be made on that, since a compromise of any sort is a loss.

You can think that my views are extreme, but I think that most peope understand and feel taht America is quickly disappearing.  People are accepting the insane things that The Precedent has done as normal, now (which is the irreparable damage that I have been harping on and warning against since before his inauguration) and there will be no turning much of that back.  If someone has some reason or evidence to refute my contentions, I'd love to hear it, but I can pick hundreds of examples, literally, to support what I'm saying.  I can't think of anything on the other side.

The stance one takes in politics depends on the context and the position of the opposition.  These are different times and the opposition is, without any doubt and without any hyperbole, unprecedented in US history.

37 The damn GOP has to get my vote too.  There's a fundamental presumption you're making that I will pull the R lever.  Do not make that assumption. 

Posted by: alexthechick at June 18, 2010 01:16 PM (8WZWv)

Oh, snaaaaaaap.

It's kinda like trying to get you to pull my lever, right?  I mean, you could go the other way?

38

With all due respect to our esteemed Host, who is trying to make sense of all this, there is perhaps another alternative that has been talked about so much that we may have forgotten this momentarily.

Two sides are negotiating, but for very different outcomes. The two sides may not even perceive that they are trying to reach two differenct outcomes. Or perhaps one side does and uses this knowledge to improve it's advantage at reaching their desired outcome.

Was the stimulus package passed in 2009 really about starting up the economy and providing guv'mint jobs, or was it something else?

Was the Chrysler/GM bankruptcy and subsequent bailout a tool to prevent the collapse of a sector of American manufacturing, preserve jobs? Or something else?

Was Health Care Reform all about increasing affordability and extending coverage to those that do not have coverage, or something else?

Exit question:

Is the crisis with the BP oil platform about an environmental disaster and how to fix it /ameliorate it, or is it......something else?

I don't know, I'm not that insightful or smart.  But when the Coast Guard harasses barges hired by the State of Louisiana, over lifejackets and fire extrnguishers, and prevents them from hoovering up crude oil at a critical time, what are we to think?

Dr. Spank is right.  We should not fight amonst ourselves, while those who Lead from Behind our kicking our collective asses.

 

39 My lawyer is handling this.

40 >>>The problem with pragmatic conservatism is that it's not pragmatic. Case in point: 2008 election. I don't think that's case in point at all. I think two things were against us in 2008: 1. An unpopular war we did not seem to be winning, endlessly demagogued. Bush's hard stance in this case was actually an example of principled maximalism. And I support that, and always have. But let's not kid ourselves: Doing the right thing was politically costly. It often is. 2. The economy, which was never perceived to have truly recovered after the Clinton Transition Recession, and furthermore went into possible depression warning *right before the elections.* If you make policy, and things turn out well, you are rewarded, even if you really didn't contribute much to the good outcome. If you make policy and things turn out poorly, you are politically punished, even if you really did the mostly-right things. I honestly don't believe the public turned the GOP out primarily due to Bush's overspending. That was maybe the third most important criticism at best, and I would imagine it was a distant third, if that.

41 And, I would add, those of us who were pushing the maximalist approach warned the GOP and the pundits to not participate in the voo-doo reanimation summit for the bill.  There was no reason to treat something that was dead as if it was alive.  Of course, after that summit, the health scared lived again ... and killed.

42 Going forward, my office will be issuing an apology every morning to cover that days events. My Friday apology will cover Saturdays and Sundays. I am awaiting instructions from GOP leadership regarding the appropriate apology protocol for federal holidays. Thank you, and I remain, apologetic.

43 None of this crap matters. John Boehner's da bomb!

44 If Bush had tackled the Fannie/Freddie disaster hard, and much earlier, and was seen to be attemptng to defuse the bomb, he would have gotten some credit for that. He did, we know, try something like that, but the effort came late, and he gave up on it rather quickly.

45 Yes, I agree that you don't necessarily need to start from the farthest right position possible, but you certainly have to start from a position far enough to the right of where you are willing to settle to allow room to move.  The GOP often starts from the position they want, and then have nowhere to go to compromise, and/or end up compromising down to a leftist position.

46 Damn Ace.  You sound like a whimpering abused prison wife.  Sorta like Boehnor and Cantor yesterday.

47 Beautiful, Ace, I love this analogy.

I think my frustration is actually not that the Judge/Public may not have all the facts and that we need to talk to them where they are as a matter of strategy (you were completely right yesterday that Barton's remarks were so politically stupid they swallowed light and bent gravity.) It's that Party B/GOP doesn't quite get Party A/Dems are the enemy, and are willing to sleep with, lie to, bribe and blackmail the Judge as necessary.

It took seventy years to get from Wilson through FDR to Obama. It will take us that long to retake the terrain, and it will be inch by inch by inch. But the left never for a moment, through that whole long march through the institutions process, forgot we were the enemy. It isn't just the wisdom to take back the country inch by inch (avoiding Barton mistakes that set us back feet.) It's wondering if our political leaders have the will to try.

We worry that Party B, knowing the judge/mediator thinks $500,000 is an OK number, on hearing Party A thinks it should be $10K says "Oh, we'll be nice guys, let's say $20K"  Of course we can't get the 30 mil, but our guys won't even go for the half a mil, and that's the frustration.

48 I demand an apology for Barton's previous comment. Who authorized you to speak, bitch?

49
I don't mean to sound glib, but how do you compromise freedom?

Some issues are indeed black & white.  The challenges we're facing touch the fundamental core of our nation; this goes far beyond, for example, funding outlays for the Department of Defense.

50 There's a good argument to be made that the judges (i.e. voters) put the Republicans on the sidelines specifically because they weren't pushing the "maximalist" position....

51 Are we really going to go back here today.  We've wasted more time on this then the entire MFM has spent talking about it.  Don't worry ace, the political landscape is still the same as it was when you went to bed wednesday morning.

52 All I know is they have recalled Spaghettios.

Fuck the oil spill.

What the fuck is Obama doing about the Spaghettio crisis???

53

The R's won't stake out strong positions in areas where the public overwhelmingly supports conservative positions.  Immigration would be an example of this.  70% support from the public for the Arizona law-oh, let's run from the position because the media will make fun of us.   

54 I think two things were against us in 2008:

1. An unpopular war we did not seem to be winning, endlessly demagogued. Bush's hard stance in this case was actually an example of principled maximalism. And I support that, and always have. But let's not kid ourselves: Doing the right thing was politically costly. It often is.

2. The economy, which was never perceived to have truly recovered after the Clinton Transition Recession, and furthermore went into possible depression warning *right before the elections.*

Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 01:22 PM (66DVY)

I don't understand why everyone leaves out the fact McCain totally fucked up the campaign.  He had it won, and he ate it.  I mean, think about.  McCain WAS winning.  Then he ran away like a sissy boy.

55 And I think to do that Republicans have to get out in front in investigating the MMS and themselves proposing enhanced safety regulations and a better-funded, better-staffed inspection corps, with the corrupt and incompetent rooted out.

I personally believe that if you root out the incompetent and corrupt folks out of Government, you won't have very much left.

Which isn't a bad idea, come to think of it....

56 I mean, why indulge the mediator if right now the mediator is hell-bent on bleeding BP dry for the wrong reasons?

Yo, you "indulge" the mediator BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CHOICE.  You don't seem to understand Ace's analogy: the mediator's word is FINAL in these sorts of ADR proceedings, and in the present case the "mediator" is -- you guessed it, Slim -- the American public.  You "indulge" them because otherwise they'll vote against you.

This is so fucking simple and elementary that I have trouble understanding why there are still people here who are pushing back against it.

57

BP is a bad company, terrible at safety issues and they're liberal. Their top adviors and lawyers now are Clinton era hacks. They have been pushing for cap and trade since 2006.

We need to hang them around Obamas neck. The deal they cut IMO limits their liability for 4 years. Alot of assets can been transfered in 4 years.

The deal should not be managed by their BFF Obama and we should keep pointing that out. Set up different agencies in each state or something run by locals who know what's going on. This is a backroom deal cut by fellow travelers and we should not defend BP because they are part of the problem.

58

44 If Bush had tackled the Fannie/Freddie disaster hard, and much earlier, and was seen to be attemptng to defuse the bomb, he would have gotten some credit for that.

He did, we know, try something like that, but the effort came late, and he gave up on it rather quickly.

That is exactly right. And I never understood why he gave up on it with hardly a whimper. He should have been shouting it to the rafters, and when it finally burst, Barny Frank would have been seen as the main culprit.

59 When you are in power, its alot easier to go toward the maximalist.  We are not.


Wait, I have hand - George Costanza

60 Oh crap, stupid sockpuppet.

61 >>it's because of those greedy athletes that it costs $150 to see a baseball game.

First of all, you can see 'em for free (or close to free) on TV.

Second, you have this back-asswards.

Its really not fair to blame athletes for asking (or even "demanding") multimillion dollar pay checks.  They're simply asking for (and in some cases getting) the maximum income they think they can.

Their paychecks are based on what the market can bear.  That's how it works in a free market system.

Tickets cost $150 not because the athletes demand multimillion dollar salaries. . . .the athletes GET multimillion dollar salaries because there are enough people willing to drop $150 on tickets. (and advertisers, sponsors, etc, willing to pay to be associated with the league and athletes).

When the public tires of paying that much to see pro-ball games the athletes will earn less.

I think the biggest "crime" in professional athletic pay is how individual municipalities and cities are routinely cajoled into bankrolling the construction of gigantic stadiums, the profits of which mostly end up in the pockets of owners.

62 " Don't worry ace, the political landscape is still the same as it was when you went to bed wednesday morning." I wish that were true. In fact the landscape is quite different. We now know, beyond any doubt, the the House GOP will not act decisively to roll back Obama's agenda. It's a pipe dream.

63 "The Obama administration is setting up a "do not pay" list in hopes of stopping government checks ent to those who shouldn't get them, such as contractors who are in jail — and even dead people.

Vice President Joe Biden was to announce the list Friday as part of an effort to cut down on waste and fraud."

64 As far as BP is concerned, I had a good conversation with someone in the business earlier this morning, & I think I understand what happened with Deepwater Horizon. Perhaps it would be best if we educate the public as to what happens in the drilling process & how blame ought to be delegated in this situation, instead of what's occurring right now.

65 I demand an apology for all the d@mn apologies!

66 First, negotiate from a solid foundation. In this case, examine the situation, allocate blame, prevent it from happening again. Simple talking points that make sense and the stupid party, in its stupid entirety can go along with. Next, harass from the edges. Have a go-to guy in the party who can make the shakedown accusations, while the core of the stupid party harumphs that the go-to guy speaks for himself. What the stupid party is missing, besides brains and balls, is a core. Newt is an asshole for sure, but the Contract with America was simple and seemed to work. my proposal for a New Contract with America 1. Lower taxes 2. Smaller government 3. More individual freedom 4. Soccer cause brain damage

67 Jeff B. 

Why are you here?
I understood from your post yesterday that you think we are morons and not in the good AoS moron way.

68 The key isn't your initial demands, its your strength of position. Your walking away point, past history of knuckling under pressure, willingness to be "bribed", fear of red herrings, etc.

69

Ace..

Inetersting how you break that down..BUT..you are leaving out a very critical dimension. Let's start out with defining a trichotomy here, false as it is..

On one side we have the Party's you described..A, B, and C. The other side, we'll call the Anti-Party..you can subdivide that side as you like as well, although they seem at present to be rigidly monolithic...

In theory, there should be an independent third dimension to all this, but in practice is just an an undercover Anti-party.  We'll call that Neutral-Party

Party C as you define it is the right leaning body politic. The rub is that Party C is dependent in large part of getting the data points from the supposed Neutral party for it's decison-making processes...but Neutral-party is constantly manipulating data in favor of Anti-party, which would cause the Party B platform to be the starting point of the negotaition...

...and that is a very weak position to begin from

 

70 I apologize for all my previous apologies.

71 The Obama administration is setting up a "do not pay" list in hopes of stopping government checks ent to those who shouldn't get them

It would be my wish that that list includes everybody.

72

So, it appears the man in question was far, far more critical in his 2:42 min speech than was previously reported. Why isn't the MFM resporting the middle portion? Is it because it doesn't fit their agenda? An entire paragraph blaming BP, & that gets cut from the transcripts.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 18, 2010 01:17 PM (Yq+qN)

It's infuriating.  Im livid that we are even having this discussion.

The media acts like a protection racket these days, perhaps  they always have ,  but I had not known

73 "Perhaps it would be best if we educate the public as to what happens in the drilling process & how blame ought to be delegated in this situation, instead of what's occurring right now. Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 18, 2010 01:30 PM (Yq+qN)" HAhahahaha?Aahahahah!!!

74

I would note that this is clouded further by the very plausible fear that once such killer programs are in place (Obamacare) they will never be rescinded. The politcal might and will (and these are inseperable) may well never be attained. Indeed, the temptation exists to cave and settle for some minor reduction in the hope that the GOP will be seen as being bi-partisan, moderate, and effective. All in a desire to be loved. And to retain  one's position. And to avoid the ire of a biased press.

Mark Steyn noted  well before Britain's elections that the 'conservative' parties in both Britain and Canada were both essentially left of center. Once Obamacare passed, the debate would eventually shift to 'fixing' and 'working together' to improve Obamacare. Related somewhat to Ace's analogy, the rules of the field or courtroom have been defined. We are left with what little remains of the right hand side of the courtroom.

75 The whole area of Lousiana isn't worth $5 billion dollars.  That much money could buy all the affected businesses and land, and set up a trust fund to pay taxes forever.

$20 billion is a shakedown., not a down payment.

76 Well, then, why don't the R's push immigration tightening and scream to the rafters about it?  The "mediator" loves toughening immigration laws yet our "negotiators" don't fight on that issue.  The Dems aren't "indulging" anyone-they are passing horrible legislation while you are worrying about proper etiquette. 

77 From the AP Wire:

AP Reporter:  "Mr President, any comment on the ongoing crisis?"

President Obama :  "The Spaghettios acted stupidly."

78 49:

...how do you compromise freedom?

Firstly, you don't equate every policy position you have with "freedom." 

Scarborough's a douche of the highest order, but there's a kernel of truth to what he said recently about "how many times can 'freedom die tonight' this year ?"  (See Newsbusters if, like myself, you don't watch Joe the fake right-wing ass-clown).

The public will sour on the Tea Party movement and the Right in general PDQ if they continue to stake out positions like "Joe Barton was the lone voice for freedom yesterday and freedom died when Boehner made him apologize." 

Think about this - somehow the other side has managed to move a free country further and further into socialism through compromise rather than a unilateral demand that we enact their entire agenda wholesale in one fell swoop ?  Why can't we roll it back the same way ?

79 Oh, they can be rescinded. But we have to be ready for, and willing to face, the results.

80 Know why they call me "Stonewall?" 'Cause I'm tough when it comes to principles. I don't move. Ever. You shoulda' seen Joe when me and John gave him that letter. He looked like he was gonna cry. It made me a little hard. Really.

81 Sorry, ma, left my socks on in the house again...

82 So okay, frame it like this: The MMS was lax. We demand the resignation of its director and a complete shake-up of its structure in order to strengthen its oversight function. Further, we know that BP was a bad guy in this drama; nevertheless, we should not let the administration use BP's incompetence as an excuse to eviscerate the economy. Punish BP to the extent the law allows, strengthen the oversight system, and then get back to producing energy safely, cleanly, and wherever we find it. I yield back the bulk of my time.

83 If Spaghettios were recalled, what about the Raviolis and mini-Raviolis?  And Beefaroni?  It's a catastrophe!  World-wide panic!

84 73 It's infuriating.  Im livid that we are even having this discussion.

The media acts like a protection racket these days, perhaps  they always have ,  but I had not known.

I find it infuriating as well. Yesterday, I took Barton's alleged statement without knowing the full context, & am now fully aware that he did lay-out a better case against Obama & BP than previously thought. He said repeatedly "There is no question that BP...", then listed the acts of negligence by the people on-site. Why isn't this being reported? 

85 Revised GOP Platform: 1. Less Federal interference. Apologies should be given at the state and local, not federal, level. 2. Americans should be able to keep more of their hard earned apologies for themselves. 3. Fix the boarder. Apologies should be given to illegal immigrants at the boarder, at the moment of entry.

86
I disagree because every policy measure enacted by Obama has diminished our freedom. Pretty soon there won't be any left.

Ronald Reagan said that freedom needed to be defended every generation. He wasn't speaking rhetorically.

87 Really, ace?  Allow me to translate:
There's a fundamental presumption you're making that I will pull the R lever.  Do not make that assumption. 
Each one of us is part of the mediator.  The Republican party has lost more of us than it gained by being squishy.  Karl Rove calculated rather famously that the difference between 2004 and 2008 was the absence of 4 million church-going social cons that McCain left on the table.  Taking the Republican party further left to gain votes is like raising taxes to gain revenue-it cannot work over any substantial length of time.

But I don't really have all day to explain why you're wrong, so just consider me a +1 to anything alexthechick has to say.

88 these thread arguments seem like a US world cup game or a certain rolling stones song.

89 I didn't mean to interrupt the thread but a "no pay list" reminded me of the "no fly list" and that reminded me of some article I read about an American citizen, born here, of somali extraction who went to Yemen to study and now is stuck in Egypt cause they won't let him enter the US.  (he was traveling with his brother apparently and after three days they let the brother go)....don't remember where i read it but it was funny cause the guy was complaining about the sleazy hotel that the embassy was paying for and the fast food vouchers...he was annoyed at having to eat so much fast food.  When I was reading the article I found myself wondering what the real truth was and what the MSM wanted us to think the real truth was and if either were really the real truth.  It's no fun to read the paper anymore

90 It's kinda like trying to get you to pull my lever, right?  I mean, you could go the other way?

Well, duh.  Yes. 

91 84 If Spaghettios were recalled, what about the Raviolis and mini-Raviolis?  And Beefaroni?  It's a catastrophe!  World-wide panic!
Posted by: Intrepid

Joe "Big Fucking Deal" Biden warned us that a crisis of this magnitude would happen.

I demand that Chef Boyardee be brought before Congress to testify about what he knew and when he knew it!

92 77 Ed:

We can't push legislation right now - we're very much in the minority.  Come January, we can, and I agree with you that immigration's an issue we should push - along with repeal/reform of Obamacare, a majority of the public supports it regardless of their political affiliation.

93

Question:  Do we want to elect Republicans, or do we want to elect Conservatives?

In a vacuum, I know we would all say, "conservatives" since Republicans are about one percent better than Democrats. 

But, witness Scott Brown.

Sometimes, 1% better is all you need.

94 Never compromise, compromise is surrender. If need be, pop a cap in someone's ass; and if you disagree with me you're fuc~ing ignorant.

95

I read soemwhere this morning about the media not being allowed to go in and report in certain areas. They're bitching up a storm, but aren't taking action (kind of like Obammie).

During Katrina, the National Guard blocked the media from enetering certain areas...and they prompltly filed suit and won.

Why aren't they doing that now?

96 What the fuck about the spaghettio thing? I ate some last night. Am I going to die?

We screwed the pooch. It's game over. If you spent 1 million every day since the birth of christ you have not spent 1 trillion. We owe 13 tril currently with another 60 trillion coming due and payable. Debt incurred by them and charged to us. It is unpayable. The interest alone, compounded, is like 4.5 trillion in 10 years.  Like all things capitalist, that is what matters. It's too fucking late to worry about who's fault it is. Worrying about politics at this point is like putting on a rubber after sex. Small potatoes. But I enjoy it, it's still interesting.

You wanna see austerity measures? Oh yea, coming to a shore near you and soon.

97 If Spaghettios were recalled, what about the Raviolis and mini-Raviolis?

Dude, if both spagos and mini-raviolis are recalled, a good 80% of my diet is gone.  Oh how I wish I were kidding. 

If they come for KD I'm totally boned. 

98

#98:  Agreed.  If you want to know what's coming in the next decade or two, look at what happened to the Soviet Union after Communism.  It was 15 years in the wilderness, followed by a gangster running things with an iron hand.

Long live the Second American Republic

99 Except the public majority is right of where the GOP is taking its stand. Why do you think the left is been able to shift our nation to the left over the last century Ace? By doing exactly what you say wouldn't work for the right. They demand a "maximalist" far left position only to accept an outcome less radical, more acceptable to a gullible public, and a cowardly GOP. At the end of the day they win, because over time their slow gains lead to where we are now: on the bring of tyranny. It's Fabian Socialism. Conquest not by the gun, but by slow stealthy corruption of the people and their system of government. How anyone can deny that this system works at this stage of the game is beyond me. Unfortunately, this system of slow crawl towards one political end of the spectrum takes generations and we don't have that time. Another concern is that this requires a careful dance between the "moderates" and the "radicals" of a party. Unfortunately, in the GOP the moderates are too far left and the far right members are shunned and ostracized.

100 "96 Never compromise, compromise is surrender. If need be, pop a cap in someone's ass; and if you disagree with me you're fuc~ing ignorant. Posted by: Purity Republican at June 18, 2010 01:41 PM (pEK05)" Yeah, and don't sweat the small stuff. Like unconstitutional expropriation of $20 biilion.

101 What the fuck about the spaghettio thing? I ate some last night. Am I going to die?

Damn it Chef Boyardee, I'm a doctor not a chef!

102 >He said repeatedly "There is no question that BP...", then listed the acts of negligence by the people on-site. Why isn't this being reported?

Because the lefttist media and squishy GOP establishment have a common interest in suppressing any will to fight among Republicans.

103 Why are you even ASKING why the media isn't doing these things? Unless, of course, you haven't paid attention for at least the past decade...

104 Forget the BP crap for a second. (That deal is done.)

Whether you meant this or not, the "mediator" in your analogy is basically Meghan McCain. But the average American, in real life, is basically Rand Paul. Outside rhetoric, there are no moderates. There are independents, and they're mostly "hard right" "maximalists." But the GOP only wants lovin' from retarded heiresses. She can be pleased by the GOP, or the people, in all their almost-libertarian-except-about-bombing-shit horror, can be represented by it. There is no overlap where shit can be negotiated between those two objectives.

So, who's "we?"

105 #66
I heard recently that the Republicans are planning what is in effect a new "Contract for America" to be unveiled in September.

106 OT, but heh:

Yesterday our local news reported that police in a nearby city were called in to investigate a suspicious box found on the floor of a parking garage.  The box had written on it "IF YOU TOUCH THIS BOX YOU'LL LOSE YOUR HAND".  Bomb Squad was called in, parking garage was evacuated.

When Bomb squad opened the box, they discovered a nice looking barbeque ribs lunch. 

During the investigation, a woman came forward and said that was her lunch, that she had brought it to work and was going to put it in the office fridge, but because of office lunch scavenger/thieves, she wrote the warning on the box.  Evidently she had put the box on the top of her car and pulled away while forgetting it was on her roof.

107
Conquest not by the gun, but by slow stealthy corruption of the people and their system of government.
==================

Therein lies the fundamental difference between our point of view and Ace's. He views that above sentence as a loony conspiracy theory.

108 Posted by: oblig. at June 18, 2010 01:45 PM (Xsi7M)

I posted the article, two articles, they either sold their bp investments for bought more boehner bought more.  and the prez said we have a vested interest in bp staying viable....

109

I just read on Newsbusters that Obama called in all the lefty media types like Madcow who have been hurting his feelings to the whitehouse and spent 3 times as long meeting with them as he did with BP.

The spin should be wild from the left now.

110 And you do this especially when you're representing, or advocating for, an unpopular, unsympathetic party.

Soooo, now you're a dhimmicrap? I don't get it.

111 I don't know how accurate Ace's analogy is but his point is on the money.  People think that because you can push a hard left or hard right candidate through the primary they will win the election on the same platform.  That obviously isn't true or politician's wouldn't moderate their message after winning the primary.  The only thing that is really accomplished by staking out the maximalist position, as Ace puts it, is appealing to the fringe nutbags who are going to be the first to scream RINO when you have to move to the center to appeal to independents and voters from the other party that are required to actually win the general election.

Mya in comment 79 has it right.

This post doesn't have bacon but it does have boobies as requested somewhere up around comment 2

112

 #66
I heard recently that the Republicans are planning what is in effect a new "Contract for America" to be unveiled in September.

From the looks of the Republican party I think it is one line:

We are not Obama.

 

I grow more and more concerned the closer we get to november. I haven't heard any ideas from republicans.

Repeal! how? 

 Jobs! how? 

What do they plan on doing and how do they plan on getting it signed by the President?

113 "We are not Obama." I dunno, Ben. That seems a little harsh to me.

114 Would it be a maximalist position for the Republicans to calmly point out that, by no conceivable metric, have either the Department of Education or the Department of Energy performed in a manner deserving of the continued support of the taxpayer?

In the case of Education, the education of our children, the very future of our country, has actually declined the longer the Department has existed, while energy has done nothing to ensure the supply of energy our 21st Century country needs.

We need to put the mud to this blowout of our money.

115 Well, if there were problems on the rig since February that would explain why everyone seemed to have a representative on the rig and why no one really took any responsibility....just like what is going on there now.....everyone is saying everything is "by committee"

116 "That seems a little harsh to me." Exactly right, John. Love the tie.

117

Any word on if BP stock holders plan on suing BP?

They gave away 20 billion they weren't legally required to.

 

118 Two Theories of Political Negotiation —Ace

"Recently I was having yet another argument blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, etc. ...."

Yeah, right.  Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

119

105 Why are you even ASKING why the media isn't doing these things? Unless, of course, you haven't paid attention for at least the past decade...

It was rhetorical. I also want people to listen to what was said, instead of believing what was quoted. "There is more here than meets the eye."

120 ok, i'm dense what more is here that I'm missing?

the guy subbing for rush says he has absolute proof that Barton was right....he said it is cause Joe Biden said he was wrong....that was a funny

121

The first thing we need to is stop with the 'screaming RINO' crap and the purity republican canard.

No one here is a purity Republican. Speaking for myself, I don't require any Republican to agree with me100% of the time. The only thing I ask is that they don't help the other side win.

122 I have never had anyone yet explain to me what the difference between a hard right/far right person and a moderate right person is. 

What is it?

My point is, and always has been you are either a conservative or you are not. Or as someone wrote in a Breitbart page article one time, you either believe in small government or you don't.

That doesn't mean though that you need to get out there in the public like Ron Paul and yell that since SS is unconstitutional that your "administration" will immediately try to shut it down. You do have to win an election.

Oh, Bush's problem???? He was no small government conservative. He was a big spending big government religious "talking" person.

123

118 Well, if there were problems on the rig since February that would explain why everyone seemed to have a representative on the rig and why no one really took any responsibility....just like what is going on there now.....everyone is saying everything is "by committee"

The people responsible are lower-down in the BP hierarchy. Hayward wouldn't even know their names. But it was a failure of the people actually out on that platform, the ones in charge of managing day-to-day operations.

124

Miss 80's

I believe full tape should have come up yesterday , what's the point of discussion when only Some of the facts are presented. some know of them some don't

I'll steal from Kratos,

chaos, the media wanted to say Barton cared about BP not about people.(Ace was right about this)  Now we know they do this and why.

But if we can't say anything, or our representatives can't say anything, and we don't safeguard the information , why would we stand up? it's like shutting down regualr citizens with the racist meme, it's worked to some degree, but only works if we allow it. which is likely what they are after.

 

125 "Hayward relieved of managerial duties in BP shakeup"

126 [Screw it.]  Anybody need a ride?

127 CJ Burch, your argument seems to be "They are evil so we should win." Well, I agree with that; but what has "should" got to do with it? They may seem transparently evil to you. I assure you that most of the public does not see it that way; as evidence, they were all elected in 2006 and 2008. (Okay, a few senators were elected in 2004.) You seem to be starting out with the assumption that the general public is just as angry and convinced of their socialist lawlessness as you are. They are not. They're just not. Again, these people were elected. I do not see the wisdom in leading a discussion with your most controversial conclusions rather than taking a more step-by-step approach where less-controversial predicates are offered first, with argument to support each.

128 But the average American, in real life, is basically Rand Paul.
Posted by: oblig. at June 18, 2010 01:46 PM (x7Ao

In theory but not reality.

A lot of people talk a good game about wanting to be left alone and smaller government but in operation, they act differently. They want their Medicare and Social Security or if they are younger, student loans. If they are middle age, they want lots of school programs for their kids, tax deductions for their kids and mortgage and all sorts of big government stuff.

Oh and while they don't need any help and just be left alone, you have to take care of the 'others' who aren't so fortunate, so don't cut school lunch, day care, Medicaid, homeless shelters, etc.

So now, they don't want 'wasteful' government stuff, just the 'good programs' that help people.  But don't raise their taxes for any of it!

A lot of non-political, non-ideological American is sychtzo when it comes to spending and the role of the government. The rhetoric doesn't match the reality.

129 Is this the Friday Purity Thread? 

I am impure.  (Unpure?) 

130 The Republican party is not even close to arguing a maximalist position on anything so Ace (the new pussy moderate) needn't worry.  It is our job to educate the public about energy matters and offshore drilling, not pander to their misconceptions, largely put in their heads by liberal propaganda. 

You could drive a truck through every argument the left is making on energy policy, we just need leaders with the balls to do so.  We need to stop this delusion that drilling offshore is some optional activity, our very lives depend on fossil fuels and will for decades to come.  Windmill and solar panels are the road to nowhere and we need to warn the public that believing they are the answer is dangerous to our future.

Ace, your site is great but your reasoning is totally fucked up these days.

131

This kinda talk is going to get us a Mike Huckabee.

132 The sad simple fact of the matter is that Barton is, in general, a rather stupid individual. He's demonstrated this before.

133

Think about this - somehow the other side has managed to move a free country further and further into socialism through compromise rather than a unilateral demand that we enact their entire agenda wholesale in one fell swoop ?  Why can't we roll it back the same way ?

By demanding everything, everytime, again and again and again.

You say yourself - they've done it. How have they? Do they come out the gates looking to compromise on everything? When they lose (hillarycare '94), do they give up? Or do they keep demanding until they wear resistance down and get it anyway?

They don't always win, but they still get their way. This is how you MOVE the electorate, rather than pander to them.

In the last 20 years, since Reagan even, the dems have not done terrific. We've most most of the executive terms. We've appointed most of the judges. We've held the most terms of majority by far in the House, from '94 to '06. The senate I cannot say, but it's been in play. Yet the policy agenda has moved leftward. Where once we wanted to abolish the Dept of Ed., now we propose and pass NCLB.

You don't GET incremental increases by pursuing incrementalism. You get it by going for the whole hog. It all depends on what you mean by "win". I don't give a fuck whether or not we win, I want to get what I want.

There are primarily 3 types of people: Those who are immovable, those who are movable, and those who move. - Benjamin Franklin.

134 Oh geez you will see more of the "small people" guy now.  so will he be saying "I'm not sure", "that wasn't my job", "I don't recall", "I can't remember" but with an accent?

135 "The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless for the innocent to try by reasoning to get justice, when the oppressor intends to be unjust." --Aesop

136

Oh geez you will see more of the "small people" guy now.  so will he be saying "I'm not sure", "that wasn't my job", "I don't recall", "I can't remember" but with an accent?

ve vill pay you in unmarked bearer bonds

137 Oh, and by the way, the reason Republicans were on the sidelines during health care is the libs wanted them there.  They made no reasonable attempt to get their input, only a couple of fake meetings.  In my opinion, that was the Republicans finest hour.  I wouldn't want any Republican fingerprints on that horrible piece of shit.

138 Why is there a "nearly empty senate floor"....per abc news

139 "138 "The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless for the innocent to try by reasoning to get justice, when the oppressor intends to be unjust." --Aesop" I couldn't agree more.

140 "Hayward relieved of managerial duties in BP shakeup" Hmmm. Shakeup follows Shakedown.

141 If 143 had really been me, I would have apologized.

142 This is why we need "third" parties and is why the existing two parties work so hard in keeping them out.

Imagine you have a negotiation and in order to "win" you need 50% approval from all people present on both sides.  If your side has more than 50% of the people present, you are simply negotiating within your own team until you reach a 50% +1 vote compromise.  What the other side wants doesn't matter.

Now imagine neither side has 50%.  Imagine if the makeup of Congress more closely matched the makeup of voter registration.  Say it was 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 33% "other".  Now some serious negotiation must be done to reach a compromise and there is no more of this business of one party negotiating with itself.  They are then FORCED to take the other parties into consideration in order to reach a 50% +1 consensus.

This is one of the reason places like California is moving now to shut out third parties though measures such as Prop. 14.  People are disgusted with both parties and so there is a real danger of a third party getting significant traction in the future.  The Democrats have a hold on things in California and so they want to make sure that no third parties can dilute their majority.  Proposition 14 eliminates any possibility of a third party because after the "Super Primary" only two candidates appear on the ballot in the general election.  A "third" party can not stand for election until it becomes the "second" party.

Here is one thing we need to do right now:  Have states modify how they handle their electoral vote to eliminate "winner take all" in Presidential elections.  Assign 2 electoral votes for whoever carries the state "at large" and one vote for the candidate that carries each House district in the state.  This allows third party candidates to do real damage to the established parties and will force those parties to be less extreme in their platforms.

Electoral votes represent seats in Congress.  A state with two Senators and 8 House districts gets 10 electoral votes. Eight of those electors should represent the House district from which their seat derives and two should represent the "at large" Senate seats.

143 Hayward relieved of managerial duties in BP shakeup"

Interesting. The chairman still has his job, despite the fact that he referred to "the small people", but he claims Hayward upset some people. Now "Mr Small People" will be doing his own PR. That sounds incredibly fair...not. 

Can chairman be fired? I thought they need to be voted out by the shareholders

144 144 See 42. I am awaiting GOP protocol directive for interday apologies.

145 29 

So, it appears the man in question was far, far more critical in his 2:42 min speech than was previously reported. Why isn't the MFM resporting the middle portion? Is it because it doesn't fit their agenda? An entire paragraph blaming BP, & that gets cut from the transcripts.

Posted by: Miss'80sBabyat June 18, 2010 01:17 PM (Yq+qN)

You know why they didn't report it.

If Barton were smart, he would have anticipated that.

146 Posted by Miss 80's Baby  at June 18, 2010 02:04 PM (Yq+qN)

It's brilliant.  congress really won't learn anything now cause the chairman will say that Hayward was in charge and now that he is no longer in charge they won't be able to subpoena him.  I'm thinking the reaction in england wasn't all that positive.

147 >>>Therein lies the fundamental difference between our point of view and Ace's. He views that above sentence as a loony conspiracy theory. I would say a more fundamental difference is you labor under the wild misapprehension that you can effect change by talking among only the like-minded and tailoring your positions to only the like-minded. The fundamental difference is that you believe there is such a thing as a Thirty Percent Majority. You may believe centrists and independents and soccer moms and all those idiots who I urge we speak to and persuade are stupid and lacking in intergrity and therefore should not be part of our strategy or communications. The American Constitution says differently. They get a vote. They do not have to vote for your guys. I can point to a long history of American elections that proves this is more than a hypothetical. This High Hat Strategy -- or, I guess, the Judge Elihu Smails attitude of "you'll get nothing and like it" -- is so profoundly wrongheaded I find it amazing I even have to say so.

148 I do not see the wisdom in leading a discussion with your most controversial conclusions rather than taking a more step-by-step approach where less-controversial predicates are offered first, with argument to support each.

That's great.  Where is there any evidence that this is what the GOP is doing?  Seriously, where is it?  I'd love to see that.  And, again, we're back to the frustration issue.  There's no evidence that there's any attempt to move the discussion at all towards the Right.  Thus, a defense of a moderated (note I did not say moderate) approach is seen as simply conceding the terms of the argument to the other side.  I'm not saying that perception is correct, I'm simply stating what the perception is. 

Let's go back to the ADR analogy.  One of the first things done in any mediation is to reject the other side's statement of facts.  You want the mediator to accept and use your facts, not the other side's.  You seem to be glossing over the need to correct the factual inaccuracies being made by your opponent. 

Drew's right, a ton of people are completely nuts about what they say they want and their actual actions.  Hell, I do this.  I'm a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist.  Except for the Westboro Baptist freaks.  When it comes to them?  Yeah, I'm willing to allow the people whose loved one's funerals are being disrupted to beat the living hell out of them and then sue them for every penny they have.  At least I admit that it's an inconsistency. 

149 Lots of words there, but let me get this right....   We shouldn't be too strident in pushing our agenda because it never works.

A good example of that is the way the Democrats became so over-the-top in attacking the GOP in 2006 and 2008 and look what happened.  They made no real strides in taking back Congress or the White House and have not been able to advance their agenda at all over the last 18 months.

Okay, I understand now.

150 "See 42. I am awaiting GOP protocol directive for interday apologies." Very well. We shall await further instructions.

151 Posted by: Ben at June 18, 2010 02:06 PM (wuv1c)

no the board of directors can oust him and the shareholders vote in the board which is why those proxy forms can be very important.

152 "See 42. I am awaiting GOP protocol directive for interday apologies." Very well. We shall await further instructions. ___ It's ok. I apologize for the confusion.

153 What really frightens me is that this site was one of the most honest.  And now, all of a sudden, as the american people appear to be becoming more and more conservative and less tolerant in their views, all of a sudden this site is espousing not pushing so much, being nicer, playing by the rules that the dems have set our for republicans.  I'm thinking we are in some kind of alternate universe here.

154 our GOP leaders think exactly like Ace... which is why we keep losing even when we occasionally win.

155

This is why we need "third" parties and is why the existing two parties work so hard in keeping them out.

i disagree.

we would be screwed with third parties. The reason fiscal conservatism is possible in our party is because religious social cons vote republican even though their fiscal inclination is to be big and generous spenders.

Lets the US had 4 parties.

Fiscal Conservative+some libertarians

Religious Social Conservatives

Union(public and private)

Social Liberals+some libertarians

 

Three of those four parties would vote for more spending. If we(i am the top category) were to cut the Social Conservatives free , we would be screwed.

That is not to say there isn't overlap between those groups. I am socially conservative on some issues as I am sure many of you are. But for some people(i am looking in the direction of the South), there loyalty to social conservatism far outweighs there loyalty to fiscal conservatism.

156 One point I would like to make, primarily aimed at Ace, is everyone who takes a position to the right of you is not an uncompromising Maximalist, rather their point of compromise is further to the right;

Just as those who are too the left of you (for others) are not RINO liberals. But their becomes a point in both directions, (Olympia Snowe for example) where they do become liberal. Just as someone too far to the right can become such an extremist that they suggest a societal model that is not practical to implement given the current education levels, and moral center of the population.

The state of perfect freedom, the voluntary society, is just as impractical to implement as a state of perfect equality in communism. Such is the government paradox from the federalist papers. So long as men are not angels, they need a government to secure their rights, but that very same fact makes a government the worst threat to their freedom.

If you think we could, live under pure Constitutional law tomorrow, in a month or in a year, you are wrong. A transition from where we are that far would put our society in chaos and collapse the Government and our Constitution. It took over a hundred years to get here, even if we can change the tide, it will take a lot of years to get back. Not to say that arguments about Constitutionality are moot, but we can only tackle a few things at a time, personally I'd like to concentrate on the Interstate Commerce Clause first. So when the argument multiplier "that's against the Constitution" comes up, following it should be justification on why we need to prioritize fixing that particular infringement over the thousands of others that exist.

Yes I am siding with Ace overall. Since the extreme is not practical, some level of moderation must exist; But that point of moderation is arguable. Arguing between us might as well be one side of a tug of war arguing how hard to pull, in reality there is only one answer, as hard as you can without letting go of the rope.

And in reality how hard you can pull varies from person to person. Reagan could sell some pretty hard core conservatism and make the voters love him. Bush barely could peddle some watered down center right. And McCain, well, couldn't sell gold at a Glenn Beck convention.

So our overshadowing goal in choosing a candidate ought not be who agrees right in line with us (although I still have one or two no-go categories) but who can pull the hardest for us.

So my pleading urge, let us not see enemies in others whom would rally for freedom above collectivism. Because in all reality we've got plenty of collectivist enemies to go around so everyone can have one.

157 So this is how we're living now: the Obama Administration is telling the Ecuadoreans about American policy before he tells Americans.

158
I'm thinking we are in some kind of alternate universe here.

No.... you just haven't added in the correct amount of kludge....... ;-)

159 Hayward out. Filthy Scandi in.

160

Posted by: Ben at June 18, 2010 02:06 PM (wuv1c)

no the board of directors can oust him and the shareholders vote in the board which is why those proxy forms can be very important.

Ah I see. I fill out those proxy form. I just wish they came with more information about the people you're voting for.

161 The MEDIA is controlling the debate. Until we make more inroads there we may as well be resigned to playing pattycake.

162 I'm gonna go out on a limb here and postulate that the negotiation question will not be solved here today.

163
You may believe centrists and independents and soccer moms and all those idiots who I urge we speak to and persuade are stupid and lacking in intergrity and therefore should not be part of our strategy or communications.
================================
whoa, whoa, whoa, waitaminute. This is first I'm hearing of you wanting to persuade the middle. I'm all for it. This we agree on...unless by persuasion you mean moving to the center (i.e., adopting a few of the Democrat's positions) to make them more comfortable.

Reagan didn't have to move to the center to persuade millions of union employees to vote for him. He did it by explaining to them how the union bosses were screwing them. Reagan didn't have to pretend to be pro-union as some sort of concession to gain good will to do it, either.

164 I care about the small smelly peasants.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk47saogI8o

165 Kaspar Hauser, And that is why you will ever understand. You continue to insist the Democrats won because of their ideological zeal, not despite it. If they won because of a leftwing ideological zeal, as you think: What hope does a hard right platform have? You conveniently ignore that the fact that the main Democratic messaging was that they were moderate and that it is, as it was said, "safe to elect Democrats again," and because they barraged the Republican Party wih a series of choreographed, focus-grouped, message-discipline Outrages of the Week to create a "culture of corruption." Everyone's against corruption. It is a nonpartisan or better yet Omnipartisan issue You do not seem to remember that when Obama slipped up and admitted he wanted a little redistribution of wealth the entire party (and the media) went into overdrive mode DENYING HE SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. Same thing about his skyrocketing electricity prices statement. HE DID NOT STAND BEHIND THAT but equivocated and disowned it and the MFM played along. You ignore these things. You seem to believe that Obama ran as a left-wing What You See Is What You Get hard ideologue. If he DID do this, then accept he DOES have a mandate -- he got elected on that platform after all. And stop calling him dishonest about it. If this is true, he was perfectly honest.

166 Ace is wrong (as usual these days) and Barton is right. Barton's point is well-taken by serious and thoughtful people, whether or not they are concurrently BP-Haters. I really fail to see how the TRUTH should be avoided in discussing political policy. I think Ace has become a Progressive neo-Neocon (and a real Wussoch). The fear of speaking the truth is the first symptom of this multifaceted and nefarious syndrome. Boehner also a Doucher.

167 An important point that often gets left out in these discussions is the essential asymmetry between the left and the right.  They are not mirror images of each other.  They are vastly different and do not push and pull with equal force and effect.

Liberals can live with conservatives in power because conservatives subscribe to Constitutional federalism, which means that we extend to liberals the opportunity to turn any state into a liberal shithole, if liberals so desire.  If liberals want un-American, universal health care, they can take a state and have their dream realized in that state - as has been done.  The key, of course, is that states can't print money and must be able to pay for their idiotic liberal policies.  BTW, the fact that states cannot print money is one of the main reasons why almost all social expenditures for individuals are to occur at the state level, with the federal government (the govenrment level that CAN create money) having no business mucking around in them.  Conservatives, and the Constitution, allow liberal idiots the freedom to be liberal idiots in their own states - but they have to pay for their idiocy.

On the other hand, conservatives cannot live with liberals in charge, because liberals don't believe in Constitutional federalism.  Liberals want a national government and want all policies to come straight from Washington, with no autonomy for the states to allow their citizens to live in the way they want.

This basic asymmetry between conservativism and liberalism in the US gets short shrift in any of these discussions, but it is the most important point, and the main reason why conservative maximalism is a MUST at the federal level.  Otherwise, the liberals ratchet their policies centralizing power (which are very, very hard to turn back, in any way) and the country drifts toward that shithole we are rapidly becoming.

168 Posted by: Ben at June 18, 2010 02:12 PM (wuv1c)

Yeah, no, they don't really want you to vote or to know who you are voting for.  Had a lot of fun when disney was trying to oust roy disney.  That the individual shareholders got involved in....

I sometimes go to the annual meetings...most times they are quiet....but sometimes you get someone who is really angry and they have to politely sit there....even if you own one share...you are entitled to be there...

169 Let me sum up the current problem with the GOP. They're crushing the DNC in poll after poll so why should they take a stand on a silly thing like principles. Just coast into the election, remind people they aren't Obama, and get elected. But if all we're electing are unprincipled scumbags we fail. If our politicians only care about getting elected, they won't care about the intervening years between elections where the important votes and principled stands must occur. They will cave as these types always cave. The very fact that someone like Chris Christie can be elected in NJ for telling the truth and taking a "maximalist" stance is a killing blow to any foolish notion of chasing the public to some center left safe ground. For one, the public is to the right of any supposed safe zone of mediocre moderation. Secondly, our politicians and party should be leaders. Instead of chasing their blind guesses at public sentiment in a useless hunt for populist votes they should be leading the public. Reagan wasn't great because he followed the polls into oblivion, but because he led the people and this nation into a new era of greatness. Ace, what you're really saying in your post is that the GOP shouldn't lead. Shouldn't inspire. Only dance to the tune of the masses. That's what all this coded "maximalist" talk really means. Unfortunately being safe isn't their job and they haven't got clue one about what the people really want which is far to the right of anything they espouse today. If the GOP wants to survive as a relevant party they need to stop being led and start leading. Connect with the American conservative majority. And in the end fix our nation.

170 We thought Reagan was bullshitting. We thought he didn't have the balls to run us off.

171 ace,
What did you think of Mitch Daniels' truce thing?  The first statement and the follow up statements. 

172 "Everyone's against corruption. " Damn right.

173 Mr. Boehner, Now, with the Hayward shakeup after the shakedown, and Hayward out of the picture, should I apologize for my apology, retracting my apology, or is my apology for my apology still good? Apologies for the interruption, Joe

174 The MEDIA is controlling the debate. Until we make more inroads there we may as well be resigned to playing pattycake.

True.  The Proggs can go maximal because if they accidentally go to far in revealing their plans, the MFM will blank it out with soothing blather.  If the Right merely uses a poor phrase in proffering a winning argument, the MFM will ensure that its the worst thing since Hitler and the argument is so hopelessly tainted that only a kluxxer would even consider it.

175

The fundamental difference is that you believe there is such a thing as a Thirty Percent Majority.

The American revolution (and every other government in existance, including the Bolshevik revolution, the Baron's rebellion, the existance of South Africa) proves there are in fact majorities comprised of far less.

176

Hewitt and Steyn today:

HH: Let me ask you about Republicans now, and letÂ’s dish out some criticism. Today, Joe Barton, ranking Republican on House Energy, said an obvious thing, which is due process ought not to be suspended, even when the bad guyÂ’s an oil company. And a lot of Republicans have round heels, and they are assaulting him for being indifferent, which he isnÂ’t, to the devastation on the Gulf. What heÂ’s saying is we have laws here, and we donÂ’t let presidents berate and destroy companies, Mark Steyn. But IÂ’m concerned Republicans are unwilling to fight on this idea that the rule of law is the rule of law, even for oil companies.

MS: No, this isnÂ’t difficult, by the way. I mean, if there are legitimate claims against British Petroleum, thereÂ’s a mechanism for that, and itÂ’s called the justice system.

HH: Yup.

MS: And I trust the courts. I donÂ’t trust a government escrow fund, because I think itÂ’s highly likely that what will happen is what happened with the stimulus money, which was supposed to go and help stimulate the economy, and instead went into a lot of various seedy rackets benefiting Democrat client groups. So the idea that this money is safer for the so-called victims of BP by being in the Obama-SEIU-ACORN escrow account, or whatever it is, than if it was being, than if it was being adjudicated under the courts, I think this is terrible. The United States, when I left that great land a few weeks ago to start my travels, at that point, it was not technically a banana republic. The fact that it can simply, that ObamaÂ’s enforcers can simply lean on BP and demand they stick $20 billion dollars in an Obama-controlled bank account, I think it is pretty close to banana republic status.

HH: I think weÂ’re going to find out that much to my surprise, ChicagoÂ’s been deeply injured by the Gulf spill. Somehow, that moneyÂ’s coming up to Illinois.

MS: Yeah, itÂ’s going to be (laughing), itÂ’s going to be washing up on Michigan Avenue, I think, or whatever.

HH: Yeah, theyÂ’re going to find it there. Well, what about Great Britain? ThatÂ’s where we find you tonight in London. They are, you know, there are a lot of pensioners sitting in the park there along Hyde Park who depend upon their BP checks, which arenÂ’t going to be coming this quarter, Mark Steyn.

MS: Yeah, no, and clearly, itÂ’s notÂ…the idea that somehow, BP did this deliberately to Obama, that as British newspapers are beginning to complain, this pathetic president sees this as some sort of oil slick version of the War of 1812-II, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the waterÂ…

HH: (laughing)

MS: I mean, this is beginning to exasperate people here. BP has paid an enormous price with, in effect, the government of the worldÂ’s superpower talking down its share price. The idea that BP did this deliberately, and is not trying to fix it as quickly as possible, is absurd. But what Obama is doing now is basically confiscating British pensions. And at some point, you know, at some point, thereÂ’s not much left of the so-called special relationship as it is. Obama is rapidly becoming the most loathed man in the United Kingdom. But that situation is going to deteriorate beyond repair if he carries on like this.

HH: A minute left, Mark Steyn. Do we get you back stateside fairly soon? Or are you afraid theyÂ’re going to revoke your status in the United States as a legal resident and would-be citizen, whatever, I donÂ’t know.

MS: No, no. I think after my recent remarks, actually, my house in New Hampshire has just been added to the Obama-BP escrow account.

177 >>>Reagan didn't have to move to the center to persuade millions of union employees to vote for him. He did it by explaining to them how the union bosses were screwing them. He persuaded them, huh? With good arguments? What do you think was more important: His arguments or the facts? The facts were that the economy was in the shitter and had been so, it seemed, forever; and Iran had taken our people hostage and they'd lived as prisoners for 444 days (or whatever it was). You are a big believer in rhetoric, or at least a hell of a lot more of a believer in "arguments" and rhetoric than I am. I will tell you what any pollster will tell you: The most important factor in any election is the perceived strength of the economy in first six months of the year before the election. Arguments do not change many minds very often. Facts do. I think this is the real difference here. You are a theorist. I am a pragmatist. I happen to believe that any president can survive anything so long as the economy is doing well and our "arguments" and appeal to the rule of law will not withstand. Cf: William Jefferson Clinton.

178

There is no negotiation in this broader sense that is being discussed here. That would suggest that the lions are negotiating with the Impalas. They aren't.

Max right may not be a winning strategy but it sure appears to me that these max left fuckers running the show now, have made it win for them.

I am note hopeful for our near term or long term future in this country. I just know I fucking hate Obama and every motherfucker who voted for and supports him. You can't negotiate with my hate.

179 Posted by: Miss 80's baby at June 18, 2010 02:17 PM (Yq+qN)
I said yesterday he was going to fire himself....and he did....
the chairman announcing it is just a formality..
sometimes it just isn't worth the six million and he really did want his life back....

180

163 Hayward out. Filthy Scandi in.

Only as far as PR is concerned. Hayward remains CEO, for the present.

181 The Barton apology: I think apologizing to a legal fiction (A corporation) makes about as much sense as publicly apologizing to an imaginary friend. Given this imaginary friends unpopularity right now I would be giving them the silent treatment. And if I was going to publicly rebuke the administration's handling of said friend, I would focus on methods, policies and law, and avoid mentioning my imaginary friends name at all costs. Barton had the right idea, but acted stupidly. He deserves a rebuke.

182 We don't have the luxury of taking the maximalist position, losing for decades, and then winning in the long run.  We absolutely need to take the House in 2010 if we want to have any hope of stopping the descent into a Euro-socialist state. 

183 cbs now reporting that obama will sue over the arizona law.

184 How can the right use "facts" to persuade when the mechanism for distribution of these facts is so skewed to the left?  The voters do not get a realistic picture of what's at stake, and that cuts off the right at the knees.

185

the MFM will ensure that its the worst thing since Hitler and the argument is so hopelessly tainted that only a kluxxer would even consider it.

Nonsense.

They can only do that if it's novel.

Which is how they do it. The right-wing viewpoint is so little expressed it's unheard of and controversial.

You can't keep it up 24-7. You take a hit in the near term. In the long term, exposure breeds desentisization. You can't keep the outrage up. People get used to it, adjust, it becomes banal. It wears off.

186 >>>What did you think of Mitch Daniels' truce thing? The first statement and the follow up statements. I didn't like it when he said it but Imagined he'd spoken off the cuff and would walk it back. When he doubled down I wrote him off. The Republican Party is a pro-life party, even if I don't agree with that, and it's idiotic for him to think he has the power to reshape it as anything else. I also think that the pro-life position is baked in the cake as far as lost votes (i.e., anyone strongly pro-choice is already not voting for us and will not vote for us anytime soon) and the only thing changing that platform could do is lose us a lot of votes. People who are pro-choice but vote Republican have already made their peace with this platform.

187 Miss 80's baby...i think it is just a matter of time before he is out completely...

188 I see Ace just called himself a "pragmatist" which I think is code for Progressive. Of the William James school of philosophy, you see.

189

The fundamental difference is that you believe there is such a thing as a Thirty Percent Majority.

The American revolution (and every other government in existance, including the Bolshevik revolution, the Baron's rebellion, the existance of South Africa) proves there are in fact majorities comprised of far less.

yeah but all of those aformentioned majorities came at the point of a gun

190 No.... you just haven't added in the correct amount of kludge....... ;-)

Don't forget the duct tape.  Duct tape, in sufficient quantities, fixes anything.

191 "178 Mr. Boehner, Now, with the Hayward shakeup after the shakedown, and Hayward out of the picture, should I apologize for my apology, retracting my apology, or is my apology for my apology still good? Apologies for the interruption, Joe Posted by: Joe Barton at June 18, 2010 02:16 PM (YZISw)" Sorry, Joe, but I can't give you any definitive instructions until I've spoken with O'blowme. But rest assured: if he's happy, I'm happy. Hate to leave you slowly twisting, twisting in the wind, but you know how it is when you exercise great power.

192 That was a long post to say absolutely nothing.  Lay off the PBR.

193 >>>>Max right may not be a winning strategy but it sure appears to me that these max left fuckers running the show now, have made it win for them. They did not run as max leftists and will go berserk in denying it if you accuse them of such. Remember how "socialist" became a term of hate-speech this summer? Am I the only guy noticing this stuff?

194 "We shouldn't be too strident in pushing our agenda because it never works."

I don't think that is the point.  The point is that if the opposition has 50% +1, your agenda is irrelevant and does not matter in the debate.  The debate is among the opposition getting all of their people on board and what you want doesn't matter one bit.  The problem a lot of people here seem to have is a believe that any agenda of the right is relevant in the House.  It isn't.  It doesn't matter what it is.
 

195

During Katrina, the National Guard blocked the media from enetering certain areas...and they prompltly filed suit and won.

Why aren't they doing that now?

Posted by: beedubya at June 18, 2010 01:42 PM (AnTyA)

Well it's obviously Bush's fault.  I mean he used he Super Seekrit powers to blow the levees right after he used his heat ray vision to create the hurricane.

196 I happen to believe that any president can survive anything so long as the economy is doing well and our "arguments" and appeal to the rule of law will not withstand.

Cf: William Jefferson Clinton.

There was that whole take back of the Congress. Clinton then triangulated like a Navigator with OCD; Putting some meat on the table for fi-cons. I don't think WC (he he that's a toilet) would have survived otherwise.

197

184 I said yesterday he was going to fire himself....and he did....
the chairman announcing it is just a formality..
sometimes it just isn't worth the six million and he really did want his life back....

Why they put a man with a reputation for being "quiet-spoken" in charge of the PR response is beyond me. Hayward did win a number praise for being critical of BP after the TX City incident (this was before he was CEO), but I don't think there was any way he could have handled this. He may have played well internationally yesterday, but he's supposed to appeal to us, even if there's no way he can answer the questions. But the chairman is making a mistake if he really thinks he's better than Hayward. BP needs someone new to do this PR campaign, & divide responsibilities between an oversight manager & the aforementioned PR person.

198 You are a big believer in rhetoric, or at least a hell of a lot more of a believer in "arguments" and rhetoric than I am.

Ummmmm, what?  Didn't you just spend a huge amount of time trying to explain why a certain type of rhetorical style was more appropriate?

199

happen to believe that any president can survive anything so long as the economy is doing well and our "arguments" and appeal to the rule of law will not withstand.

Cf: William Jefferson Clinton.

not to mention a crappy opposition candidate

200 The American revolution (and every other government in existance, including the Bolshevik revolution, the Baron's rebellion, the existance of South Africa) proves there are in fact majorities comprised of far less.

Ah, so you want to live in Somalia.  Well I understand tickets aren't all that expensive.  Seriously everytime I see something like this I add that persons name to a list so I know who to shoot first if an armed insurrection ever does break out because I definitely don't want them in charge.

201 185

163 Hayward out. Filthy Scandi in.

Only as far as PR is concerned. Hayward remains CEO tied to the whipping post for further bludgeoning, for the present.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 18, 2010 02:19 PM (Yq+qN)

?

202
okay, Ace, but this seems like you're contradicting yourself:
=============================================

The most important factor in any election is the perceived strength of the economy in first six months of the year before the election.

Arguments do not change many minds very often. Facts do.
=============================================

Which is it? The Democrats convinced the American people that Bush ruined the economy, foreign policy, and the wars, yet the facts did not prove their argument. The Democrats won in 2006 & 2008 on those arguments.

203 Rush's sub is making me nervous about how the "lame duck lawmakers" will use their "small window" to do stuff the American people won't like.  But, the way you are describing the republican party these day, I'm thinking there will be no lame ducks.  Also, don't think that people are all happy with the republicans.  Anyone who voted for that Health Care bill should really wonder if they will be re elected, republican and democrat.

204 the "mediator" in your analogy is basically Meghan McCain.
Bunk!

205

During Katrina, the National Guard blocked the media from enetering certain areas...and they prompltly filed suit and won.

Why aren't they doing that now?

because during katrina they wanted access to dead bodies, which makes for a lot more compelling tv than just black water

206 Yes the media gave Obama a free pass on his redistribution and energy statements, as well as all of the other baggage he had associated with him.

But that wasn't what got him elected.  What got him elected was John McCain. You might blame that on the media as well but I don't. I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Republicans who listen to the media and who think they will EVER get a fair shake from the MFM.

Just remember "Only McCain can beat Hillary".

207 I'm just glad that today this argument will finally be settled once and for all.

208

What many of you fail to realize is that, for nearly 40 years and until the articulicate likes of Willian F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater and their deciples (and to a lesser extent, John Birchers) came along, the viewpoints of the Democrats were considered my a huge majority of Americans to be the mainstream, and conservatives were the kooky radicals, a situation that inluenced the attitudes of the MSM, too, most of whom are conformists, even more so than most other people are, because, bless their hearts, they aren't very bright and they rely on others to do their thinking for them, others who think like their then perceived "mainstream" parents did.  New ideas and new concepts and especially radical, conservative viewpoints  shake up their world, and they can't cope, here again, because, bless their hearts, they're dumber than Barbie and Ken dolls.

To be continued. Maybe, or maybe not.

209 Mr. Boehner, Thank you for the quick response. If I might trouble you with one more matter: How long do I have to wear this blow out preventer?

210   208 Rush's sub is making me nervous about how the "lame duck lawmakers" will use their "small window" to do stuff the American people won't like.  But, the way you are describing the republican party these day, I'm thinking there will be no lame ducks.  Also, don't think that people are all happy with the republicans.  Anyone who voted for that Health Care bill should really wonder if they will be re elected, republican and democrat.
Don't discount peoples petty nature. I am willing to bet a lot of them will blame Obama for their loss and thwart his lame duck plans, if in fact he has any.  

211 192 Miss 80's baby...i think it is just a matter of time before he is out completely...

Most likely. He looked rather ill during the hearing yesterday, & I don't think he's suited for this sort-of-thing. Perhaps he can get a better job elsewhere, or retire altogether. Afterall, the last CEO became a Lord & Baron despite the Alaska & TX City incidents, so maybe it won't be so bad for Hayward.

212 194 Ben:

My point exactly.  The next two elections are not the American fucking Revolution.  No one's going to go Lexington and Concord on the ObamaCare IRS agents - for those who say they will, please go form your third party now so I don't have to be associated with you. 

If you want to protest by disobedience, OK, but can the Second Amendment references (got that, Sharon Angle ? - saw that piece yesterday - for those saying it was slimy journalism, it is only if they lied about what she said - if the quotes were accurate she's inflicting major damage on her own credibility). 

We're going to win at the ballot box, which takes 51%.  If you want to win with 30%, you need to be strapped, and then you're rolling with the New Panther Party, not the Republicans.

213 Remember how "socialist" became a term of hate-speech this summer?

Am I the only guy noticing this stuff?

Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 02:22 PM (66DVY)

No.  But you seem to forget that McShame was one of the major people screaming about how speaking the word "socialism" was hate-speech during the campaign.  And the GOP allowed the same this summer (last summer, I assume you mean), and supported that view, just as McShame had done.

Ace, it is the GOP that is too often telling people that what conservatives say is "hate-speech".  This is what really ticks lots of us off.  It is self-defeating and stupid - just like what they just did to Barton.

214

BREAKING NEWS

WILL FORKS IS ENDORSING NIKKI HALEY

SACRED HONOR COMMANDS IT!!!

215 "214 Mr. Boehner, " I'm dispatching Eric to check your blow-out preventer now. And you forgot to apologize.

216 the republicans had terrible candidates in the last election and I'm hearing the same names come up again.  I won't vote for newt or mittens or mckane or huck....or thompson...i really just won't vote...and you don't believe people will do this but, guess what, they will.  I had a lib tell me that he knew that the team of newt and mittens was going to be the 2012 team and they knew the wouldn't win but "they deserve their chance".   And he said, if they do win, they were "supposed to win then" cause it goes back and forth from party to party.  I mean this is the kind of crap people believe.

217

Ah, so you want to live in Somalia.

The American Revolution?

Constitution = Somalia?

Than I guess so.

218 Society at 217   ummm I think you misread the post at 194.   the part in italics was from another post.  the part not in italics is what i said   I pointing something out. Someone listed example of "majorities". I was simply pointing out those majorites came at the point of a gun and where there for not acceptable.

219

206 185 163 Is the question mark due to what you added, or...? Hayward was sent back to Britain (he's been here since the days immediately after the explosion), but he's still the CEO...for now. Svanberg has found his scapegoat.  

220

The Magna Carta = Somalia?

The point of my examples is that - good OR bad (2 good and 2 bad) - you don't get 51%. 50% of the country is ill informed, apathetic, goes with the winner and cares for nothing larger than themselves.

30% can set the agenda.

221 Am I the only guy noticing this stuff?

No, but I don't even know what the hell we're discussing right now.  Seriously, I cannot make sense of what position you're trying to advocate.  At times it seems as if your advocating a pragmatic approach wherein the most conservative candidate for that district possible is put forth.  Then at others you seem to be advocating a campaign strategy in which all the usual rhetorical tricks are used.  Then again you seem to be implying there's no point in attempting to push back at the in-place media narrative.  Right now you've said at one and the same time that rhetoric is what matters but no it's facts that matter.  It's not a coherent position.

222 211 Vic

Mav's the other side of the purity vs. RINO coin.  His policies were so "me-too, only slower and smaller" that he had no appeal to his own base, and the base for Barry wanted "bigger and faster."  There's a balance that needs to be struck in sticking to principals and appealing to those you haven't already converted.  McCain's open disdain for his base did as much as his milquetoast policies to keep them at home in 08.

223 "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

Ace, Republicans should go into this election, and every election with the same goal.

To reduce the size and scope of government.

Because if one works hard to do so, all the other problems will eventually fade.  Lobbyists will have no reason to lobby, less corruption, less temptation, less red tape and more money to DO the actual observation of oil rig safety measures.

Or any of ones pet/populist concerns....a Republican can argue for any one of those bread and butter issues....if they make a clear demarcation of what is government's duties and obligations?

No doubt, even the most least informed public know something is wrong with government.

And it matters not which party rules.  The government to to big and ungainly to DO ANYTHING WELL, MUCH LESS ITS ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES.

The public must hear this message from the Republicans, they must not be coddled anymore, those days are so over.  They have lived high on the hog for too long.

In 2010, the Rs must begin with a pledge to full on REPEAL the healthcare bill.

Because the government logistically cannot run a healthcare system, the spill response just proves this again.

224 People who are pro-choice but vote Republican have already made their peace with this platform.
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 02:20 PM

My take was similar to yours - I felt the original statement wasn't that bad, but the second statement demonstrated how naive Daniels is - but I'm not sure your statement above is accurate or that there are sufficient numbers of people in this category to allow the GOP to always push pro-life stuff.  I think you're thinking of liberal or moderal Republicans and forgetting about Dem-leaning Independents. 

I'm hard-line pro-life, but I would happily vote for a POTUS candidate who was strong on the economy and national defense, even if s/he was weak on abortion.  I agree with the sentiment behind Daniels' "truce" -- that the economy has to take a front seat to everything.

I am not sure that we can win back the WH without bringing in people who are pro-"choice" or gay marriage or legalizing pot any of those things (which I oppose, btw).   And I really think that there's a couple of generations of people raised on "choice" issues who will not vote for a Republican while those issues are front and center.  We're much better off taking a Federalist position on those issues with our national candidates.

Now Daniels' truce scenario was a bit different as he was really talking about backing off on those things once he was POTUS, not simply as a candidate.  In that case, I could see trying to back-burner things like abortion for a period of time while he works on the other things, but not indefinitely. 

I wasn't as outraged as some, though, because to me "truce" always means something temporary, so I never saw it as Daniels saying he would not champion the pro-life position, simply that he would delay that for a time while he tried to work with a divided Congress. 

 I was a little surprised that you wrote Daniels off based on this since it seemed like it was ultimately rooted in a pragmatist point of view, to which we both subscribe, even if he talked himself into seeming pretty naive about how unwilling to work across the aisles the Dems are. 

225 "The Texas Department of Public Safety ordered the evacuation of the state Capitol today after a bomb threat from a pay phone caller to the Austin Police Department.

"The Capitol was ordered to evacuate as a precaution while we conduct our normal security sweeps," DPS spokesman Tom Vinger said.

The Capitol could remain closed for a couple of hours, he said."

226

The Magna Carta = Somalia?

The point of my examples is that - good OR bad (2 good and 2 bad) - you don't get 51%. 50% of the country is ill informed, apathetic, goes with the winner and cares for nothing larger than themselves.

30% can set the agenda.

 

30 % can set the agenda. BUT that 30% needs to convince another 21% to vote them into power.

So you need 51% to get into power, and then the 30% can set the agenda. Look at the Democrats. Most Democrats I know aren't Pelosi Democrats.

 

 

227 We are all to serious for a Friday anyway. I see another flame war approaching. So I have this actual headline:

Beer truck crashes in Chester County; no bottles survived

RICHBURG — A tractor-trailer carrying 47,000 pounds of bottled beer turned over late Thursday night on southbound Interstate 77 in Richburg near the bridge construction at Exit 62.

http://tinyurl.com/27uza7a

It was a sad day for Morons, 40,000 pounds of mashed beer-nanas.

228 Who the fuck is this guy that's subbing for Limbaugh today?  I've never heard of him.  (Then again, I'd never heard of Belling or Davis either.)

229 223 Ben - if your point was that the 30% majority argument only works when that 30% has guns, that's what I'm agreeing with and was even going to post that in response to Entropy at 180 before I saw you did.  I didn't think you were the one making the 30% argument.

230 "In 2010, the Rs must begin with a pledge to full on REPEAL the healthcare bill." And we'll do it, too. Really. We're badasses!

231 Hey, I've got a good analogy. Who here was persuaded by DrewM's initial assertion that Barton's statement was crazy? The key word is "persuaded" -- you may have agreed with it beforehand, in which case you were not in fact persuaded by it. He just offered an assertion you already believed. So who among those inclined to disagree with his assertion were persuaded by his brief assertion that this was a bad statement? None? I'm not criticizing Drew here and I hope he understands that. But what we had here was a failure to communicate. Drew assumed (maybe) that most people would agree with him off the bat. He was wrong. He offered a sentiment that was disagreed with vigorously by people and, I am guessing, was surprised by that. Now, if he had known his own take was going to be so controversial -- and assuming he had the time and patience to do so -- he might have written a much more agreeable, persuasive post, not leading off with his controversial conclusion but slowly building to it premise by careful premise. Now, he didn't do that. He doesn't have the time. And he's an unpaid volunteer. But surely you recognize that if he had done so, there was at least a chance of persuasion, right? Well, drew is an unpaid volunteer on a small-potatoes blog that reaches 20,000 people or so. Maybe 30,000. Compare Drew's short assertion of a controversial statement -- and the lack of persuasive rigor it had -- to Joe Barton's. If Drew didn't do a good enough job of persuading those who might disagree of his position, what are we to say of Joe Barton, who is paid $200,000 a year to communicate with the public, has a million-dollar staff at his disposal to do just this, and was speaking at a highly-reported televised congressional inquiry?

232
No, but I don't even know what the hell we're discussing right now. 

We were discussing what you're wearing. I think.

^{/raises eyebrows like Thomas Magnum, but more creepy}

233 227 "principles", yeah I know.

234

We're going to win at the ballot box, which takes 51%. 

Good for you. Fuck the ballot box. We "won" at the ballot box with Richard Nixon.

It's like "winning" an argument with your wife, wherein you "won", but you still do what she wanted.

I want to win at framing the policy debate. I want to move the electorate - and both parties go with it.

The democrats have succeeded in moving this country to the left over the last 20 years despite not winning as much at elections.

We've "won" most of the elections. Did we win? What did we win?

235 ;">This is how political negotiation is done:

Obama Fires BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward

236 Apologies to Drew, incidentally; Drew, I hope you realize I'm just throwing you under the bus because it makes a good analogy, Please don't leave the site! My point is that there is nothing wrong with a controversial position per se, and in fact sometimes one might legitimately feel that principle requires one to make it. However: It is always for the best to recognize in advance the statement may be controversial, and not just offer a naked conclusion, but instead realize that the naked conclusion itself is likely to be very poorly received. If you're going to say something controversial, spend a few hours before hand crafting the statement to be as persuaisve as possible, huh? Drew's "excuse" is that he's an unpaid volunteer with a real job and doesn't have the time to write up a white paper whenever he's posting news. What's Joe Barton's excuse? Is he surprised to learn that there's some politics going on in politics?

237 All I see is a bunch of compliant quiet republicans not giving "no flak" to whatever the dems want to do, so much so that they gave a beat down to one of their own when gibbs complained about him and even today they have two gunslingers looking to figure out more ways to take him down a peg or two or three.   I have absolutely no faith in any republican who is in office now.  and there are some of us who will vote for a dem because they seem more genuine than the republican..but, when it is quiet like this, you can be sure, they are on the verge of quietly and sneakily passing some bill without telling youl

238 240 Entropy - how else are we going to win ? 

I assume you're in the "pick better stronger candidates" crowd rather than "lets burn down the Statehouse."  But we take the electorate as they are, and right now it's us vs. the 52%ers.  We can win them back given how many ways Barry's stepped in shit so far, but they don't want every bit of our agenda.  We need the best possible outcome (over several elections) so we need to pick and choose our issues.

239

We've "won" most of the elections. Did we win? What did we win?

a nice consulation prize?

240 Now, if he had known his own take was going to be so controversial -- and assuming he had the time and patience to do so -- he might have written a much more agreeable, persuasive post, not leading off with his controversial conclusion but slowly building to it premise by careful premise.

Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 02:35 PM (66DVY)

I have to disagree, because Drew's basic premise was incorrect.  No manipulation of words or different angle of attack would have changed that.  It was an incorrect conclusion that would remain incorrect, no matter how he came to it.  I doubt that anyone would have a different opinion based on a different construction of his argument, either. 

He compounded this problem by arguing in favor of the shakedown on the later thread.

241 Am I the only guy noticing this stuff?

No, you aren't. It is a point of fact that the difference between the spoken McCain platform and the spoken Obama platform has to be measured with a caliper; And involved mostly abortion and, and ???

Now I actually believe that McCain was every bit of the squish that he ran as, but the in office President Obama, however, resembles the candidate Obama about as much as Dorian Gray looks like his portrait.

242

Apologies to Drew, incidentally; Drew, I hope you realize I'm just throwing you under the bus because it makes a good analogy,

Please don't leave the site!

ace has Bartonitis!

243 Good for you. Fuck the ballot box. We "won" at the ballot box with Richard Nixon.

Hey, I worked on the '72 Nixon campaign.  Ever heard of George McGovern?  It was a victory. 

244
OMFG..... the dead horse has it worse than I do.

245

those majorites came at the point of a gun and where there for not acceptable.

The US Constitution is not acceptable?

The Magna Charta is not acceptable?

246

Entropy, if i may inquire. Who is you candidate for 2012?

I want an idea of who in the republican party has the ability to accomplish this dramatic shift.

I am not so excited by our choices.

The front runners are Palin, Romney, Huckabee.

To quote the Axis Chemical doctor in the first Batman movie, "You see what I have to work with here."

247 Oh, please. Must we use terms like "shakedown." It's so... plebeian.

248 BIG NEWS (via Hot Air):  Will Folks has endorsed Nikki Haley! 

249

those majorites came at the point of a gun and where there for not acceptable.

The US Constitution is not acceptable?

The Magna Charta is not acceptable?

Look, if we become a full dictatorship. I'm on board.

We aren't there yet. The tide can still be turned at the ballot box.

250 249:  Y-Not

Perfect response.  When Hippy George is the alternative and Barry Goldwater would only pull 30% of the vote, Nixon's the best choice, for all that he was a "compassionate conservative" who gave us detente, price controls, the EPA, etc...

251 One sure fire way to fail at persuading someone is showing contempt for them or their ideas. And even independents have ideas about what direction the country should be going in.

252 Posted by Mike the Moose at June 18, 2010 02:41 PM (0q2P7)

oddly enought, one of my friends, raised a republican, used as her excuse for not voting for McCain "well really when McCain told us he was a good guy and a good president I felt like he was letting me off the hook, letting me vote for the guy I really wanted to vote for, so I did and I don't feel bad about it"....my response was..."have you started saving for taxes from your paycheck cause when you have to pay and pay and pay I'm going to remind you about this" and she said "well that's ok, my taxes are going to go to support those who have nothing, and you are really being uncharitable tonight"....and i said 'we shall see'

253 John Boner is a limp dick, an unprincipled charmer who kisses up to everybody, including Democrats, and who takes credit  for coalitions and ideas which were put together by several much more effective Republicans, who are, behind the scenes, the real leaders of the Republicans, leaders who don't care about recognition for themselves, but who just want to advance an agenda successfully.

254
Ace,  yesterday I was thinking what you would've done if you had written that post. Dozens of times I've seen you add updates to your posts after getting some feedback in the comments even if you didn't agree with it at all.

Stuff like: "some commenters think such and such. I dunno."

It would've made a difference.

255 241 I rarely disagree with Gateway Pundit, but Hayward has not been fired from his primary position at BP--yet.

256 The tide can still be turned at the ballot box.

Posted by: Ben at June 18, 2010 02:44 PM (wuv1c)

I doubt it.  Too much irreparable damage has been done.

257 My grammar's been chastised enuf - off sock.

258 This has nothing at all to do with boobies.

259 How come no one is sockpuppeting me?

260
BIG NEWS (via Hot Air):  Will Folks has endorsed inseminated Nikki Haley! 


FIFY.....

261 251 The US Constitution is not acceptable?

The Magna Charta is not acceptable?

Parts of both documents have been trampled on or (in the case of the Magna Carta) thrown out completely. Just throwing that out there.

262

 How come no one is sockpuppeting me?

you have proven yourself ineffective and irrelevant

263
Posted by: Italian meatball and sausage subs on sale in the Publix deli

wow, I've seen and had some pretty odd handles at AoS, but this is just weird.

264 We were discussing what you're wearing. I think.

Speaking of creepy stuff, I lost my damn umbrella again. 

One sure fire way to fail at persuading someone is showing contempt for them or their ideas.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.  There was no persuasion going on, there were simply people on both sides (not me I'm above such things!) screeching at each other.  Good times.  Good times. 

265 Wills Folks swooping in to bring us all back together as one happy conservative family.  Yay.

266 Miss 80's baby....he has been sent back to england,  and the chairman has taken over and the way it is being whispered about...he essentially has been fired but I really think he fired himself and these are formalities...

267 " How come no one is sockpuppeting me? " You're much too confrontational.

268 >>>I have to disagree, because Drew's basic premise was incorrect. No manipulation of words or different angle of attack would have changed that. It was an incorrect conclusion that would remain incorrect, no matter how he came to it. I doubt that anyone would have a different opinion based on a different construction of his argument, either. Okay, progressoverpeace. I will mark you down for "prefers a naked controversial conclusion over a persuasive argument." As I always ask: Are we in this for the catharsis? Are we here to prove how unapologetically, unashamedly indifferent we are to majority opinion? Are we here to win, or only win if we can win with red meat statements? Are craft and caginess despicable? Are they sneaky?

269

I assume you're in the "pick better stronger candidates" crowd rather than "lets burn down the Statehouse."  But we take the electorate as they are, and right now it's us vs. the 52%ers.  We can win them back given how many ways Barry's stepped in shit so far,

So. Not. Seeing it.

This goes beyond the next legislative session.

You know why the left has kicked our ass and screwed our country? All the sociologists are leftists.

270 So wait, is this signaling to us that the blog has changed and will never be the same again????

271 Hmmm, which party should I let dork me up the squeakhole today?

The GOP or the Dems?

Eeeny, meeny, miney, moe....ah fuck it, it doesn't really matter does it?

My ass hurts.

272 262 Prog:

Then are we simply discussing the Fall of Rome, here, or what ?  Accepting your premise, there's no point in running any candidates no matter how red-blooded Conservative they are and no point in anyone getting wee-wee'd about Drew, Barton or Ace.  

I just don't see things that darkly just yet.  If 20 more years of creeping socialism happened before Barry I'd be less optimistic, and we've still got a looong way to go, but we ain't dead yet.

273

Some very excellent arguments.

My two cents, and I'll be brief.  We are absolutely dealing with extra-political establishment arguments that are maximulist in nature, imo.  The compromise at any cost approach to political outcomes was like weak tea to people anchored in the ideologies from either side.  From one side because they were closer to their goal and the timing was right to seize the opportunity.  From the other because of a sense that the country had finally moved so far in one direction that to tolerate it would mean to become complicit in the demise of a lifestyle.

On one hand were the social justice crowd who held that equality was the desired outcome, not the starting point.  And on the other hand you had the personal responsibility crowd who adhered to the created, but not necessarily destined to be equal approach.  On one hand, happiness as a right.  On the other, happiness as a goal but one has a choice to persue it.  On one hand, leaders have an obligation to impose equality.  On the other, the opportunities to rise above the mediocre.  Freedom to be doled out as seen fit vs. freedom as a gift to humanity that is sacrosanct. 

Unfortunately, we are at a point in our history where incrementalism, through what ever mechanism has moved too far in one direction and the way to move it in the other direction is most probably not more incrementalism.

The analogy here is not that of a pendulum, it is that of the path of least resistence.  To get it moving in the other direction will probably not involve a slow retracement of the path taken to get us here but a large lurch in the other direction against significant intrenched resistence. 

My guess is that the argument to the extremities are likely what will carry the day and that the most committed will prevail.

JMIO

274

"My guess is that the argument to the extremities are likely what will carry the day and that the most committed will prevail.

JMIO

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 18, 2010 02:50 PM (r1h5M)"

say hello to socialism then....

275 "278 Hmmm, which party should I let dork me up the squeakhole today?" In all fairness, it's the Dems' turn today. But I did enjoy it.

276

I agree at 279.

If your view is that bleak then what do elections matter at this point.

Reagan successfully shifted this country and our national dialogue to the right.

Now even democrats promise tax cuts.

I remain hopeful we can do that again thought the ballot box.

277 Are we here to win, or only win if we can win with red meat statements?

Are craft and caginess despicable? Are they sneaky?

Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 02:48 PM (66DVY)

I am not sure craft and caginess are going to change anyones minds to your position as much as the lack of it will turn people against you.

278 Right now the public is souring on off-shore drilling, and when I say the public I mean independents. The left and right haven't changes their positions on drilling, but support has dropped. So we need to persuade independents that our position is correct. Ace is right in that we need facts and a soothing presentation of those facts in order to win the day. Independents, apparently, are scared of their own shadow so we have to play nice and not look scary or like a bunch of out of touch idiots.

279 Posted by: Ben at June 18, 2010 02:52 PM (wuv1c)

Ben it is a different time, a different political game where the 4th estate has openly joined a political party....there are no reagans out there and it is maddening that there aren't.

280 Hmmm, which party should I let dork me up the squeakhole today?

The Republicans have smaller dicks, so there's that to consider.

281 >>>Ace, yesterday I was thinking what you would've done if you had written that post. Dozens of times I've seen you add updates to your posts after getting some feedback in the comments even if you didn't agree with it at all. I would have written the post almost exactly as Drew did, because i would have been horrified by the statement, and would not have had time to compose a long nuanced post. Oh, that's the other thing: When news breaks, we try to get it up FAST. I forgot to mention that. Anyway, I would have written the post the same as Drew and it would have been just as unpopular. That's not me saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying, that's what I would have done. My excuse would have been "I had to get it up fast." Again, Joe Barton had two days to write out his statement. He also could have run it by smart people like Paul Ryan. He didn't. He surprised the whole party with his unconsidered remarks, leaving everyone scrambling. And that fucking soundbite will keep running, and running, and running.

282

The tide can still be turned at the ballot box.

That's what I'm talking about.

It might be...

But not the way you're doing it, it won't.

283

the sacrficial lamb is going home.

http://tinyurl.com/35up26d

 

284 "287 Hmmm, which party should I let dork me up the squeakhole today?

The Republicans have smaller dicks, so there's that to consider.

Posted by: damian at June 18, 2010 02:54 PM (4WbTI)"

It's the balls they don't have.

(well except the women, their's are brass)

285 We need a 'how to get un-screwed' thread before the cutters come out...

286 Are craft and caginess despicable? Are they sneaky?

Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 02:48 PM (66DVY)

No.  But putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change it from being a pig.  That was my point.  For correct conclusions, there are different angles of attack that would make a difference, but for incorrect conclusions, all paths of argument still lead to something that it is incorrect, at least to those who consider such a conclusion incorrect.

If you're asking whether Drew could have built some framework that would have mitigated some of the more heated responses to him (which my posts were part of), then I can agree - to a point.  But a toned down objection is still an objection.  I don't believe that any change in argument on Drew's part would have convinced anyone to agree with him who wasn't agreeing with him on what he originally wrote.

287 Ace and Drew are coming very close to being as usefull and informataive as NRO. I love this site. I check it multipile times a day. Of course I did that with the Corner too until I realized they had their head up their asses. Let me guess...next post..."Only Romney can save the Republic"! I know. I'm an idiot who doesn't know how the game is played. Please inform me what the smart play is.

288

272 Miss 80's baby....he has been sent back to england,  and the chairman has taken over and the way it is being whispered about...he essentially has been fired but I really think he fired himself and these are formalities...

So he's also been fired as CEO? The reports I keep reading are just saying they reshuffled the deck RE Deepwater Horizon. What Chairman Svanberg did is basically hand day-to-day clean-up oversight to someone else, & appoint himself PR man. Interestingly enough, the new day-to-day man is a chemical engineer, not a geologist like Hayward. Wonder if that will make a difference. But if Obama won't let them clean, then this man will be sent back to Britain, too.

289 >>>>If you're asking whether Drew could have built some framework that would have mitigated some of the more heated responses to him (which my posts were part of), then I can agree - to a point. That is, in fact, my point.

290

Could the Gulf leak cam haunt Obama?

The AP is concerned the cameras will further weaken the Precedent.

291 Please don't leave the site!
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 02:38 PM (66DVY)

Where am I going to go?

I'll just play Tina to your Ike cause I know you only do it for my own good.



(Just kidding, it's a fair analogy).

292 OT: (and sorry if already mentioned) But the Economist has an artilce out today that kinda sorta agrees with the substance of Barton's Infamous Apology (BIA) from yesterday. The gist? Obama is Vladamir Putin.

293
I think it's good we're talking about this now because the Kagan hearings are coming up and we're going to be right back to square one.

Either the Republicans on the committee will roll over for Kagan and cause some of us to bitch about the Republicans, or they'll hit her hard and stir controversy, thus causing some here to say we're providing the other side ammunition to use against us.

294 well that's ok, my taxes are going to go to support those who have nothing, and you are really being uncharitable tonight

Post Purchase Rationalization, a symptom of cognitive dissonance when someone genuinely regrets having purchased something that they purchased initially for emotional reasons. To remain consistent with their emotional commitment of the purchase, they change their rational world view to create a reality where their decision was justifiably correct. This will usually resolve itself with time, the person will realize that their real world view rejects the justification their previous purchase decision. Then they will usually feel betrayed (though no one has actually betrayed them other than themselves) and suddenly be an emotionally outspoken opponent to the original product, taking whatever steps needed to dispose of it, replace it, or return it. Marriages sometimes suffer from this, where the ex partner was never as good as the spouse claimed in marriage and never as bad as claimed after divorce.

295 Miss 80's Baby....right now they just had to get him out of here.  He was either going to spill his guts or pass out....neither would have been good.  While he has the sympathy of his country men and can still get another job it was wise to send him home.  I'm sure you will hear soon that he spoke to family and decided bp, the company he loves, would be better served run by someone else so he will take his money and go back to his life...or something on that order..If you read all the bloomberg articles I posted....he could not have endured another session with congress without saying something that maybe would not make him or them look bad....even something small like apologizing or something would have caused a fire storm....probably barton saw this or was told about this and was trying to not fan the fire...in the end Barton will probably turn out to be somewhat of a hero as he tried to do the right thing....following the prez's lead....and got screwed by his own party...

296

Bob Michel much?

If your choice is X or NOTX, and say your position is NOTX, then you would want those who represent you to take the NOTX position.  You surely don't want them to start with HALFX.  Cause you don't want X at all.  And if they start with HALFX, and they are way in minority, what you are going to get is X with a promise of a blue-ribbon, bi-partisan commission who will have 3 panelists named by the majority party, 2 by the President, and 1 by the minority party, who will be given the task of studying how many poor children will starve to death if we only did 90%X. 

Now, obviously, the world is not just binary choices, but Ace you are making the argument that half a loaf is better than none.  Which is an okay argument, but then again, is eating half a turd better than eating a whole one? 

Say you said to your best friend, look, I don't want to eat a turd, and he comes back and says, look that's a non-starter, I'll see if I can make it so you eat a third of a turd, and then when it's two thirds, you are supposed to say, whew, good thing I didn't eat that whole thing. 

Or would you prefer that your friend take the position that you shouldn't eat a turd at all, and fought to the last on it. 

But again, it isn't all that binary. 

And I don't see how Barton actually fits into this - he wasn't taking a position that the Congress should pass a law banning thuggery in the White House or something.  He was stating his position - whether you agree with it or not.  And we've never heard of him before this, and somehow what he says is the sum total of the GOP position?  Hell, Maxine Waters says that she wants to take over the oil companies - the government take control of them.  Not just BP, but hte whole lot of them.  Did she apologize?  Was she asked to step down from a committee? 

You know the answer, of course. 

 Eff them.  You can't play by their rules, those are losers rules. 

Go.  Fight.  Win. 

And if you aren't willing to, send me some candidates who will. 

 

297 Remember how "socialist" became a term of hate-speech this summer?

Am I the only guy noticing this stuff?

In fairness to Ace, what's obvious to us on the HQ is not obvious to the public at large, since most of us were able to determine Obama's actual positions well in advance of the election.  (As did Sarah Palin).

298

what are we to say of Joe Barton, who is paid $200,000 a year to communicate with the public, has a million-dollar staff at his disposal to do just this, and was speaking at a highly-reported televised congressional inquiry?

Not to be argumentative, brother. Who is to say Barton didn't persuade anyone?

Sure, we are hearing the condemnations from the media  and lefty politicians..and the concomitant apologizes from the spineless GOP establishment (which is at the core of the uproar here)..

...but how do you know none of the great unwashed weren't prompted to re-evaluate??..

 

299 289 Entropy:

If those asking for moderation (I'd call it incrementalism) are doing it wrong, who's doing it right ?

Some folks here (not sure if you're one) seem to think there's some Anti-McCain uber-Con waiting in our wings that us squishies are keeping down.  To them, I'm asking who's your boy (or girl) ?

I'd support Ryan or Christie right now for 2012, not our putative front-runners (I'm citing them for the best Conservative credentials recognizing that neither may want to run and Christie may not have the foreign policy chops, but Barry has less than zero qualifications, so he wouldn't a tough act to follow).  Ryan has the intellect and Christie has the instincts and speaking style needed to get in Libs faces.

300 "300 OT: (and sorry if already mentioned) But the Economist has an artilce out today that kinda sorta agrees with the substance of Barton's Infamous Apology (BIA) from yesterday. The gist? Obama is Vladamir Putin. Posted by: Alex at June 18, 2010 03:01 PM (NyuGm)" Hot, irresponsible rhetoric from extreme rightwing sources like "The Economist" are distinctly unhelpful in forging the coalitions we need to move America forward. And to get some of the $20B.

301 I think this debate (if I even understand what the hell it is about anymore) really comes down to the answer to one question:  Who is more important in an off year election?

1. Adults who answer the phone
2. Registered Voters that may or may not vote.
3. Likely Voters

One of the "facts" is that the GOP currently has a significant lead among "enthusiastic" voters. 

This one week seminar on Political Science 301 we got going on is some damned interesting reading, but nothing that happened yesterday is going to change the overall dynamics of this situation.  As long as that oil keeps gushing and the government fails to adequately deal with it on the coast, the Democrats will bleed support.

Even on the libtard community site I am on where a few posters actually played the "Barton is an evil man, a real asshole" card, the prevailing sentiment is that the government is fucking up.  If that is the meme that is penetrating the haze surrounding a bunch of deep thinkers who actually support Green party candidates for city council, well........

302

Drew is a great blogger.

many disagreed on what context was pertinent,

.

i saw shakedown, some saw apologise , as the thrust of Barton's point.

yes barton could have spoken better, in fact He does look better waching the whole discussion.

personally if i was testy, i claim the fact that everyday with this administration is another day of (to steal from some dude name Bob) What's next!

 

303 Oh geez drew, you can't leave...you get up way earlier than ace...it would be a waste land her otherwise...and may I add ....thank God for PA and Monty..
and gabe....anyone willing to get up early with us....

304 -->Then are we simply discussing the Fall of Rome, here, or what ? 

Pretty much, as I see it.

-->Accepting your premise, there's no point in running any candidates no matter how red-blooded Conservative they are and no point in anyone getting wee-wee'd about Drew, Barton or Ace.

Not at all.  First of all, I realize that it is only my view and I may well be wrong.  I am usually wrong on my timing (though I have been pretty good about general trends - at least I think so).  And, even in the Fall of Rome, there is a great deal of importance in how that fall is managed.  What comes out on the other side can be very nice or it can be very ugly.  I do think that there is a very small chance that the US can be rescued, but with the impending monetary catastrophe that I see coming, I don't think so.

Other than that, it's still a matter of doing what I think is right, no matter if I think it is likely in vain.  The world needs the American creed to survive.  That is the most important pursuit.  Not the continued existence of the US, converted into some socialist or third world shithole.

-->I just don't see things that darkly just yet.  If 20 more years of creeping socialism happened before Barry I'd be less optimistic, and we've still got a looong way to go, but we ain't dead yet.

Posted by: societyis2blame at June 18, 2010 02:49 PM (7ZyYf)

Too many serious issues are coming down the pike.  The monetary situation.  Israel's need to take out Iran's nuke program.  The illegal alien invasion, now coupled with the dems' full-out attacks on that state (by dems using the power of other states and municipalities and by dems allying with foreign enemies to attack Arizona).  Added to all this are the traditions, laws, procedures, and taboos that have been pushed aside by an Indonesian who cares little for anything American or Western.

I just think we are past the point of no return.  But, hopefully I'm wrong.  So, just in case, best to try and have the governance try to be corrected and try to have America restored so much as possible.

That's how I see it.

305 Can't we all blame this on DrewM and move on? That's what Jesus would do.

306

O/T...

Not a big fan of kickball soccer, but just how fucking bad was that call that nullified the US goal. ??

307 Why all the angst about Drew's opinion?  He had to get it up fast sure...but I prefer an instinctive response.  It is the most honest.

And his instinct was clear....the Republicans should be joining the Dems and pounding on evil oil (BP) right now, because the Gulf citizens have been harmed and want revenge.

A perfectly sane and natural opinion.

But some of us disagreed (me until 3 am), wholeheartedly, and still do today.

Isn't this what blogs are for?

308 oh they are so upset over there that obie decided to leave them....you wouldn't want to put us in that kind of misery would you drew?

309

Ok,  I just got done scanning the vast majority of comments.

One theme is that supporting Joe Barton only gets 30% of the conservatives and you lose the middle 30% that you might get.

A couple of holes in that theory.  Many elections less than 50% even shows up.  And if you poke a stick in the eye of your base, they not only might not show, but they don't donate or volunteer (2008 & McCain?).  Often elections are based on turnout, and you need an enthusiastic base.

Look at the past 80 years and how Democrats behave and how Republicans behave.  Who acts like the winners and who acts like the losers?  And how many years has Congress been under Democrat control?

In my own experience, my precinct is 60-65% Democrat.  In our most recent statewide election, the conservative Republican pulled 41% of the vote and the moderate Republican pulled 39% in my precinct.  Incidentally, both candidates won by about 20% statewide.

310 It looks like there's a big spat on the Far Left too. Seems that Olbermann upset the Kos purists and conspiracy theorists, and their insistence on party purity was too much even for Edward R Olbermann;

Olbermann leaves Kos over Obama speech criticism

This might bolster Ace's assertion that extremism and insistence on 100 percent purity is a loser with the general public that needs assurance.

Either that or Olberdouche realizes that at a certain point you have to back off since hosting Pacifica Radio doesn't pay quite so well as MSNBC

311 301 Signpost:

On Kagan I'm happy if the we unanimously go on record opposing her lousy resume, stance on political speech and judicial activism, but since we aren't keeping her off the bench, that's as far as we can go.  But yes, we do need to worry about providing ammunition to the other side (e.g. the lesbian shit's a third rail - just walk away).   

312 Can't we all blame this on DrewM and move on? That's what Jesus would do.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at June 18, 2010 03:05 PM (pEK05)

Ace needs to spring for a new troll, we do better when we have a troll to beat up on.

313

CNN Poll:  82% of Americans approve of a BP escrow fund

What do we get with an 18% majority?

314

Not a big fan of kickball soccer, but just how fucking bad was that call that nullified the US goal. ??

Posted by: beedubya at June 18, 2010 03:05 PM (AnTyA)

The nullification call was awful, but those noisy vulva's were even more so.

315

http://tinyurl.com/2a9hdlo

A patent on emissions trading from 2005. Inventors Franklin Raines et al. Assignee Fannie Mae.

What does this mean?

316 Posted by: kbdabear at June 18, 2010 03:07 PM (sYxEE)

according to my buds, they are pming each other like mad...sorry that he is gone and wanting him back....

317 You'll vote the way we tell you to vote, and you'll like it!

318 Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 18, 2010 03:08 PM (w41GQ)

beck is presently trying to figure this out....and he leads you to water, get's you to put on the bathing suit and then you have to dive in....

319 One of the "facts" is that the GOP currently has a significant lead among "enthusiastic" voters. 

Yeah, but why?  Most of us slam "the GOP" on a regular basis for various reasons, some because the squishes are in charge and others because the GOP shoots itself in the foot on a regular basis.  Which element of the GOP is appealing to likely voters? 

I don't think those poll numbers inform us on which tact to take vis a vis hard-lining it.  Everyone here can choose to interpret the GOP's (current) lead in the polls as supporting their position: hard-liners/purists can think it's because of folks like Palin, pragmatists/squishes can think it's because of a rejection of Obama/Peloisi/Reid, etc. 

320

one more thing. . How many of us would have even known about the "shakdown" (i know Ace doesn't like that term. but how many of us would be aware of this crappy deal at all if it wasn't for Barton.

Brings my mind back to Joe the Plumber. what did He say wrong? 

something true.

 Media and left went after Him the same way, to destroy Him, make it about Joe was a skinhead or didn't pay His taxes on time. Why? cause He  Obama , when they attacked It ended up exposing  them all.

thank you Joe.

321 the biggest problem in the next presidential election will be getting people to actually care and go out and vote.  If the dems convince them that BO has won a second term and there is no sense in even bothering to vote cause your vote won't matter then they'll stay home and bite the bullet for 4 more years...

322 I saw the link to the patent  in a comment on the British political site Order Order, proprietor Guido Fawkes.

323 (HotAir) CNN is apparently seriously considering Kathleen Parker as the conservative co-host of Eliot Spitzer's new show.

324

Good points. Before I get into which paradigm I subscribe to, some points:

First, we need to pick our battles. Agenda-setting theory says the media offer the list of cattles we can choose from. For better or for worse, this theory has substance. They pick the contests; fortunately, they don't pick the winners.

Second, the fight needs to be something people can relate to. "Federalism" isn't a winning issue; neither is "Constitutional constructionalism vis-à-vis the Tenth Amendment." If you can't win along themes that people can easily get their minds around, don't bother.

Third, you have to know who's with you, who's against you and who's between the trenches. This is where polling becomes valuable -- knowing which fights are winnable.

That said, there are some fights where we should take an absolute, "maximalist" stand. Most of them are this way, probably. Some form of compromise will usually be part of the picture, but knowing your stance and being able to communicate it are essential.

So, there's this oil spill. It's (1) all over the news, people can (2) relate to the brown goo and what it means to them, and are (3) angry and scared. If the Republicans can portray this mess as a result of an incompetent executive branch (which it is) then Obama's a one-termer.

(I don't know how far off-topic I strayed. I guess I half-agree with Ace.)

325
But yes, we do need to worry about providing ammunition to the other side...


Watch your ass, mister.

^{/makes note to remember this for the upcoming Kagan posts}

326 "332 (HotAir) CNN is apparently seriously considering Kathleen Parker as the conservative co-host of Eliot Spitzer's new show." Oh boy!

327

To them, I'm asking who's your boy (or girl) ?

I have no idea who's going to run in 2012. But if it's the usual suspects from last time around, we need new candidates.

328 I may as well tell you that I think elena is there to be not voted in so they can put who they really want.

329

OT - White House confirms they will be filing suit against AZ immigration law.

FoxNews.com

330

Not to be argumentative, brother. Who is to say Barton didn't persuade anyone?

Posted by: beedubya at June 18, 2010 03:03 PM (AnTyA)

Exactly.  In fact, Barton's comment was so effective that a Dem critter spent his question time begging Hayward to say that what The Precedent did to BP wasn't "a shakedown" and then he was on his knees pleading with Hayward to say that the $20 billion wasn't a "slush fund".  I mean, I was LOL at that.  It was truly hysterical. 

When a Dem in the committee responded to Barton's comments with patently ridiculous attempts to prove them false, you know they were effective comments.  But that was drowned out by apology-gate.

331 326 You'll vote the way we tell you to vote, and you'll like it!
Posted by: Ace and the Mainstreams


If  I and a lot of commenters get tired of people insulting Ace, I'm sure he does as well. Ace doesn't tell us how to vote. Never has. He tells us what shampoo to use, what sexual positions are forbidden and who to marry. But how to vote? That's crazy.

332 322

CNN Poll:  82% of Americans approve of a BP escrow fund

What do we get with an 18% majority?

Posted by: motionview at June 18, 2010 03:08 PM

A large percentage of those 82 percent actually believe the escrow would actually be used to help those hurt by the spill. They probably didn't hear Sestak's proposal that it be thrown into the Obamacare fund.

No matter how much evidence you show to the contrary, there is a large part of the electorate that still believes "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

333

Here we have the moderates... so sensitive, so offendable.

Some nutjob bugfucker made death threats to BP executives on the floor of congress. "In asian culture we'd hand you a sword".

This gets less coverage on this website than some other bugfucker apologizing to BP.

334 Ace - your underlying assumption in the last couple of posts is that is Barton had said what he said in more crafted, well-articulated, and cagey way the leftist media wouldn't twist it. I'll be kind and just say that's a faulty assumption. No matter how well Barton said what he said, the left were going to lie and line up to cornhole him. Just like they do with everything else anyone on the right says. No amount of word wrangling will help that. The left twisted every syllable that Reagan uttered, but in the end he won. His message got out. Before the internet. Before Fox News. It got out because in the face leftist media onslaught he stood by his principles and "maximalized". (I'm really done using that inane piece of jargon. It's sounds like a word some marketing rep made up to discus selling cars. It goes on the list with synergy.) Anyway, we all need to stop assuming the leftist media will be anything other than a propaganda arm for the communist agenda. They aren't ever going to play fair so stop trying to court them. All we get for playing the media's game is a sore ass and a sticky back. No good thinking otherwise. The good news we do have more fingers in the media pie. So when we do get politicians willing to stand up for principles and speak the truth, they'll have an easier time than Reagan in influencing the public. That is if the useless GOP doesn't castrate said politician first.

335
btw, can we all agree that Rep Whathismane? who demanded Barton step down is no help to the party but more of a help to Democrats?

336 Neither Drew or I (or any other critic) is particularly invested in the proposition that what Obama did was good. Our problem is that Barton apologized to Heyward as if he works for him, which, by the way, isn't so terribly far from reality. Drew's problem that this was a stupid thing to say, not necessarily that this point was a dumb point to make in and of itself. But yeah, offering moral comfort for a company which I happen to believe is grossly negligent and is worried about actual jailtime for its officers (hence Obama's and Holder's ability to get them to offer company money as a bribe to the cops to save their own asses) is the worst possible way I can conceive of expressing what I now must confess is a much, much stronger point than I originally credited it as. /* And whose fault is that? Is it mine or Drew's? Were we too unreceptive to this thought? Were we too quick to dismiss it? Perhaps. But as a general matter the burden of persausian is on the speaker, not the hearer. I think this is cause for a lot of hostility here. This is why I often appear thin skinned. (Appear? Okay, AM thin skinned.) But the idea that I think contributes to anger in these arguments: If a statement strikes me as very unpersuasive, or even unpalatable, I feel that people are telling me it's my fault for that. No it's not. The burden is on the speaker to persuade, not on me to be persuaded. And the objection here was always less about the intellectual content of the statement than the emotional one. Intellectual content -- this is contrary to the rule of law. Okay, fine. Emotional content: I'm on your side tony heward. Not okay. Emotion trumps intellect every damn time.

337
.....quick question.....re: Bartons comments and the "shakedown".

What is the real public's perception on the escrow fund???    Is there any polling data to suggest most people "disagree" with the shakedown perception. 

Yeah.... the DNC is gonna make an ad run on the "protecting BP interests over the folks on the gulf ..... Republicans = Evil" schtick. That's a given.  When DOESNT the DNC run a Republicans = Evil meme.

But IMHO..... if your looking for miscalculations and gaffe ammo... by my reckonning... the score appears to be  42-3 at halftime ...... our favor.  Golf games, Jones Law, 52 days for a meeting with BP, Coast Guard shuts down clean up over lifejackets, President Jug Ears turned down assistance from thirteen countries, Jindal's sand reef permit delay.....

My point is Burton comments didn't occur in a vaccuum.  Do some feel they werent helpful.  Yes   Do some feel he was right on. Yes.   But what Burton said is not going to give much.... if ANY... cover to the administration.   

IMHO..... we dont have to pitch a perfect game to win this issue guys.  In casual converstation with  most of folks I work and live with.... what Burton said isnt even on the radar.  I think there is a ton of hay to be made with out descending into useless and divisive purist - v - pragmatist fight.

Anyway.... rant and mixed metaphors off......

338

When a Dem in the committee responded to Barton's comments with patently ridiculous attempts to prove them false, you know they were effective comments.  But that was drowned out by apology-gate.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 18, 2010 03:15 PM (Qp4DT)

So imagine how good it would have been had Barton never given an apology.

339 who demanded Barton step down is no help to the party but more of a help to Democrats?

I agree with that. 

340 332 (HotAir) CNN is apparently seriously considering Kathleen Parker as the conservative center-left co-host of Eliot Spitzer's new show.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 18, 2010 03:13 PM

FIFY. 

I guess it isn't high brow enough for Brooks

341

a Dem critter spent his question time begging Hayward to say that what The Precedent did to BP wasn't "a shakedown"

Hayward never did say it wasn't a shakedown, no matter how hard Rep. Braley tried...

...not hearing a peep in the media about that, are we?

342
Speaking of AZ...

Jan Brewer is a great example who did not compromise one single bit and ended up gaining a lot more support in the polls.

343 The Magna Carta = Somalia?

Of course not, but what you wrote about a 30% majority coming at the point of a gun and the context in which you wrote it has nothing to do with the Magna Carta or the US Constitution and everything to do with advocating armed revolt over political questions that can still be settled peacefully. 

344

He compounded this problem by arguing in favor of the shakedown on the later thread.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 18, 2010 02:41 PM (Qp4DT)

And I still think you are twisting his words to make it sound like he supports Obama in this case.  It was talking about how the story was going to be framed.  And like it or not the story gets framed as "Obama gets $20 billion from BP to help victims of oil spill."  Pointing out that the story is going to come out like that is not supporting it.

345 Ace, in watching those hearings and in watching the hearings with the banksters you felt uncomfortable watching.  If a hearing makes you that uncomfortable you have a response.  Allegedly this guy is supposed to repair our image in the world.  Well, the world watched those hearings too and it didn't look good for US at all.  Turn the tables put an American CEO in the hot seat in Britain or any other country, how would you feel.  Pissed is how....wouldn't you be saying "who the hell are they that they feel they can rake so and so over the coals like this over what most perceive as an accident"

346 "Jan Brewer is a great example who did not compromise one single bit and ended up gaining a lot more support in the polls." The game ain't over yet.

347 As I always ask: Are we in this for the catharsis? Are we here to prove how unapologetically, unashamedly indifferent we are to majority opinion?

Are we here to win, or only win if we can win with red meat statements?

Are craft and caginess despicable? Are they sneaky?

Hey we're all on the same side here. You said it yourself, small blog [ok much bigger than my six readers] made up of partisans who generally agree (accept for the piñatas who wonder in from time to time) I'm here for the no holds barred engaging discussion. Agree, disagree, argue to impasse, convince others, at least I get to see a cross section of conservative belief on topic. Sure sure, come game time (which it is definitely very close too, I think I just saw the ref pick up his signaling pistol) game faces, win, win, win. Until then I value the lively discussion esp. between the factions.



Joe Barton is a politician not a pundit. He doesn't get to be a shock jock without consequence. His job is to 'sell' conservative principals to as many as he can, not keep a steady supply coming for those whom have already made the buy decision; we have Rush and Sean for that. He may have had the right idea, he may have spoken truth, but the way he did so sold conservatism to....nobody, in fact he might have convinced a few potential buyers to check out the competition. So he failed at his 'job' of politician. Utterly failed. He deserved rebuke.

348 Renaming the post:  Two Theories, One Cup.

There, we'll call it a draw and move on to our next opponent.

349 Recently I was having yet another argument with some readers

I DON'T UNDERSTAND, I DON'T UNDERSTAND....

350 O/T:  Wow, only 7 players under par in the U.S. Open so far. 

351 Jan Brewer is a great example who did not compromise one single bit and ended up gaining a lot more support in the polls.

Posted by: a sign post up ahead at June 18, 2010

I hesitate to point this out, but you just argued ace's point for him.  Illegal immigrants are about as popular as BP is right now, and her opposition are the folks who have gone "all-in" for amnesty and open borders.

352 O/T:  Wow, only 7 players under par in the U.S. Open so far. 

Posted by: Y-not at June 18, 2010 03:24 PM (Kn9r7)

That's how it's supposed to be. 

353 You'd be putting us in a postion to cater to a skewed and perverted public perception due the Democrats propaganda machine. It doesn't really seem like a fair or even a wise place to start negotiations.

Posted by: a sign post up ahead at June 18, 2010 01:11 PM (uFokq)

Yes, I agree that you don't necessarily need to start from the farthest right position possible, but you certainly have to start from a position far enough to the right of where you are willing to settle to allow room to move.  The GOP often starts from the position they want, and then have nowhere to go to compromise, and/or end up compromising down to a leftist position.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at June 18, 2010 01:24 PM (sOx93)

I think that what is being missed here is that it does not matter what your position is if you don't have a seat at the negotiation table.

The way to get that seat is to win elections.

The way to win elections, the only way, is to appeal to enough of the moderate, undecided, independent, voting population.  And yeah, lots of those voters have "skewed and perverted" perceptions to what ever small degree they perceive much of anything at all.

That's unfortunate but that's also the reality.

Railing about the unfairness of it all accomplishes precisely squat.

You can legitimately charge past malpractice on the part of those designated to represent your interests and I don't think that fears of future malpractice are at all unfounded.

If those fears pan out, there is a remedy for that eventuality but the name of the game at this point, is getting fucking someone at the goddamned table.  Right now we have no one.

So, as distasteful as it may be, it is imperative to figure out where the imbecilic undecideds are right now (not where they should be) and convince them that "our guy" is "their guy" too and that he should have a seat.

Because they decide.

Save the corrections of skewed and perverted public perceptions and the arguments about negotiation tactics for after you're in the room and in a position to, uhm, you know negotiate.

354 353
Speaking of AZ...

Jan Brewer is a great example who did not compromise one single bit and ended up gaining a lot more support in the polls.

Posted by: a sign post up ahead at June 18, 2010 03:20 PM (uFokq)

But the public is overwhelmingly on the side of enforcement.  She's benefitting from doing something the public views favorably.

355

>> Which is it? The Democrats convinced the American people that Bush ruined the economy, foreign policy, and the wars, yet the facts did not prove their argument. The Democrats won in 2006 & 2008 on those arguments.

06 was more war weary than economy. 08 was both.

 

 

356 right now I'd vote for jan brewer and sarah palin and sorry, I know i'm  not alone.

357

CNN Poll:  82% of Americans approve of a BP escrow fund

What do we get with an 18% majority?

Posted by: motionview at June 18, 2010 03:08 PM

America was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.  If you want a Democracy, then you don't like America and the American creed.

If America chooses to become a Democracy, or worse, than that is a choice best found out as soon as possible, since there are some states which will prefer to leave and set up a Constitutional Republic that will carry on the American creed and our traditions, which made this the greatest nation that has ever existed.

358

I hesitate to point this out, but you just argued ace's point for him

I'm not quite so sure about that. I think her popularity is in large part due to standing up to the out of control federal governement...and Obama in particular..

359

>> I hesitate to point this out, but you just argued ace's point for him.  Illegal immigrants are about as popular as BP is right now, and her opposition are the folks who have gone "all-in" for amnesty and open borders.

Boy no shit. Imagine (if you will), Barton apologizing to illegals for their "mistreatment" in AZ.

Actually you don't have to imagine it, Dems are doing it every day.

How's that position going with the "mediators"?

360 Here is the entire video of Barton's remarks. How many of you knew he condemned BP multiple times for their actions?

361 Ace, it may feel like you, Drew, et al. have taken a beating lately, but AOSHQ is a site where folks can express viewpoints, not always in the most unemotional manner, but in the manner that I think even the Founding Fathers probably did. 

Take this for whatever it's worth, but you run a kick ass site that serves a valuable purpose in this world.

362 ?? 360 comments in an hour and a half??  On something as arcane as theory of negotiations? 

WTF ??  When did this place stop doing boob pics and turn into Geek-central?

But on a serious note:  As elegant analysis of negotiation (arbitration?) theory is, I think it's crucial to keep in mind that the proggies/socialists/marxist/Dems don't actually want to negotiate with those of us on the conservative side.  Their idea of negotiating is to emote and play the victim-card (raaaacist!), get the MFM to staert echoing the cry, and force the Repubs to fold the hand to avoid looking mean.

And so far it's worked every single time.

363 353 Signpost:

I agree that Brewer's done a great job handling AZ's immigration law - both in getting it passed and defending it against the usual suspects.  It wouldn't be as popular nationally but CO and other border states (with the predictable exception of CA) may follow suit.  AZ wrote a good law, knew it had broad public support, and followed through.

364 O/T: Oh, you're gonna love this:
Will Folks Endorses Nikki Haley

365 "Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 18, 2010 03:29 PM (Yq+qN)" I'm glad you're posting that, M80B. Apparently, many people aren't paying much attention to it.

366
The way to win elections, the only way, is to appeal to enough of the moderate, undecided, independent, voting population.  And yeah, lots of those voters have "skewed and perverted" perceptions to what ever small degree they perceive much of anything at all.

=====================================

Isn't the trick to do it without losing your base? This is what the Republicans, apparently, cannot do. The try to appeal to the moderates by publicly humiliating or shunning their base.

It's become an all too common of a practice (see: McCain) for Republcans to take shots at their conservative base in order to win favor of the middle, left, and media. It does not work. It's not a winning formula.

367

Well progress, I think you just passed Barton for "the most politically stupid statement of the year".  Have you been advising Joseph Cao?

368 370

I hesitate to point this out, but you just argued ace's point for him

I'm not quite so sure about that. I think her popularity is in large part due to standing up to the out of control federal governement...and Obama in particular..

Posted by: beedubya

Try reading the rest of my post then.  Ace is essentially saying that apologizing for a pariah is not politics, yes?

Illegal immigration is profoundly unpopular at the moment, yes?

Obama, the out of control government and amnesty shills of all stripes are her opposition, yes?

Do I need to draw a diagram? This is exactly ace's Barton scenario (of which I am a bit skeptical) demonstratively working, but in our favor.

369 >>>Joe Barton is a politician not a pundit. He doesn't get to be a shock jock without consequence. His job is to 'sell' conservative principals to as many as he can, not keep a steady supply coming for those whom have already made the buy decision; we have Rush and Sean for that. Good way to put it.

370 Monkey stole the peach.

371

CNN Poll:  82% of Americans approve of a BP escrow fund

What do we get with an 18% majority?

That is the problem. You're reactionary. A poll chaser. You see 82% approve and think "Oh noes! We mustn't oppose it!"

Hell yes you oppose it, because it's terrible. You tell them it's a slush fun, that Congressman so-and-so is suggesting we use it to "plug the hole" in financing for Obama's reckless healthcare plans, when we haven't even plugged the hole in the gulf. That BP get's to use it's own fund for paying for the cleanup and repair they were already on the hook for. That by the time they've finally plugged the thing there might not be any money left for actual victims. 

That when your pipes spring a leak and water is gushing all over your kitchen, the first thing you do is cut off the damn water. There's no way we should be settling damages with BP now when the damage isn't even done. That since the oil is still spilling we can't say how much damage there will be in total, and it's irresponsible corporate favoritism to let them off the hook with only $20B while the oil is still gushing.

I don't care if it's true. The implication is that this is all BP will ever pay, now, and it's not enough. That was Obama's intention. You want SNEAKY? Keep repeating it. Millions will buy it, and get pissed.

That a court of law hands duly-decided damages out straight to the victims who were harmed, NOT to Congress, or some executive committee, to spend on naming more buildings after themselves or handing out disproportionately to people who will kick it back in campaign contributions.

Of course 82% oppose it, when no one gives them any other story and anyone who hints at it winds up apologizing for it. Granted, he had his foot in his mouth and is an incompitent speaker. But he apologized for having the opinion.

Now what happens? Everyone that was with him (these guys are on our side) throws up their hands and goes home. They were ready to fight, but the general has surrendered. The war is over. Now they're demoralized and apathetic.

We're not allowed faction?

And everybody else, it's settled business. The guy apologized. He didn't try to explain, he didn't double down, he admitted guilt for an 'unacceptable, extreme' position.

Fucking Caesar, summons his legions, crosses the Rubicon and says "The die is cast I'm sorry! I didn't mean it! I'll go back to Gaul!"

Know what happens? Pompei, Scylla and Cato kill him.

372

Posted by: chemjeff at June 18, 2010 03:31 PM

Jeff..check this out in light of one of the discussions in the ONT

 

373 369:  I'd have to read up a bit more on Brewer but I'm good with that ticket if Sarah could win the independents back by schooling the next pack of media weasels that try to "Bush Doctrine" her.  I'm in a liberal fishbowl here in CA but I do know some genuine independents here and she's got a long climb before they'd vote for her.  I'm still more for Palin as NRC chair than as a candidate.

374

I don't know if I inadvertently made Ace's point with my point.
Because my understanding of Ace's approach is to never take the hardline; be more flexible.

375 apologizing for a pariah is not GOOD politics, yes?

376

Dammit! Barton ruined the political orgasm I was about to have regarding the oil well castrophe and Obama's downfall.

We had a no hitter going until Barton lobbed one right over the center of the plate.

377 I hate it when the family fights.  Can't we all just hug it out and laff at Willl Folks?

378 Looks like there is now a feeding frenzy regarding Svanberg demoting Hayward. I don't think anyone is paying as much attention to Barton at this point. Still, i wish we could have started this conversation with the full video of what the man said.

379 not a Democracy...

That may be so, but the last time I checked, we do have some sort of democratic process for selecting representatives, one coming up in a few months in fact. One some of even see as kind of important. It might do well for "our guys" not to piss on the opinions of 80% of the electorate.

380 I'm a time traveller.  I came back to June 2010, just to remember the good old times when Ace was naive and open.

November 2010 brings bad times.  The US House of Representatives refusing to seat freshman republicans winners, and instead seating the incumbent democrats who lost despite no evidence of voter fraud.  The 'deeming' of election results by voice vote.  Democrats "winning" elections despite electronic voting machines disappearing completely, armed vigilantes closing polling sites in conservative areas, unions having 'parades' and 'protests' that block voters' ability to get to certain polling places (and the police there to 'prevent violence').

The second amendment protects your right to carry a loaded rifle into the voting booth.  Once we gave that away, the other infringements were a slippery slope.

381

Intellectual content -- this is contrary to the rule of law. Okay, fine.

Emotional content: I'm on your side tony heward.

Not okay.

Emotion trumps intellect every damn time.

Posted by: ace



This is why the rule of law should, well, rule. It tries to divorce emotion from the equation.

382 But, if Ms. Brewer is on the side of something popular that the American people are completely with, where are the cold calculating politically savvy Repulican leadership members who are standing strong with her?  Shouldn't those savvy R's we are being told about who are always holding their fire until the important fight get behind her?

383

Would now be a good time to mention that Barack Obama didn't cause the mess in the Gulf of Mexico?

And that pointing out that he didn't cause a mess has been his method of governing?

And that this method of leadership does more harm than good?

384 Part of framing the argument as "Maximallist v Centrist" though is it glosses over structural differences.

The D position on unemployment: "It should pay better than working at Wallmart, and never expire."

The centrist R's: "Well, perhaps we can extend it some."

What passes for conservative R's: "We should hold the line here - we want people actively working of getting a job."

Fringe absolutists: "The whole system should be scrapped! What the hell business is it of the Feds anyway?"


---
But the change (IMNSFHO) we should be aiming for is structural. If you had your own retirement savings account, and your employer directly deposited a slice equivalent to today's unemployment insurance into it, when you're laid off you're drawing down your own personal wealth. Knowing that you're below the minimum requirements and going to have to save up more when you do get a job.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with spending some time on "Funemployment" and living a little - if you're doing it on your own dime. This structure works for a pretty wide array of the current entitlement craziness, and would be more palatable to the centrist if "padded" with some redistribution.

So I hold an "Absolutist" position - the whole system should be structurally rearranged. On the other hand, I can be described as a Centrist - or worse - because any switch would involve high transition costs.

385 The only purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis. The longer we 'negotiate', the longer they have to dig in and reinforce. It's a fool's game to behave otherwise. They want what they want, they'll take and hold it by whatever means they find necessary. You're arguing rules variants to the wrong game. And the ref is in the tank. Deal out, reinforce, and get ready to survive the inevitable. There is no more purpose to negotiating with the left then there is going for another round of useless, meaningless sanctions on Iran. Absolutely none.

386

375 ?? 360 comments in an hour and a half??  On something as arcane as theory of negotiations? 

WTF ??  When did this place stop doing boob pics and turn into Geek-central?

 

Whatever it takes to stop discussions about sissyball soccer.

387

[Barton] complained that “the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that’s unprecedented in our nation’s history, that’s got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.”

“I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.”

“I’m speaking now totally for myself,” he noted. “I’m not speaking for the Republican Party.”

There is no way to construe what he said as absolving BP of their negligence.

And no amount of leftwing propaganda or a sissified GOP, will change his actual words....

388 "Posted by: Time Traveller at June 18, 2010 03:37 PM (j8aSQ)" Dood, what's the problem? Politics is the art of compromise, right? Go with the flow--you'll feel better.

389 Ace discovers "medical" marijuana on Friday afternoon. 

So what kind of post do you  think he'll give us?

See above.

390 373 Here is the entire video of Barton's remarks. How many of you knew he condemned BP multiple times for their actions?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 18, 2010 03:29 PM (Yq+qN)

Its been pointed out several times.  Perception of reality and reality are two different things though.  Reality is Tina Fey said "I can see Russia from my house."  Perceived Reality is Sarah Palin said it.  Reality is Barton blasted BP multiple times and only apologized for them getting a shakedown from the chicago thug in the white house.  Perceived reality is Barton apologizes to BP.

391 That is the problem. You're reactionary. A poll chaser. You see 82% approve and think "Oh noes! We mustn't oppose it!"

No, no, not at all.
But coming in on the down side of an 80/20 split takes a lot more nuance than, 'I'm sorry my fucked up government is doing this immensely popular thing. '

He might have just of well said "We need to end social security and medicare", yes, we do, but say those words without a lot of 'over time' 'reduce dependence without reducing benefits for those already in those programs' caveat nuance and your going down in flames, period, and you deserve to.

392 Emotion trumps intellect every damn time.

Congratulations!  You just jumped up and down on the biggest hot button I have!

Dude, the reason that makes me blindly furious (which is hilarious since that's an emotional reaction) is that you're correct.  I loathe that.  I detest that.  Why?  Because I've worked long and hard and thought and argued and all the rest to come to a reasoned position as to what and why I believe.  Knowing that my vote counts just as much as the woman's who won't vote for Christie because omg he's faaaaaat makes me want to throat punch a hippie. 

393 Posted by: Time Traveller at June 18, 2010 03:37 PM

Well, it is good to know that in the future there are no requirements that one must not be under the influence while operating heavy machinery.

394

g-d  imagine if we actually had a real mfm.

 

395 384 Entropy:  Getting from 18% to 51% is some manly work.  I get where you're coming from - I still remember Reagan telling basically his whole administration and the rest of the world "No" on ditching SDI - but he wasn't proven right on that until after he left office.  But choosing not swimming against an 82% tide on behalf of a complicit and likely-culpable "victim" doesn't make you a "poll-chaser."  To bring up a point we made before in the Thread That Shall Not Be Named, BP marched itself to the gallows, making it much tougher for their erstwhile defenders (which would have included me).

   

396 "Posted by: pam at June 18, 2010 03:39 PM (h8R9p)" Yep. Everything he said was correct. Everything.

397

Maybe some people do get it afterall:

The senate hearings reminded me very much of the show trials held in Germany ! CNBC itself said that the most intelligent man in the room was Hayward himself and to be honest they were right!! As for the female demonstrator I wonder how she managed to get into the hearings with all the make- up on and with nobody trying to stop her, I suppose this was just for extra dramatic effect! Since when does somebody have to give evidence before all the facts are fully known, no one person could be expected to have complete information on all BP's drilling at one time.

The Americans should be spending there time cooperating with BP and other companies involved in order to save the Gulf and carry out the blame game once the well is capped and the worst is cleared up! Obama's reaction is in order to save his Presidency but repercussion's will be felt for long into the future especially the next time an American company causes environmental damage such as Bhopal - God forbid)

- Brussels, 18/6/2010 20:02

 

398
We sometimes have to pick a hill to die on. We sometimes must make a stand, even if we know we will get steamrolled. A woman does not negotiate about the quantity of rape she's going to endure. She says NO!

There must be some sort of non-negotiable boundaries, and if we trade our principals for expediency we don't deserve to be elected, nor would we do any good if we are.


The system is going to right itself eventually, with or without us, our principals are going to win out. The only question is how much misery is it going to take before people give up trying to run away from our principals, instead of running towards them.

399

what you wrote about a 30% majority coming at the point of a gun and the context in which you wrote it has nothing to do with the Magna Carta or the US Constitution

My examples, that I wrote, were the US revolution and the Baron's revolution.

Nothing to do, eh?

Politics is war by other means. There's no distinction to the difference you're trying to draw.

400 #380 - Define the difference between a politically stupid statement and a nonpolitically stupid statement and an apolitically stupid statement, or acknowledge that you're out of your depth here.

401 "not to go swimming" - the buck stops with me and I accept full responsibility - for  my keyboard's failings today.

402 I hesitate to point this out, but you just argued ace's point for him.  Illegal immigrants are about as popular as BP is right now, and her opposition are the folks who have gone "all-in" for amnesty and open borders.

Jan Brewer has the law on her side.  Illegals do not.

BP had the law on its side (which was Barton's point).  The Precedent does not.

I am quite amazed that people are willing to condemn BP as mainly at fault when we haven't gotten the results of any investigations, at all.  We don't know exactly what happened.  We don't know what the regulators were really doing (though we know they were surfing porn - what is up with these people surfing porn at the office - WTF?).  We don't know what might have happened had the idiots not tried to put the fire out, causing the rig to sink and break the pipe (that was a Coast Guard decision, I gather, not a BP one).  We have this incredible lack of information and already $20 billion has been extorted from a private company to pay for damages, many of which are due to the federal government's intentionally inept (Bill Cosby dish-washing style) containment/clean-up.

I hate BP more than pretty much everyone here, I can assure you.  I want to see that company bankrupt and never able to affect US policy again (or any state's policies).  But, I would never want to trash the US and our Constitutional limits in order to do that, especially when BP might not even be close to the most dangerous, or responsible (liability-wise) player in this whole catastrophe.

403

We sometimes have to pick a hill to die on.

I agree Diogenes but this is not that hill.  First, if BP won't stand up for themselves why should we jump on our swords for them?  Second, they are a prime mover in the Cap & Tax fiasco, clearly they have no problem using the power of the state to get what they want.

404
Why can't we simultaneously hold BP responsible for the damages and hold Obama to the confines of the law?

Speaking for myself I do not give a rip about BP. What concerns me is Obama overreaching and setting dangerous precedents.

405

But choosing not swimming against an 82% tide on behalf of a complicit and likely-culpable "victim" doesn't make you a "poll-chaser."  To bring up a point we made before in the Thread That Shall Not Be Named, BP marched itself to the gallows, making it much tougher for their erstwhile defenders (which would have included me).

Fuck BP. Soggy British communists.

Make Obama pay for it. Cut into his 82%. Play offensive for a change instead of apologizing. In stead of running in shock to distance yourself from your own side. Reinvent his comments into something that's not stupid - if you want to be sneaky and effective, rather than sneaky and self defeating.

You're totally missing it.

406
or...what pop said above.

407 Jan Brewer has the law on her side.  Illegals do not.

BP had the law on its side (which was Barton's point).  The Precedent does not.

That's true, and you are correct, but ace and the sparring partner in question are not arguing the law, they are arguing the optics.  If one is going argue with ace on that, which seems a futile exercise anyways, one ought not cite the one example which seems to reinforce ace's argument.  Which, btw is not about the law, but about pragmatism and his theory of how to win friends and influence people.

408 406 Emotion trumps intellect every damn time.

Congratulations!  You just jumped up and down on the biggest hot button I have!

Dude, the reason that makes me blindly furious (which is hilarious since that's an emotional reaction) is that you're correct.  I loathe that.  I detest that.  Why?  Because I've worked long and hard and thought and argued and all the rest to come to a reasoned position as to what and why I believe.  Knowing that my vote counts just as much as the woman's who won't vote for Christie because omg he's faaaaaat makes me want to throat punch a hippie. 

Posted by: alexthechick at June 18, 2010 03:40 PM (8WZWv)

I would point out that if voting were limited to people who actually PAY THE GOVERNMENTS BILLS, then we would have a far more frugal and otherwise sensible government. (The 24th amendment was a mistake! So was the 26th!)

Nowadays, too many people who suck on the government teat have just as much say as those who are providing the milk.

409

#414  there are some states which will prefer to leave and set up a Constitutional Republic that will carry on the American creed and our traditions

This is a fucking stupid statement, political, apolitical, or nonpolitical

410 Pam gets it.

411 >>>Make Obama pay for it. Cut into his 82%. Play offensive for a change instead of apologizing. In stead of running in shock to distance yourself from your own side. Reinvent his comments into something that's not stupid - if you want to be sneaky and effective, rather than sneaky and self defeating. I agree wholeheartedly! We'll put THE SYSTEM on trial!!!!

412 I reiterate, nothing to do.  You can try and dress your rhetoric up by disguise it as coming from the same place that the Revolution did, but it is nowhere near comparable.  The Declaration of Independence lists a number of intolerable acts on the order of disbanding of legislatures, suspending habeus corpus, using quartered troops to hold the populace hostage, etc.  You have a pledge to raise taxes and an unpopular health care plan.  Sorry they are nowhere near comparable. 

413

Knowing that my vote counts just as much as the woman's who won't vote for Christie because omg he's faaaaaat makes me want to throat punch a hippie.

Give it back to them, alex: Tell a Lefty that you're against cap and trade because the school nurse at your elementary school said you could get head lice by wearing each other's hats, and "cap and trade" sounds like everyone in the country is trading caps. "Eww, just the thought of that passing that law makes my head itch." And don't waver: Let that be your only opposition to the bill.

I'm guessing that adamant stupidity goes against your nature, but it's fun.

414

But coming in on the down side of an 80/20 split takes a lot more nuance than, 'I'm sorry my fucked up government is doing this immensely popular thing. '

Yeah, he ate his shoe.

How do you figgure your helping by going after him?

You're not.

Mr. Pragmatic, what's done is done. The media ties you to him. You cannot run from it.

Redefine it.

415

There is no way to construe what he said as absolving BP of their negligence.

And no amount of leftwing propaganda or a sissified GOP, will change his actual words....

Posted by: pam at June 18, 2010 03:39 PM (h8R9p)

And I think its really cute that you think his actual words are going to get any real play.

Of course he didn't absolve them of their negligence. I said last night no one here believes he did.  But that doesn't change the fact that he did apologize to BP.  And that will get the coverage.  That a GOP congressman apologized to BP.  Not what his reasons for the apology for.  Not that he blasted them several times for what they have done.  The coverage would be on his one statement of apology.  And it will be spun to sound as "GOP congressman apologizes to BP for them having to pay $20 billion to spill victims."  Reality is going to take a backseat to that no matter how much you don't want it to.

416 I hate BP more than pretty much everyone here, I can assure you.  I want to see that company bankrupt and never able to affect US policy again (or any state's policies).  But, I would never want to trash the US and our Constitutional limits in order to do that, especially when BP might not even be close to the most dangerous, or responsible (liability-wise) player in this whole catastrophe.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 18, 2010 03:43 PM (Qp4DT)

I read earlier today (off of monty's links I believe) that investors in Europe are telling their investment consultants that that stunt by obama extorting money out of BP has convinced them to stay away from the USA and put their money elsewhere. If Obama can illegally coerce BP, they can illegally coerce any other company.

My point is, if this is true, not only is this act by Obama against our principles, it has just hurt the country economically as well. The combination of Principle and Pocketbook is as powerful of an argument as it is possible to make.

417 >>>>This is why the rule of law should, well, rule. It tries to divorce emotion from the equation. As I always ask: What the hell does "should" have to do with anything at all?

418

Your states are now belong to us.

 

419

I reiterate, nothing to do.  You can try and dress your rhetoric up by disguise it

No, sorry. Actually you do not get to tell me what I mean. Good try though.

from the same place that the Revolution did, but it is nowhere near comparable. 

You're also historically illiterate, but that's moot.

420 Only one way to end this debate. Someone please start a new thread.

421
It has been brought to my attention that I am being a real bitch lately. I was trying to confess that in an offhand way. I am super-bitchy lately.

Have some midol and a spot of camomille tea, and you'll feel much better...

422

"Rule of law" is a losing issue. As basic as that seems to everyone here, it's too abstract.

Remember how many people said Gore really won in 2000 because Bush only won on those made-up "electorial" votes. Shouldn't they just count real votes?

423

Every Passionate Lawyer You've Ever Seen In A Sidney Pollack Courtroom Drama

That's how the left plays.

It doesn't win them all elections, it doesn't even win them most.

And yet, in the long run of things, they still get their way.

424 We sometimes have to pick a hill to die on. Rape..etc

You are approaching conflict from the emotional stance. Being angry does not make you a good fighter any more than being horny makes you Don Juan. In some fights it is good to have your dander up, but in all fights it is discipline which will bring victory.

As far as choosing a hill to die on, sure there are times you do that.

Yes see my comment from yesterday about when you should make that decision. As part of strategy, picking a hill to die on is only acceptable when.

A. You might win.
B. Losing actually helps you in the long run.
C. There is no hope left and you have nothing better to do with your time.

With the BP situation the way it is, we are not going to win the argument, in fact just fighting it costs us in the long run. So A and B are out. I still think we have a chance in the long run so C is out at least for me; so this clump of dirt, so to speak, ain't worth dying over.

425

First, if BP won't stand up for themselves why should we jump on our swords for them?

What exactly should they do? It's a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. BP is the largest producer of oil in the US; what happens if they go under? Who will pick up the slack?

426 417

We sometimes have to pick a hill to die on.

I agree Diogenes but this is not that hill.  First, if BP won't stand up for themselves why should we jump on our swords for them?  Second, they are a prime mover in the Cap & Tax fiasco, clearly they have no problem using the power of the state to get what they want.

Posted by: motionview at June 18, 2010 03:46 PM (lKDF0)

I jokingly posted on another website that BP is an evil company and deserves to be bankrupted and ran out of business for giving money to Obama. Well, half joking. I personally think that ANY company giving money to Democrats needs to be run out of business.

At any rate, BP may not be standing up for itself because it is dealing with a mobster. Think Vladimir Putin and Gazprom. We do not know what threat may have been issued to BP, so we cannot rely on anything they say as truthful about this issue. Yes, BP needs SERIOUS punishment for interfering in US legislative process, but We don't need Barack Obama's lynch mob when we have a sheriff and a Judge to adjudicate the case.

I guess what i'm trying to say, is Shouldn't we give em a trial before we lynch em?

427

one industry after another .

roll over, roll over.

428

Its been pointed out several times.  Perception of reality and reality are two different things though.  Reality is Tina Fey said "I can see Russia from my house."  Perceived Reality is Sarah Palin said it.  Reality is Barton blasted BP multiple times and only apologized for them getting a shakedown from the chicago thug in the white house.  Perceived reality is Barton apologizes to BP.

We do not fight the perception.

We accept it as fait accompli.

Well, you got that right - it will be.

Fight the perception.

429
Why can't we simultaneously hold BP responsible for the damages and hold Obama to the confines of the law?

I should've added that Ace made a post late last night on exactly how Barton (or any Republican) could've done that, which would've answered my own question...therefore making my comment redundant in the first place.

430

441 What exactly should they do?

They shouldn't have agreed to the escrow fund.

431

Political negotiation is more like going to an arbitrator than a judge. A judge might split the difference between the two parties, the arbitrator simply decides which side has made the more reasonable presentation and awards that.

This is how voters are. They can't elect, 2 parts Obama and 5 parts McCain, so you get one or the other.

432

Of course he didn't absolve them of their negligence. I said last night no one here believes he did.  But that doesn't change the fact that he did apologize to BP.  And that will get the coverage.  That a GOP congressman apologized to BP.  Not what his reasons for the apology for.  Not that he blasted them several times for what they have done.  The coverage would be on his one statement of apology.  And it will be spun to sound as "GOP congressman apologizes to BP for them having to pay $20 billion to spill victims."  Reality is going to take a backseat to that no matter how much you don't want it to.

Posted by: buzzion at June 18, 2010 03:53 PM (oVQFe)

Yeah. If only the Media had continuously repeated the clip of Obama saying "My muslim faith." it would have had the effect of killing him in the pols. Just another example of how the media is our greatest enemy, and how we so badly need to take them out of commission. I have long suggested the idea of suing them on Affirmative action grounds. You know, give them a taste of the policies they support. I think a good legal case could be made that the media companies routinely discriminate against conservatives in their hiring practices, and quotas need to be imposed on them.

433 As I always ask: What the hell does "should" have to do with anything at all?

Should helps us define a theoretical concept of society which helps sell our values and philosophies to the "non-partisans." The left does this "shoulds" involving "social justice" and "equality" our shoulds embody "freedom" "fairness" "opportunity" and so on. Should is an important part of societal vision, or, the argued direction society should take to become better. People want society to become better, or believe that it can be better, it gives them the emotion "hope" that they like. One of our failings in the recent past is not selling our shoulds so the middle could see that we too offer the "hope" of a better society. If we have no should, then we offer nothing more than what is.

434 432 >>>>This is why the rule of law should, well, rule. It tries to divorce emotion from the equation.

As I always ask: What the hell does "should" have to do with anything at all? Posted by: ace


Because we aspire to Justice being blind, even if we don't always achieve it.

435 Diogenes @ 431: "If Obama can illegally coerce BP, they can illegally coerce any other company." Yes. Why would any investor choose to play in such a rigged game? I know I won't. And if Bambi can get away with this without a peep from anyone, how hard would it be for him to confiscate your 401K? I mean, government unrestrained by law is, well, unrestrained, isn't it?

436

We do not fight the perception.

We accept it as fait accompli.

Well, you got that right - it will be.

Fight the perception.

Posted by: Entropy at June 18, 2010 04:02 PM (IsLT6)

Well personally I'm in favor of not gift wrapping them something they can use.   Going "I aplogize" to BP is gift wrapping it, putting on the bow, and even turning up a corner to help get them started.

437

A contrary view....

You've advanced the line of logic farther than your commenters, but I don't think you've taken it far enough yourself.  To use your arbitrator metaphor, as a party to this "negotiation" Republicans' job is to counter-influence the "judge" and draw him/her back towards your position, not just meekly accept the other-party-skewed stance of the judge where it is now.  If we're limited to that, why bother "negotiating" at all?

That's what made the Barton apology to BP such a brain fart.  As you demonstrated, the case can be made, and the bubble of public opinion moved in the right direction.  It just needs to be done prudently and intelligently.

Thus does the circle get the square after all.

438

Politics is not even close to blind justice. 

Its not a fair fight.  Go in it to win it, not to see who the most reasonable looking loser is. 

439 -->I should've added that Ace made a post late last night on exactly how Barton (or any Republican) could've done that, which would've answered my own question...

Yes.  That was a very good list of questions.  Better as an adjunct to Barton's statement.

-->therefore making my comment redundant in the first place.

Posted by: a sign post up ahead at June 18, 2010 04:04 PM (uFokq)

Hey!  Are you trying to say that my comment was redundant, too, by implication?

440

446 441 They shouldn't have agreed to the escrow fund.

Did they really have much of a choice?

Though there is something rather shady about Svanberg, & not saying that due to the blog meme that he's a Scandi. He seems to have no qualms about wheeling-&-dealing & throwing his people to the wolves.

441 You know, there would be a more fun alternative to secession.

442
With the BP situation the way it is, we are not going to win the argument, in fact just fighting it costs us in the long run. So A and B are out. I still think we have a chance in the long run so C is out at least for me; so this clump of dirt, so to speak, ain't worth dying over.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 18, 2010 03:58 PM (0q2P7)

That the Nation should not be ruled by a dictator is a pretty important principal. If we lose that battle, what other battle could we possibly win to make up for it? 

443 You know, there would be a more fun alternative to secession.

444

We do not fight the perception.

We accept it as fait accompli.

We do fight the perception. But we do better when we don't hand the MFM clubs to bludgeon us with.

445 "deservin's got nothin to do with it".

446

I guess what i'm trying to say, is Shouldn't we give em a trial before we lynch em?

Posted by: Diogenes at June 18, 2010 04:00 PM (eVJ7T)

Exactly.  Aren't they even entitled to a show trial in New York City that Holder and The Precedent declare will find them guilty?

One more in a long list of examples of this administration and their Washington junta having given aid and comfort to the enemy by treating legal organizations far worse than they treat actual enemies of this country.

What Barton should have done was said that the shakedown was an impeachable offense, which it is.

447 I should've added that Ace made a post late last night on exactly how Barton (or any Republican) could've done that, which would've answered my own question...therefore making my comment redundant in the first place.

Posted by: a sign post up ahead at June 18, 2010 04:04 PM (uFokq)

I saw that post. It's fallacy was that it relied on BP being ABLE to answer those questions truthfully. BP would answer questions just as truthfully as any other hostage with a gun to his head.

448

Well personally I'm in favor of not gift wrapping them something they can use.   Going "I aplogize" to BP is gift wrapping it, putting on the bow, and even turning up a corner to help get them started.

Neither am I, Scarecrow. I didn't say it.

But what's done is done. I repeat:

How do you figgure your helping by going after him?

You're not.

Mr. Pragmatic, what's done is done. The media ties you to him. You cannot run from it.

Redefine it.

We're not having a debate here to be followed by a vote on whether or not he should say it. He said it.

What's the end-game on this kvetching strategy of yours?

449 And if Bambi can get away with this without a peep from anyone, how hard would it be for him to confiscate your 401K?

I mean, government unrestrained by law is, well, unrestrained, isn't it?

Posted by: Bugler at June 18, 2010 04:07 PM (VXBR1)

There are stirrings that they are going to DO THIS! I would put nothing past a criminal minded Precedent.

450 FWIW Obama got one thing right - get elected on a moderate platform, THEN go maximalist. 

451

We do fight the perception. But we do better when we don't hand the MFM clubs to bludgeon us with.

Ditto above. Over and over and over.

What does chucking him and his 18% under the bus get us?

The media will no longer be able to tar us as oil cronies now that Ace and Drew have rebuked him on their blog?

They were doing that before he opneed his fat mouth, they'll do it after we have forgotten it. Fight the perception.

452

I just realized I posted a comment from another site that & I should have excised the 1st line. Whoops.

453 right now I'd vote for jan brewer and sarah palin and sorry, I know i'm  not alone.

Oh, ick.

Brewer is the same woman that fought tooth and nail for a tax increase in a state that ran a $600 MM surplus just 5 years ago, for the children^TM.

454 That the Nation should not be ruled by a dictator is a pretty important principal. If we lose that battle, what other battle could we possibly win to make up for it?

It ain't. BP could have refused and Obama would have had to drag them into court. They accepted this as part and partial to their declining popularity in the hopes that acquiescing would get some back. BP, an artificial person, doesn't have feelings about their own freedom that extend beyond making a profit. They are willing to trade it to staunch the loss of popularity they know will cost them much more money in the long run. Face it, this deal is consensual. So it is not the dire situation you would like to make it. That is the reality. This whole thing was negotiable, there is no good guy, no bad guy, no autocratic rule, no nothing to wage a solely ideological fight over.

455

Was that a trick question, Senor?

456

Well personally I'm in favor of not gift wrapping them something they can use.   Going "I aplogize" to BP is gift wrapping it, putting on the bow, and even turning up a corner to help get them started.

Posted by: buzzion at June 18, 2010 04:07 PM (oVQFe)

Have you ever talked to the media or had any involvement with them? It is a rare person who can always think about how the media is going to twist what they say before the fact. So Barton couldn't anticipate how his words would be spun. Most people can't. It is unfortunate, but we've already taken the hit. We might as well give some damage to the other side by not backing down, but by instead expounding on the Extortion!

I can't think of ANY way to knock off the "apology" narrative that is better than hammering the "EXTORTION" narrative. Hell, even the New York TIMES is talking about how unseemly this is.

Instead of talking about the apology to BP, everyone on our side should have started screaming about the extortion. If people scream loud enough, the extortion will become the narrative.

457

Underpants gnome politics:

1) Bitch on blog

2) ???

3) Win electoral politics!

458 But will Americans care about extortion, especially when they've been told BP is solely to blame for this mess? I'm sure many Americans are saying that, if BP did get shafted, it serves them right/they deserve it.  

459

Hmm...

I think we will come to find out that this oil spill could have happened to any one of the big oil companies, sadly it is a result of Evnvironmetalism gone mad - the US will not allow companies to do increased drilling on land and near the beach (in shallow water), where these spills would be a much easier, quicker and cheaper clean up.

Tony Harward is just a scape-goat for the Democrats to create a circus for the November elections. It was obvious so many of the questions were set ups, so that Hayward would have to repsond over & over "I cannot comment on that right now" or "I don't know". Of course he cannot answer the questions, because an investigation hasn't been conducted yet to find out WHAT caused the oil spill. He simply cannot speculate on Oath - that would be foolish, and dangerous.

460 466 FWIW Obama got one thing right - get elected on a moderate platform, THEN go maximalist. 

Posted by: sum(random) at June 18, 2010 04:18 PM (TwWjd)

My current working theory is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Obama to do anything right. Had the media been even slightly fair, Obama couldn't have won even a primary. He would be a greasy spot in political terms.

If Obama had been white, he would be a non-entity. He would probably have been a fry cook.

461 Bachman called it extortion. Barton called it a shakedown. Barton apologized. Bachman didn't. Bachman has cojones. Barton doesn't.

462 Face it, this deal is consensual. So it is not the dire situation you would like to make it. That is the reality. This whole thing was negotiable, there is no good guy, no bad guy, no autocratic rule, no nothing to wage a solely ideological fight over.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 18, 2010 04:20 PM (0q2P7)

It never occurred to me to think that Obama Threatened BP with court battles. Given his record, I was thinking it would have been something far more sinister. At the very least, personal incarceration in prison for CRIMES is more of what I would expect Obama to threaten them with. Seizure of all assets, denial of Future drilling permits, freezing of bank accounts, Criminal investigations of their employees, the employees families, etc.

I honestly cannot figure out why you would think that Obama would threaten them with something as innocuous as a civil trial?

463

477 Some will now. Others will once they see the consequences of the extortion. 

I'll believe it when I see it. We (as a country) have been unfairly hating all businesses for years now, or so it seems. I understand that there is corruption, but that doesn't give us a right to decide who's guilty or innocent before we have the facts.

464

And what can we conclude, too?

465 474 But will Americans care about extortion, especially when they've been told BP is solely to blame for this mess? I'm sure many Americans are saying that, if BP did get shafted, it serves them right/they deserve it.  

Posted by Miss'80sBaby at June 18, 2010 04:25 PM (Yq+qN)

Are you saying that most Americans will think "Well, at least he makes the trains run on time! " ?

God help us if that's true. 

466
Ace & DrewM,

Barton said X.

MFM twisted it to "Barton said Y."

The responses that you had available were:

1.  Ignore it

2.  Do a post that frames the issue as WTF?   "Barton said X, why are the motherfucking liars in the MFM saying that he said Y?!?"

3.  Jump Barton's shit from the standpoint of:  "Barton said Y.  If he really didn't, at least everybody is going to perceive that he said Y, so the fact that he said X doesn't make a damned bit of difference."

You took option #3.

A bunch of the minority leadership in Congress took option #3.

The other side--the enemies of everything that is right and good--closes ranks for fucking child-molesters so long as they put "D" next to their names. 

You reported in this thread that you are getting 30,000 readers.  I most respectfully request that you please reflect on the fact that you have great power to influence the tone of the debate on the conservative side.  That 30k is multiplied when the network effect of interrelated blogs are taken into account.

Had you taken option #2, then the "shakedown" meme likely would have traveled much more widely in the last twenty-four hours.

467

Have you ever talked to the media or had any involvement with them? It is a rare person who can always think about how the media is going to twist what they say before the fact. So Barton couldn't anticipate how his words would be spun. Most people can't

Well see the thing is that no I don't have involvement with the media.  However I do know that they are not friends of the Republicans.  I do know they are going to attempt to spin anything a Republican says as bad.  I do know that they love to scream at the top of their lungs that the GOP is in the pocket of big oil.

My thinking is that anytime I'm about to get some national exposure, I'm going to take my planned statements and run them  by people to see if they can spot where the pitfalls for media spin will be and get suggestions on changing those parts.

And if people in congress aren't doing this they're even bigger idiots than they come off as.  And I'm not even talking about pussifying the messages.  I think that is what Barton did and it comes off as sympathetic to BP.  And there's no reason to give them sympathy right now.

468

It never occurred to me to think that Obama Threatened BP with court battles. Given his record, I was thinking it would have been something far more sinister. At the very least, personal incarceration in prison for CRIMES is more of what I would expect Obama to threaten them with. Seizure of all assets, denial of Future drilling permits, freezing of bank accounts, Criminal investigations of their employees, the employees families, etc.

I honestly cannot figure out why you would think that Obama would threaten them with something as innocuous as a civil trial?

Regardless of what he might have threatened them with, they were all probably within the power of his office. He could not legally take their property or imprison them without involving the courts, but he could threaten to prosecute. He could have denied future drilling permits. Again within the power of his office. If he can politically sell this type of hardball, it is not unconstitutional. Not liking it does not make it illegal.

469 If he can politically sell this type of hardball, it is not unconstitutional. Not liking it does not make it illegal.


Unless BP chooses to stand up for their own rights, there is nothing we can, or really should do for them.

470

My thinking is that anytime I'm about to get some national exposure, I'm going to take my planned statements and run them  by people to see if they can spot where the pitfalls for media spin will be and get suggestions on changing those parts.

And if people in congress aren't doing this they're even bigger idiots than they come off as.  And I'm not even talking about pussifying the messages.  I think that is what Barton did and it comes off as sympathetic to BP.  And there's no reason to give them sympathy right now.

Posted by: buzzion at June 18, 2010 04:36 PM (oVQFe)

The problem is, it has to be extemporaneously. To do that takes, Practice, Talent, and Luck.

Who would have thought that when Sarah Palin said you could see Russia from some Islands in Alaska that the media would turn it into "You can see Russia from my house."

Even the best get screwed over by the media. You simply can't watch EVERYTHING you say.

471

Had you taken option #2, then the "shakedown" meme likely would have traveled much more widely in the last twenty-four hours.

That would be fighting the perception. No! No! Bad republican, bad!

That, well, that's racist and violent talk.

472 Maybe Obama's "shakedown" threatened criminal trials. I can see it: Heyward and company go to prison, but then they all get pancreatic cancer. O noes! They only have a few months to live! But wait, there's this overseas company that can get them realeased on humanitarian grounds. Nah, that wouldn't work.

473 Regardless of what he might have threatened them with, they were all probably within the power of his office. He could not legally take their property or imprison them without involving the courts, but he could threaten to prosecute. He could have denied future drilling permits. Again within the power of his office. If he can politically sell this type of hardball, it is not unconstitutional. Not liking it does not make it illegal.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 18, 2010 04:38 PM (0q2P7)

????????

474 This thread is like the Energizer Bunny...

475 482 474 Are you saying that most Americans will think "Well, at least he makes the trains run on time! " ?

God help us if that's true. 

I'm saying many Americans hate "Big Business", & they don't give a rat's rear end about the facts in the Deepwater Horizon incident. It's like at the hearings yesterday with Hayward-- he couldn't answer many of the questions because he didn't know the answers, & it's not his job to know those things beforehand. But people have pre-conceived notions, especially about "Big Oil", & that's how they made their judgments on this case. Somehow, the rest of the world understands that Obama & the Dems in Congress were involved in shaking down BP, but some Americans aren't. This isn't how this should work-- we should be better than this. 

476 entropy, Do you believe in making arguments, or do you want to just announce your principles, unsupported? I can't say if this is true but it seems to me you are taking the position that the best way to change minds is just to announce your beliefs, your conclusions. You say you want to fight the perception but it doesn't seem to me you are demanding it be fought especially hard. Just announcing a principle is pretty easy and takes little time. One of the easiest posts for me to right is the one where I know almost everyone will agree. I don't have to argue it. I love such posts. I put off posts about schisms because I know they will take a lot more work and thought and care in handling. Okay, sometimes I rush in. But a lot of the time I jus put them off (and sometimes just don't say anyting at all). I don't know what you're advocating -- are you just saing shoot from the hip, let it rip?

477

The problem is, it has to be extemporaneously. To do that takes, Practice, Talent, and Luck.

Who would have thought that when Sarah Palin said you could see Russia from some Islands in Alaska that the media would turn it into "You can see Russia from my house."

Even the best get screwed over by the media. You simply can't watch EVERYTHING you say.

Posted by: Diogenes at June 18, 2010 04:41 PM (eVJ7T)

I'm going to say that with an interview its different.  The thing is Barton wasn't giving an interview.  He was blustering away in a congressional dog and pony show.  One of those things where its not actually about the questions asked but its their "time to shine" in a national spotlight.  They get their opening statements ready. Its not an interview where you don't really know what questions you're going to be asked.  Yeah they're going to try and spin no matter what.  So don't gift wrap it for them.

478 489 Chairman Svanberg made the deal, is my understanding. The man who mentioned "the small people".

479 And there's no reason to give them (B-P) sympathy right now.

Posted by: buzzion at June 18, 2010 04:36 PM (oVQFe)

 

Yeah, well, I can think of a few rational reasons why they should be cut some slack, the least noteworthy of which is that this whole brouhaha is all just smoke and mirrors to conceal and to deflect attention away from the extent to which Obama has repeatedly fucked-up. With his incompetence and with his sleaziness, that damned fool and slimy low-life has made a bad situation worse.

480
Abilene Paradox

If you pay too much attention to what other people *might* think or, worse yet, what other people *might* think that they think, then the odds are good that you will be wrong.

Find something that you can know is right and stick with it.

481

CNN Poll:  82% of Americans approve of a BP escrow fund

What do we get with an 18% majority?

Read the poll question.  Hell I support a "BP escrow fund", as long as it's created as a part of due judicial process.  I don't like creating a "BP escrow fund" as a result of a political shakedown.

482 On one hand were the social justice crowd who held that equality was the desired outcome, not the starting point.  And on the other hand you had the personal responsibility crowd who adhered to the created, but not necessarily destined to be equal approach.  On one hand, happiness as a right.  On the other, happiness as a goal but one has a choice to persue it.  On one hand, leaders have an obligation to impose equality.  On the other, the opportunities to rise above the mediocre.  Freedom to be doled out as seen fit vs. freedom as a gift to humanity that is sacrosanct.

Does anyone actually believe the average voter thinks this way? Get real. People who are knee-deep in political theory, who are retired, who work in academia, or who just want to toot their horns on political blogs, may think this way, but Joe/Jill-Shmoe, the run-of-the-mill middle-class voter, is caught up in more personal cares (feeding, clothing, housing, educating  his/her family, getting the kids to various activities, working 12-hour days, watching his/her investments shrink, etc.). They're not out doing target practice or buying survivalist supplies, or reading Hayek, because they don't have the time-luxury of the purists. All they know is that the economy has soured, that they're working their tails off, that their jobs in the private sector are not secure, and that there appear to be many bad actors -- not only in elected positions, but in business. And they want this to stop. Now.

Try thinking about what it means to be 30/40-somethings with 2 or 3 kids, and no deep ideological leanings, in America, and how to frame the message to attract the votes we need, rather than repelling them with "my way or the highway" ideology.

483 MikeO, Good point, but... 82% approval for escrow. Also, one can avoid preference falsification and state one's true preferences while tailoring the expression to the people they think might object. Doing so would not be a case of preference falsification -- at worse, it's just worrying too much and putting in more thought and care in forming one's statements than necessary, which may be inefficient, but it's hardly a catastrophe.

484 >>>Hell I support a "BP escrow fund", as long as it's created as a part of due judicial process. I don't like creating a "BP escrow fund" as a result of a political shakedown. Fair point, but I know for a cold hard fact that the general public is very uninterested in questions of process.

485 ...which doesn't mean you have to bless this and conceal your beliefs, but if you are on the public political stage, it would suggest you have to do a thorough job of explaining why the general public, Joe Six Pack, should give a fig about this.

486 That CNN poll also states that Obama has a 50% approval rating, which (they report) is what he's been receiving for the past few months. Why should I believe CNN?

487

One of the easiest posts for me to right is the one where I know almost everyone will agree. I don't have to argue it. I love such posts.

I put off posts about schisms because I know they will take a lot more work and thought and care in handling. Okay, sometimes I rush in. But a lot of the time I jus put them off (and sometimes just don't say anyting at all).

I don't know what you're advocating -- are you just saing shoot from the hip, let it rip?

I know it's often frustrating for you, but some of us prefer the posts that generate argument amongst ourselves.  I find the posts that generate little more than the "thumbs up, I agree!" type of comments kinda boring.

Now those who are intentional dicks about it- "you're a RINO squish commie traitor for making such an argument!"- fuck 'em.  Using the banhammer too sparingly is in some cases almost as bad as using it too much.

488

Someone else who gets it:

A monumental environmental distaster? Yes. An equally monumental PR disaster for BP? Yes. But when I saw excerpts from Mr. Hayward's grilling I cringed at the thought that if the future of the free world rests in the hands of people with the intellect of Mr Hayward's interviewers then Heaven help us all! Until the engineering reports are in, nobody knows what caused the Deepwater Horizon to explode. And Mr. Hayward was quite right to answer in the way he did rather than try to preempt the outcome of the engineering reports. And given that this self-righteous, overtly ambitious bunch of politicians are among those who preside over the most predatory legal system in the world, I doubt if even the Oracle would dare tell the truth for fear of litigation.

- Fredensborg, Denmark, 18/6/2010 13:21

489 Hey, everyone else is taking a road trip this summer, why can't the prez?

"The trip Columbus probably cost taxpayers between $500,000 and $1 million.

Air Force One alone bills out at $100,000 per hour, and the round trip is nearly two hours. Adding to the cost are military aircraft to carry limos and secret service vehicles, Marine One on standby, Secret Service, local police and other factors."

490 503 That CNN poll also states that Obama has a 50% approval rating, which (they report) is what he's been receiving for the past few months. Why should I believe CNN?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 18, 2010 05:02 PM (Yq+qN)

So its a biased poll.  Factor in whatever method you want to turn its biased numbers into reality.  Is that going to turn that 82% into 49% or lower, ever?

491 >>>I know it's often frustrating for you, but some of us prefer the posts that generate argument amongst ourselves. I find the posts that generate little more than the "thumbs up, I agree!" type of comments kinda boring. I suppose so, but it's hard to take the personal out of the equation. That is: Remember that neither I nor drew nor anybody is indifferent to "reviews" by the critics. When we put on a show and it flops, we SHOULD just take that in stride, but of course we don't. I get bitchy. It's like you write a book and the critics get to pan it right on the front pages of it. Of course you're going to get snippy-snipey. And of course then when I bitch back and imply people are dumb or unrealistic then THEY get snippy-snipey. That isn't to say no one should criticize. It's just to say, hey, people are human. And so that kind of post, which I know will get bad reviews, I either put off for a while until I can write a post so long no one can disagree with it because no one can read the whole thing, or I just throw out the topic and say "I dunno."

492 501 >>>Hell I support a "BP escrow fund", as long as it's created as a part of due judicial process. I don't like creating a "BP escrow fund" as a result of a political shakedown.

Fair point, but I know for a cold hard fact that the general public is very uninterested in questions of process.

I agree that process arguments are dull.  But they are a big weapon in our arsenal and we should use them.  If we surrender the process arguments then the next time some Dem comes along and says "we should make sure that every baby has a warm blanket at night", how do we respond?  Say "yes, of course, every baby deserves a warm blanket" even if it means going along with the rest of the Dem agenda of turning over more and more control of our lives to the state?  Because we don't want to appear to be "anti-baby" or something.  The fact that the Dems are unconcerned with process is a big reason why liberalism is so destructive.  They have no problem overturning centuries of law and tradition just to achieve some short-term political goal.

493

@505.  Who is it that actually wanted that hearing anyways?  Part of me can't help but think that the Democrats demanded it and the GOP saw that they were basically fucked and didn't see a way to avoid it without looking like they are in the pocket of oil companies.  And then Barton steps in it and gives them something they can claim as evidence of that.

Or did GOP House members demand it too?  And my wondering is just wishful thinking.

494 Good point, but... 82% approval for escrow.

Ace,

I know.  I accept that.

I do, however, want to say that the 82% is a spot-read taken today.  Give it time, and it should find its way to the general partisan polling lines.

I say the following without any acrimony and with an assurance that I understand the concept that what is past is past.  The shakedown is a travesty, and I think it would have been more productive had the Barton affair been handled by a post that parsed Barton's words carefully, restored the context that the MFM omitted, called the MFM on their willful deception, and then segued into a discussion of why the escrow fund is dead wrong.

So far as I know, you and your cobloggers are not officeholders (or office-seekers) burdened with having to run the gauntlet of knowing that your every utterance will be twisted and thrown back into your face every other November.  In my opinion, that gives you the freedom to stake-out your positions.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that you guys are the ones who buy ink by the barrel.

I don't want to sound too much like someguy here, but I have to risk that to say this:  You and your cobloggers probably carry more influence than you are willing to admit to yourselves, and it is "punching-down" to focus more on the spilt milk of how Barton's statement was open to twisting and misperception than on the things about Barton's statement that were dead on.

495 Rasmussen reports that 72% of GOP voters say that Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the base.

http://tiny.cc/16qdt

Here's how I see it (and I speak only for myself).  The Republican party can continue to compromise their values and kowtow to the media and the middle of the roaders, but as they do this, they lose their core base.  So, ultimately, which is more important?  Lose your base, the people who are the true conservatives?  Or maybe (and this is only a maybe) lose some of your middle-of-the-roaders?

At this point in time (and I don't believe this held true 10 years ago, but the attitude of the country has changed) I think that continuing to straddle the compromising fence will ultimately lose more voters for the Republican party, as true conservatives will be alienated and your losses will be far greater than a few gains in the middle.

I have absolutely no fact to base this upon, I just have this feeling that way more of this country is currently feeling conservative (and not middle-of-the-road conservative, but pretty hardcore) than we give credit for.

I just wish I could see Republicans standing up and actually fighting for my beliefs, as opposed to watching them spew some rhetoric and never doing anything about it.

496 Again: READ THE POLL QUESTION. (pdf)

Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of each of the following actions by the federal government:

Creating a fund of billions of dollars to compensate workers and businesses that have been affected by the oil spill that would be paid by BP but administered by a neutral party


The question said nothing about HOW the fund would be created, WHO would create the fund (Obama vs. a court), or whether the money really would be spent on worker compensation or on more political goals (e.g. ObamaCare).  The poll was taken BEFORE Barton's outburst and on the SAME DAY as Obama's meeting with BP so the word "shakedown" hadn't even entered the lexicon yet.  Given the timing and the bland wording, I'm surprised it only received 82% support.

497 513 @505.  Who is it that actually wanted that hearing anyways?  Part of me can't help but think that the Democrats demanded it and the GOP saw that they were basically fucked and didn't see a way to avoid it without looking like they are in the pocket of oil companies.  And then Barton steps in it and gives them something they can claim as evidence of that.

Or did GOP House members demand it too?  And my wondering is just wishful thinking.

 

My understanding is that both parties demanded it, though the Dems more than the GOP. (Don't want to be seen as the party of Big Oil, & all that.) Perhaps it also could have been a deal reached at the WH, IDK.

Look-- I understand why there's anger at BP, but most people have little-to-no understanding of who's potentially responsible for this disaster & why. We have our congressmen asking questions of a CEO who could potentially commit perjury or harm an on-going investigation if he says too much. Thus, what else can be determined but that this was a spectacle so that people could vent, & that the chairman of BP sacrificed his CEO for this purpose?

498 >>> You and your cobloggers probably carry more influence than you are willing to admit to yourselves... I don't think so. A small amount. If we were genuinely influential politicians would be contacting me to offer interviews, would they not? But they don't. We're influential enough to get press releases sent. the ones blind-mailed to everyone. Chuck DeVore gave Gabe an interview. Once in a while it happens. Rarely.

499

I suppose so, but it's hard to take the personal out of the equation. ... That isn't to say no one should criticize. It's just to say, hey, people are human.

There was this TV show about professional wrestling, went through the whole thing, how there are heroes and heels. When a wrestling performer gets booed by the crowd, it's like being cheered. The audience is reacting the way the villain is trying to get them to react. The louder the boos, the better. But they're still booing. And all the guys want the fans to cheer for them, not boo.

I get what commenters are saying: disagreement makes for lively, stimulating discourse. I get that, and I'm right there with them. But Ace would rather be like Chief Jay instead of Greg the Hammer. I get that, too.

500 516 Aha. Well, who in their right mind is going to disagree with that?

501 "Posted by: chemjeff at June 18, 2010 05:24 PM (Gk/wA)" Right. This is like asking, "Should children receive nice presents on Christmas Day?" Meaningless.

502 521 was me. Socks are so confusing.

503 Yeah, so asked those questions at that point in time, I would have answered "yes" too, because I'm imagining that this sort of escrow account would be the just result of a court verdict against BP.

504 "515 Rasmussen reports that 72% of GOP voters say that Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the base. http://tiny.cc/16qdt" What? Out of touch? That's not possible.

505

523 Yeah, so asked those questions at that point in time, I would have answered "yes" too, because I'm imagining that this sort of escrow account would be the just result of a court verdict against BP.

Which I have no problem with such an account, as long as BP had their day in court after an investigation was concluded. But neither of those things happened.

506 I don't think so. A small amount. If we were genuinely influential politicians would be contacting me to offer interviews, would they not?

Not necessarily.  Your much ballyhooed AOSHQ lifestyle makes granting an interview to be printed here would be a mainstream conservative candidate faux pas.

The influence I'm talking about rises from the free flow of ideas (to include rancor and raucus ruffianism) in the posts and comment threads.  This is the kind of shit that forms convictions in people's heads and gives them alternate angles from which to make arguments in support of the cause on other sites and in meatspace.

507

And so that kind of post, which I know will get bad reviews, I either put off for a while until I can write a post so long no one can disagree with it because no one can read the whole thing, or I just throw out the topic and say "I dunno."

Ah; well as long as the post gets made I guess.  I just don't want to see my favorite bloggers feel like they have to completely pass over controversial topics just to avoid personal criticism from a subset of overly aggressive (and/or stupid and/or lunatic) commenters.  I ain't walked in your shoes though.

508

....., and, oh yeah, what's pouring fuel on the fire, too, is the irresponsible way in which the dummies in the MSM are reporting events, making hare-brained conjectures and assertions without having a freaking clue as to the underlying issues which precipitated logical and necessary, but risky decisions which were made by B-P executives, decisions which must be made every day in dangerous professions by men who are more dynamic than anyone in the Obama Administration is.

Hell, there isn't anyone in the Obama Administration who has the gravitas of a pimple on Hayward's ass. And they're lecturing Hayward? He must have only contempt for them.

When it comes to siding with big business or with government, I'll always side with big businesses, which are run by smart, savvy and dynamic movers, shakers and risk takers, not by blowhards like many politicians, who are all mouth, no balls and no brains, the worst of whom are invariably attorneys, who couldn't make it in the private sector, and so they became politicians, paid handsomely to be blowhards.  (All of which are generalities, of course. But you get my drift.)

509 hey, what's in the friday dump?

510 @528 Reality Check Here


After reaching a certain size within their markets, big businesses largely become indistinguishable from big government.  They transition from dynamic competitors to rent-seekers in pursuit of anti-liberty legislative agendas looking to socialize risks and privatize profits while raising barriers to entry.

I shed no tears over what befalls BP.  With their complicity in the cap-and-tax bullshit, BP needs to be hung around the necks of Obama and the democrats like a burning tire.

511

Do you believe in making arguments, or do you want to just announce your principles, unsupported?

And also:

but... 82% approval for escrow.

Like I said:

You tell them it's a slush fun, that Congressman so-and-so is suggesting we use it to "plug the hole" in financing for Obama's reckless healthcare plans, when we haven't even plugged the hole in the gulf. That BP get's to use it's own fund for paying for the cleanup and repair they were already on the hook for. That by the time they've finally plugged the thing there might not be any money left for actual victims. 

That when your pipes spring a leak and water is gushing all over your kitchen, the first thing you do is cut off the damn water. There's no way we should be settling damages with BP now when the damage isn't even done. That since the oil is still spilling we can't say how much damage there will be in total, and it's irresponsible corporate favoritism to let them off the hook with only $20B while the oil is still gushing.

I don't care if it's true. The implication is that this is all BP will ever pay, now, and it's not enough. That was Obama's intention. You want SNEAKY? Keep repeating it. Millions will buy it, and get pissed.

That a court of law hands duly-decided damages out straight to the victims who were harmed, NOT to Congress, or some executive committee, to spend on naming more buildings after themselves or handing out disproportionately to people who will kick it back in campaign contributions.

So, yeah, arguments. I think those are good ones, persuasive ones, one we can win points with. Ones that are true, or in a few spots, at the least truthy. Don't chase the 82%, change it. Change the perception of what's going on. Apologizing over it reinforces it, and reinforces the damage.

You say you want to fight the perception but it doesn't seem to me you are demanding it be fought especially hard. Just announcing a principle is pretty easy and takes little time.

Above. Those aren't principles, they're rhetorical points. The principle is he's perverted the process, which I probably wouldn't even both to mention until I've worn out the above.

I don't know what you're advocating -- are you just saing shoot from the hip, let it rip?

Like Mike O is advocating. His 3 choices.

I don't see what the point of picking this argument was. Or coming down on this guy was. Democrats are out there saying way, way stupider things to focus on. And this can be, and ought be, spun. Electorally speaking, pragmatically speaking, what's the game plan? What do we get by denouncing him on AoS blog? Feeding into the perception of "Y" rather than "X"? Why do that?

What the heck does it get us apart from bickering amongst ourselves?

Unless you really think your blog advocacy will finally put an end to "politicians saying stupid things". That will never end. Politicians will say stupid things. Opponents will use it them against them. Period.

The only question is, how do we deal with it?

I am advocating: You must push back. Boener, etc, this douche, rather than apologize, they should have started spinning a better attack along similar lines but better words. Same thing if I had a blog.

I'd taking Mike's option #1 or #2.

What the hell is the point of #3? It's self defeating.

You're advocating.... you don't seem to be advocating. I don't see what you're after. It seems to me that you're upset he's being ineffective so you and Drew are after catharsis, bitching about him. What's the goal of starting an argument with your own readers on your blog?

I'm not trying to stifle your creativity here. Blog about whatever you want. But where are you going with this? What are you advocating besides "politicians: don't ever say stupid things!" and frankly, we ought both know that's not going to happen.

I don't have a strong position on this particular douche... it's all over. What's said is said, how we responded is how we responded. All the more the question: Why are we arguing about how horrible it is? It's over. I tend to sometimes jump into arguments on 'meta' levels. This is the same thing as "I hope he fails", as Rand on the Civil Rights Act, as "You lie!". These - let us call them - inopprtune phrasings happen. Like "Shit happens". Should be evident by now they aren't going anywhere - media twists words and sells a distorted message to the moderates. (Or, depending on your view, perhaps they don't twist words, perhaps we have horrid extreme messages. It is the no difference in terms of how we should respond, since 'perception is reality').

What use to whine about how the left frames our remarks? What use to apologize and distance? They will hold it against us anyway. We can't win a reprieve by groveling and condemning.

Instead, fight it. Don't surrender the whole message war over the wrongheaded slush fund over one botched operation. Fight to be the ones who define the perception, to push your own message to those moderates and define what those words mean.

512

"He's a corporate guy," Stupak said of Hayward. "At the end of the day, he's going to put his best foot forward. It's not going to ring true with me or the American public and we've got a mess on our hands, a disaster, a catastrophic disaster for our environment and those people lost their lives. He's just going to say 'I'm sorry, it's not going to happen again.' It's not good enough. It's not good enough."

But Stupak also told Bash he intends to be "fair but firm" with Hayward.

Asked about a previous comment where the Democrat said the CEO will be "sliced and diced" when he comes to Capitol Hill, Stupak told CNN that he expected Hayward to be "fairly sliced and diced."

so I guess hayward knew what to expect?

but it's too funny....his opening words "he's a corporate guy" remind me of BO's comments on the order of "guys like this" when asked why he didn't talk to anyone from bp.

Funny, they get all their money from big business and yet they turn on them whenever it becomes convenient to do so.....and like the whores they are...big business keeps coming back.....why why why???

513 Carpe Narrative.

514 you know if you read those comments on CNN it sure looks like the American public is fully engaged and really really pissed..

515

“The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP’s reckless decisions and actions. Frankly, we are shocked by the publicly available information that has been disclosed in recent investigations and during this week’s testimony that, among other things, indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling of the Macondo well. BP’s behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct and thus affect the obligations of the parties under the operating agreement,” continued Hackett.

Under the terms of the joint operating agreement (JOA) related to the Mississippi Canyon block 252 lease, BP, as operator, owed duties to its co-owners including Anadarko to perform the drilling of the well in a good and workmanlike manner and to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The JOA also provides that BP is responsible to its co-owners for damages caused by its gross negligence or willful misconduct. Importantly, any actions Anadarko may take under the agreement to protect its rights relative to BP’s performance as operator in the drilling of the well will in no way shift any financial burden to the American taxpayer. Hackett also said, “We recognize that ultimately we have obligations under Federal law related to the oil spill, but will look to BP to continue to pay all legitimate claims as they have repeatedly stated that they will do.”

The operator of a well determines the detailed planning and execution of the well, and is responsible for the day-to-day activities of, and decisions executed by, personnel on the rig. Consistent with standard industry practice around the world, non-operating investors rely upon the operator to make the appropriate decisions on the rig."

516 Unfortunately, progressivism distorted big -P- Pragmatism has, for almost a century, eaten the brain and soul of the Republican Party, and to a lesser degree the Conservative movement.

And the worst thing is, it's been a losing strategy from the beginning.

517

Unfortunately, progressivism distorted big -P- Pragmatism has, for almost a century, eaten the brain and soul of the Republican Party, and to a lesser degree the Conservative movement.

How do you mean?

518 Braaaaaiinssssssss!

519

????????

Posted by: Diogenes at June 18, 2010 04:43 PM (eVJ7T)

Elections matter. The President has a lot of very legal powers that can be used at his discretion; to act like a thug if he wishes. So long as Congress is no threat of impeachment, and the electorate no threat to his office, he can do pretty much whatever he wants with those powers.

520

"Documents received by Congress show that their was irresponsible behavior as Toyota. It considered risking money and bad PR that would have come with disclosures about accelerator or brake problems. There were problems apparently on the Deepwater rig since February. Neither the issues at Toyota nor  BP made it far enough up the chain of command so that some high-level executive could quickly acknowledge and fix them. Perhaps even the higher-ups living in a world where bad news was avoided.

Alistair Cooke once said of King Edward VIII  who abdicated the throne that the most damning thing that can be said about a man was that he was always at his best when things were going well.

Douglas A. McIntyre"

521

Instead, fight it. Don't surrender the whole message war over the wrongheaded slush fund over one botched operation. Fight to be the ones who define the perception, to push your own message to those moderates and define what those words mean.

Posted by: Entropy at June 18, 2010 06:07 PM (eL+YD)

My point as well. Focus on the EXTORTION. MAKE people talk about THAT!

522

Elections matter. The President has a lot of very legal powers that can be used at his discretion; to act like a thug if he wishes. So long as Congress is no threat of impeachment, and the electorate no threat to his office, he can do pretty much whatever he wants with those powers.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 18, 2010 06:50 PM (0q2P7)

A simpler way to say it is "Might makes Right."

523

CNN Poll:  82% of Americans approve of a BP escrow fund

What do we get with an 18% majority?

Read the poll question. ... Chemjeff

The whole point of this argument is that the poll question doesn't matter, the headline does.  The high information voters know that this is extortion, but the low info voters who decide elections build up a feeling that the Republicans support BP.

524 The President has a lot of very legal powers that can be used at his discretion; to act like a thug if he wishes.

No.  That's extortion.  That is a crime.

525 While people are still discussing this subject, I thought earlier today I had run across an article or comment saying that the Coast Guard f*cked up by putting out the fire. Someone was saying that the Coast Guard intentionally sunk the platform for the purpose of extinguishing the fire. If this is true, the vast bulk of the damage was CAUSED by the ineptitude of the US Coast Guard.

If the Platform could have remained floating, the riser would not have fallen. If the Riser had not fallen, there would not be a broken pipe hundreds of feet below the sea floor. If the riser was still serviceable, it could have been sheared off just above the blowout preventer, and the pipe could have been sealed.

Apart from that, if the riser had remained intact, the oil would have to go through an extra 5000 feet of pipe against gravity. The flow out the top of the well would be far smaller than the flow out of the pipe at the bottom of the sea.

Does anyone know if the coast guard really did scuttle the platform?

526 The high information voters know that this is extortion, but the low info voters who decide elections build up a feeling that the Republicans support BP.

The assholes in the MFM are going to BushCheneyHalliburton this spill no matter what.  There is no way to avoid that.

It doesn't help that Barton's statement can be twisted to support that meme.

What Boehner and the rest of the pussies so fucking eager to unleash friendly fire onto Barton should have done was to get the words, "BIG DEMOCRAT DONORS," "SHAKEDOWN," "NO LEGAL BASIS," and "EXTORTION" out there.  But they were so hungry to slobber on the MFM's knobs that they lost that chance.

527

The whole point of this argument is that the poll question doesn't matter, the headline does.  The high information voters know that this is extortion, but the low info voters who decide elections build up a feeling that the Republicans support BP.

AND.... what are you doing about it?

Bitching and accepting.

528

What's Boehner doing about it? Bitching and accepting. Apologizing over spilled milk.

"Gee, I'm awful sorry we're oil company shills, please don't hold it against us".

Challenge the headline. Write your own.

529 What Boehner and the rest of the pussies so fucking eager to unleash friendly fire onto Barton should have done was to get the words, "BIG DEMOCRAT DONORS," "SHAKEDOWN," "NO LEGAL BASIS," and "EXTORTION" out there.  But they were so hungry to slobber on the MFM's knobs that they lost that chance.

Posted by: MikeO at June 18, 2010 07:09 PM (lBmZl)

I've made up my mind not to support Boehner or anyone else that went along with this. I DO send money to out of state candidates, and I'm not going to support someone that helps the media attack our side on purpose. I can forgive Barton, I can't forgive Boehner.

530 On the amount of influence the blog has I would hope that there are a lot of staffers out there.  I know that's dangerously close to should.

531 Does anyone know if the coast guard really did scuttle the platform?

The statement from Anadarko that curious linked in #535 smells like BP and the Obama admin have been spending the last sixty days trying to engineer a cover-up.

I read some stuff on Monday that said that Halliburton's engineers filed written complaints when they were overruled on design and procedural matters a couple weeks before the disaster.  I discounted it because it read like a friend-of-a-friend post on the internet.

I expect we're going to hear a lot of shit before it's over.

532
Just saw this on Instapundit:


Mr Obama is not the socialist the right claims he is (see article). He went out of his way, meeting BP executives on June 16th, to insist that he has no interest in undermining the companyÂ’s financial stability. But his reaction is cementing business leadersÂ’ impression that he is indifferent to their concerns. If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so. The collapse in BPÂ’s share price suggests that he has convinced the markets that he is an American version of Vladimir Putin, willing to harry firms into doing his bidding.

That's almost exactly what *I* said earlier, but I referenced what Putin did to GazProm. .

533

AND.... what are you doing about it?

Bitching and accepting.

Personally no. I have been focused since last summer on one political goal, taking the House from the Dems in 2010. I think it is our best shot at stopping the "progressive" destruction machine. You know how you do that? By having power, and you get power by winning elections. And how do you win elections? By focusing on issues that unite your side and divide your opponents. For Republicans in 2010 I think that means two main issues: ethics and spending. People want their Representatives to stop being lying corrupt sex-crazed toads, and they want the obscene spending to stop. You want to try to avoid spending time, energy, focus on issues where you are on the wrong side of 82%.

534 I read some stuff on Monday that said that Halliburton's engineers filed written complaints when they were overruled on design and procedural matters a couple weeks before the disaster.  I discounted it because it read like a friend-of-a-friend post on the internet.

I expect we're going to hear a lot of shit before it's over.

Posted by: MikeO at June 18, 2010 07:20 PM (lBmZl)

Did you read that article at the "Oil Drum" website? It has a LOT of details about what really happened before the well blew up, and what likely happened underwater AFTER the well blew up. He alleges that the Pipe is broken several hundred feet under ground and that it is impossible to stop it. Let me see if I can find the link.

535 Here's the link to that one oil expert's analysis. It ain't good.


http://tinyurl.com/2dft84t

536 While people are still discussing this subject, I thought earlier today I had run across an article or comment saying that the Coast Guard f*cked up by putting out the fire. Someone was saying that the Coast Guard intentionally sunk the platform for the purpose of extinguishing the fire. If this is true, the vast bulk of the damage was CAUSED by the ineptitude of the US Coast Guard.

If the Platform could have remained floating, the riser would not have fallen. If the Riser had not fallen, there would not be a broken pipe hundreds of feet below the sea floor. If the riser was still serviceable, it could have been sheared off just above the blowout preventer, and the pipe could have been sealed.

Apart from that, if the riser had remained intact, the oil would have to go through an extra 5000 feet of pipe against gravity. The flow out the top of the well would be far smaller than the flow out of the pipe at the bottom of the sea.

Does anyone know if the coast guard really did scuttle the platform?

Posted by: Diogenes at June 18, 2010 07:06 PM (eVJ7T)

I think you are talking about one of my comments (416).  I didn't mean to imply that the Coast Guard intentionally scuttled the rig.  That was stupidity on their part, I figure.  I meant the intentional part to apply to the federal government's (and coast guard's) later fucking up the containment/clean-up - when they did, essentially, nothing, hired no one to build a fleet to attack the growing spill, didn't allow Louisianna to build their barrier islands, disallowed waiting skimmers from going out because of crap like life vests ...

I wasn't clear in how I wrote it.

However, the coast guard should have known that hurrying to put the fire out (when the rig was unstable, due to one of its stabilizing engines having gone earlier and having other problems) risked sinking the whole thing - but I didn't think that stupid decision was intentional.  The rest of the stupid containment/clean-up stalling decisions clearly were done with intent, though.

But, the point is as you wrote: the biggest problems came from the rig being sunk, breaking all of the piping - and that was not BP's choice nor BP's fault.  Of course, no one bothers talking about this part.

537 Posted by: Diogenes at June 18, 2010 07:06 PM (eVJ7T)

Actually, that comment 416 wasn't the right one.  I think it was a comment of mine on another thread that said "intentionally" and then mentioned the Coast Guard screwing up with putting out the fire right after - not meaning to connect the two.

538 The party itself shouldn't take maximalist positions but we need some individual members to do so to give the others something to triangulate off of. When Senator Crackpot says "We must do X," Senator Reasonable can say "Of course we're not going to do X. That's ridiculous. But Senator Crackpot is right that we need to do something. I suggest Y."

The left does this all the time. They call it "raising awareness." We need to do it too.

Some want to purge the party of crackpots, arguing that a party of reasonables is better than a party of crackpots. That may be true, but what we really need to be effective is a mixture of both, and right now IMO we have too many reasonables and not enough crackpots.

539
Diogenes,

Thanks.  I saw that the other day (linked from here).

I haven't been paying much attention to the technical details.  I am a technical guy, but I have no expertise in this field, so I'd rather wait until stuff comes out in the wash.

That said, the handling has been so strange.  BP and the Obama admin spent the first month or so acting like deer caught in headlights.

What if there is a smoking-gun paper trail that's going to hang BP when this makes it to the courts?  What if BP ran to the Obama administration for help in burying that paper trail?  That would explain the lackadaisical response.

The refusal to follow existing contingency plans, the refusal to accept help from people who could help, and the whole theatrically staged atmosphere of this past week really makes it smell like Obama and BP are doing their best to hide something.

The Anadarko press release throws BP under the bus.  Ostensibly, they are doing this in response to the hearings, but I don't think anything substantive arose during the hearings to support what Anadarko has said about BP.

This makes me believe that they know that BP is guilty as hell and there is obvious evidence available to prove it.

It also sounds like they have been under pressure to keep silent about what they know.

540 I assume everyone has seen the "Oil Drum" article?

541 From what i've read, it does look like BP F*cked up big time. However, it still wouldn't have been so bad if (like you said) they hadn't refused help, etc.

542 From what i've read, it does look like BP F*cked up big time. However, it still wouldn't have been so bad if (like you said) they hadn't refused help, etc.

Yep.  What I'm guessing is that BP is at fault, they know they are at fault (and why), and they know that there is an evidence trail that will screw them to the wall when this hits the courts.

If the theatrical spectacle that Obama and Hayward have been staging these last two months have been an attempt to redirect attention away from the substantive facts of why the disaster happened, then Anadarko just blew the lid off it.  I'm expecting Halliburton and Transocean to let the next press releases.

543
It is plausible to me that a small man like Obama would be susceptible to a BP overture like, "Let it bleed for awhile.  That'll stick it to the drill-baby-drillers, and we can all get rich from cap-and-trade."

(Going off the reservation for a minute) Or, it could be that BP has evidence showing pressure applied by political appointees to MMS to get waivers for BP operations.

544 A more appropriate example is one where Party A and Party B are trying to convince Party C.  That is the more likely scenario, rather than Party A and Party B trying to convince a judge to side with them.

Party C is the independent voter. The moderate, semi-informed voter that browses the newspaper and gets most of his current events info from the liberal spin machine.  Party C rejects Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh out of hand.

What we have going for us is that Party C naturally agrees with us on immigration, national defense and deficit spending.  Party C may not understand Austrian School economics, but they can see what's happening in Europe as a result of the unfettered welfare state.

The argument for moderation of message is best explained by Vince Vaughan in
"Swingers."  Don't scare the bunny!

545

"Hayward shocked residents in slick-hit Louisiana by saying, "I would like my life back." The Briton was quoted by the Times of London suggesting that Americans were particularly likely to file bogus claims — a statement that gained significance Friday when a House committee said BP has paid less than 12 percent of claims submitted. President Barack Obama has suggested he would fire Hayward if he could.

On Thursday, Hayward told lawmakers on a U.S. House investigations panel that he was out of the loop on decisions surrounding the blown well. Both Democrats and Republicans were infuriated when he asserted, "I'm not stonewalling."

abc news says one thing, cnn another, cbs yet another.  After a while, you don't know who ir right and who is wrong.  no wonder people were questioning if hayward was out, his own people in the US were telling cbs that he is in until the well is caped despite what the chairman said to skynews....so who knows.

546 And if Bambi can get away with this without a peep from anyone, how hard would it be for him to confiscate your 401K?

I mean, government unrestrained by law is, well, unrestrained, isn't it?

Where do you get the idea that no one is peeping about the BP shakedown ?  Do you genuinely think that any of us would let him take our 401k's because we think fucking Barton made a mistake ?

BTW - since you've already told me "Fuck you" and "Eat me" in your last "arguments" I expect novel profanity in response at the very least.

I'm not quite down to the level where I just use profanity back just yet.  You might actually have a reasoned argument left in your Fuck-You Bag if you let the frontal lobe run the show for a change.

547 off sock

548 553:

+1.  Keep it up - BTW wear a helmet around here nowadays as you do.

549 "If Obama can illegally coerce BP, they can illegally coerce any other company."

Does the fact that a bajillion gallons of oil are spewing into the GoM and that 82% of Americans believe that BP owes us 20billy not suggest to you that they're a special case ?   Do you actually believe that Wal-Mart is next in line ?

The public is not so damned brain-dead as to let Obama take over Exxon tomorrow without some kind of justification.  BP has not only given him justification to slap them for 20b, but has also willingly bowed to that assessment. 

Your slope is so slippery that reality can't stick to it.

550 Bleh.

I've been reading this blog for 5 years.  The Mencken tagline on this blog needs to be removed.  It is wholly inappropriate/inapplicable/irrelevant to what this blog has become.

551 573 "If Obama can illegally coerce BP, they can illegally coerce any other company."

Does the fact that a bajillion gallons of oil are spewing into the GoM and that 82% of Americans believe that BP owes us 20billy not suggest to you that they're a special case ?   Do you actually believe that Wal-Mart is next in line ?

The public is not so damned brain-dead as to let Obama take over Exxon tomorrow without some kind of justification.  BP has not only given him justification to slap them for 20b, but has also willingly bowed to that assessment. 

Your slope is so slippery that reality can't stick to it.

Posted by: societyis2blame at June 19, 2010 03:09 AM (7ZyYf)

The problem with this theory is that Obama got elected. The Degree of Brain-dead that the public is has been fairly established in my mind.

552 I thought you were eluding to the truce. As it relates to BP -- If all the terrorists the Obama administration meets acted alone, why can't we have one lone anti shakedown voice? Sometimes the truth is self-evident, and speaking it should cast political negotiation aside. We are a Republic so public opinion does not rule the roost a la guillotine France. The White House voted present and acted stupidly.

553 I would rather stand with BP than with a thugly dirty socialist loserstate what's runnign a protection racket I think.

554 *running*