April 23, 2011
— Ace I've meant to write about this since yesterday since Thompson's article granted me an actual insight. I think it's actually an obvious insight, and I don't blame you for not being impressed with it, but it impressed me, if you know what I mean.
In the minds of some commentators, the candidate who enters the fray late (by media standards) is by definition a dark horse, and therefore suspect. That is, the candidate would not be a dark horse if his heart were truly in it. If he had the fire in the belly, he would not be late entering the field. Some writers will go to extremes to make the facts fit their thesis.Kilgore writes that by the time I announced my candidacy for the 2008 nomination “it was already becoming clear that he lacked commitment. Even before his appearance on Leno [in September 2007], there were abundant signs that he was not running for president, so much as walking — or even riding a golf cart — with abundant stops for rest and ice cream. His first Iowa appearance, in August, was at the Iowa State Fair, a must-do for any candidate, and particularly one like Thompson, who had already skipped the official Straw Poll that serves as the major fundraiser for the state GOP. With the eyes of the first-in-the-nation-caucus state on him, Big Fred showed up at the sweaty, extremely informal event sporting Gucci loafers, and proceeded to spend the day tooling around the fairgrounds in the aforementioned cart — a very big no-no for anyone who wasn’t either disabled or a major fair donor.”
I'm going to admit here Thompson's factual challenge to this entire claim -- he's saying it's just false, and I believe him. He seems to have documented facts on his side.
That's important, and you should read it, but for the purposes of my insight, it's just important to know that these claims are factually false. Not about matters of opinion, mind you -- I'm talking about just accepting false facts uncritically because they make things easier on your brain. That's the thing I'm interested in.
None of [the actual facts in another story] mattered, because such facts got in the way of the media narrative of the dark horse, the reluctant armchair candidate, the candidate with no fire in the belly.
Now here's the thing, and here's a confession: As "someone" and other pro-Fred Thompson supporters can tell you, I actually bought into this Narrative a fair amount and was always getting pushed back on it, vigorously, by the Thompson supporters.
But here's some context: I myself was a Fred Thomspon supporter. After I realized that Giuliani couldn't win and his lead was just name recognition (I knew he couldn't win when he announced "I'm pro-choice"), I looked about for another horse to ride and chose Fred Thompson.
I thought Fred Thompson was ideal. I thought he was the Super Candidate and yes, something of a Savior. I thought he could unite both wings of the party, easily and enthusiastically, and had every important box checked in the Standard Mainstream Conservative policy list, and furthermore, had a hell of a superheroic Origin Story and would be an absolute Rock Star in the campaign.
So I want to say that I was actually a Fred Thompson supporter when I bought a bit into this narrative. My problem here was not that I was undersupportive of Thompson, but rather, I suppose, that I was too supportive, and my expectations were too high.
So the Fred Thompson candidacy was, for me, a frustrating thing, because I expected so much. I expected him to dominate the primaries and simply catch fire.
I had a lot of eggs in the Fred Thompson basket. Still do, in fact. If Fred Thompson announces tomorrow-- which I strongly urge him to do -- I'm on Team Fred, all the way to the RNC.
But, as I said, I was frustrated, because he didn't dominate. He didn't catch fire. I think he edged into a third-place finish in Iowa, which kept him alive, but it also marked him as an unlikely winner, and therefore he never got the huge advantage of the bandwagon effect.
Now here's the thing. Here's the important thing. Here's the whole basis for my insight:
I did not understand then, and still do not understand now, why Fred Thompson did not almost immediately become the front-runner and sweep virtually every single primary and caucus.
I still do not understand. I still don't get it. I can point at a few things -- he seemed to have a bit of stage fright and discomfort when announcing on Leno -- but these things are not enough, I don't think, to explain the failure of his candidacy.
So I didn't understand. And because I didn't understand, but needed some way of explaining it to myself (and, also, to readers, if they wanted me to shed light on this perplexing circumstance), I was prey to an easy answer cooked up by someone else.
This someone else, I think, was Roger Simon at Politico, I think. (Not the good Roger Simon at Pajamas Media, the bad, awful Roger Simon at Politico.) He put out an easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey narrative to explain to me what was hard to explain -- why isn't Fred! crushing the field like the 260 pounds of rompin'-stomplin' sex he is? -- and I bought into that, a little, just because I had no other way to explain it to myself.
Now I have a different theory about it, which I won't bore you with, because it's besides the point, and further, it's my own personal Narrative, also all guesswork and supposition.
But the point is that these Narratives are begun, and started, to disguise laziness, incompetence, and ignorance. If we don't know the reason, and if we are too lazy or not skilled enough to find a good answer, we are prey to simplistic little fakey make-'em-ups. Not because they're compelling, and not because they're true -- the media knows half of the shit they say isn't true, like forever claiming Scooter Libby "leaked" the identity of Valerie Plame without noting it was liberal-leaning-RINO in good standing Richard Armitage who actually leaked it first-- but because it's easy and simple.
Easy and simple. Scooter Libby leaked that name; Fred Thompson doesn't have fire in his belly.
So this is my insight. I did warn you it was sort of obvious, didn't I? Yes, it's obvious, but for me, my own personal glomming on to an easy, simple narrative to explain that which is difficult to explain really brought this home: We all -- but especially the media -- make up The Narrative to paper over our insufficient knowledge.
If a Narrative has a strong through-line, as they say about scripts and fictions, then the momentum of that through-line, that main driving plot, will tend to carry the story over any plot-holes or weakly-motivated actions. If the through-line is strong enough, it will carry you over such logical gaps and Deleted Scenes and and Scenes Scripted But Never Shot because you're getting the big picture well enough to miss the fact that the little details are either absent or a muddle.
Which is why the media so heavily depends on The Narrative -- 90% of the time, their reportage is weak and incomplete. It is riddled through with missing details and unknown motivations.
But if you can affix to that set of incomplete facts a strong enough story that links together the few facts you have and, most importantly of all, suggests by inference what the missing details could be or should be, then what you have just done is turned an incomplete story without a much value or relevance into a "context-rich" story that helps people "understand their world."
But importantly -- the "context" you're providing, and the "understanding of the world" you're supplying, are not in fact facts you've verified. It's just some crap you just made up (through insinuation) that fills in the gaps of fact and logic in the meager reportage element of your story.
The liberal media resorts to this often due to laziness or partisanship. But they also do so because sometimes they themselves really just don't understand.
Let me propose a thought experiment. Imagine ten liberals and ten of us. We're each asked a series of political questions. Our task is not to answer as we ourselves would answer, but instead to guess at what our liberal counterparts will say, and not just as far as conclusions, but also as far as reasoning and assumptions and secondary premises.
Who do you think would do better at this task-- we or they? We would. Because while we are fed a steady litany of liberal assumptions and assertions on a daily basis, a liberal is entirely free to ignore the conservative movement's beliefs altogether by simply never consuming any conservative media.
And 95% of them, of course, choose to do just that.
We on the right would probably make that choice, too, if it were allowed to us -- but it's not. We can't escape the liberal media, even when we try.
And we wouldn't just win this experiment on points; we'd destroy them, three knockdowns and then one knockout (and there'd be more knockouts if the ref let us keep pounding on their unconscious heads).
Even the most pro-life among us could, if asked why liberals are so strong pro-choice, trot out the reasons the liberals would give: an embryo is not a life unless it can exist independently of the mother, a woman shouldn't be punished by unwanted pregnancies, a woman shouldn't be economically disadvantaged by unplanned babies, a woman's personal decisions are sacrosanct, there is a right to privacy between woman and doctor, etc.
I'm not saying the pro-lifers would agree with those premises: But they could name them.
On the other hand, the liberals' guesses about our beliefs would be, once you got past the fifteen synonyms for "Because they're stupid" (more on that in a bit), would be the vaguest guesswork about words they've barely heard us say. "Because, um, it's in the Constitution? Or something? I hear them talk about that a lot. They probably think something in it says something about something." That would be a rather good guess on their part.
Now, liberals, therefore, have an abject lack of competence in describing the conservative mindset. They don't understand how we think, and they don't even care to find out -- they never bother asking us, you'll notice. They tend to inform us of what we think and then tell us why those thoughts they just claimed we have are in fact wrong, ignorant, and evil.
I'm always asking liberals, "Why do you think that? What is the assumption you're starting with?" They tell me. I already knew the range of options from the media, but when they tell me, I know the particular bits of liberal assumptions they're specifically relying on.
And because I've asked, and they've answered: I know.
They never ask. They don't care, because they think we're ignorant and therefore no question asked of us can ever yield useful information.
So the media not only has a failure of perspective when it comes to conservatives, but a failure of curiosity, and, ultimately, because of those two failures, they suffer a third failure: A failure of imagination. They cannot even guess the reasons why we think what we think on any particular issue because they never asked, not even once, about why we think what we think on other, similar issues.
I can predict what a liberal will say on any issue. I will not only guess his position, I will accurately guess his reasoning. The latter, most of the time, anyway: I will either guess his primary reason, or his secondary reason, or a reason he's actually contrarian on (and thus departs from the liberal mainstream) but which he will at least recognize as a legitimate reason offered by may other liberals.
He won't be able to do that with me. He doesn't know and doesn't care to find out.
But if called upon to supply an explanation, he'll guess.
And he'll resort to The Narrative. Devoid of facts or accurate guesses based on close questioning on other matters, he'll take his best guess at a logical Narrative about my beliefs and motivations.
And what will his guess be? Well, since he never bothered to ask, and never bothered to read a conservative writing his beliefs out, and since, even when he ambushes a conservative (as Martin Bashir did yesterday with Andrew Breitbart) he doesn't actually bother listening to the answers but instead simply follows up with a re-worded restatement of the accusation, he'll resort to the very easy, very natural, very simple Narrative that explains it all.
He'll choose from the following list:
1) Because they're stupid
2) Because they're uneducated
3) Because they're superstitious and credulous and think that God told them to believe this
4) Because they have weak minds and Rush Limbaugh told them to think this
and, of course, for those who aren't clearly in the above categories:
5) Because they're racists and they hate
6) Because they literally -- as the Simpsons' parody went -- because they very literally "Want What's Worse For Everybody," i.e., they are not only villains, but self-aware villains of deliberate and knowing choice, villains because they've decided to Choose Villainy
Sometimes, the media actually has better answers than that -- they could at least offer up "because of the Constitution, or something?" -- but they find repeating our beliefs so hateful and so beyond credibility they refuse to.
Our black lies cannot pass their fair lips. Even in the few cases where they could accurately describe our reasoning and beliefs, they won't, because our reasoning and beliefs are so disgusting and transparently dishonest they cannot abide propagating them.
And thus The Narrative. Where facts are either missing, or unknown, or too hateful to actually be repeated in polite company, the Narrative fills in any and all blanks.
It's all worse now, of course, because the most unbelievable thing has happened to liberals. Ten times more mystifying than Fred Thompson's failure to catch fire is conservatives' failure to worship Barack Obama.
If I was mystified by Fred Thompson's failure to charm conservatives, liberals are stunned and apoplectic over Barack Obama's failure to charm conservatives.
They don't get it. Their imagination fails. How can such a clean, articulate (and I'm not kidding) genius be rejected by so many, beautiful in form, in voice, in mind, and spirit?
How can someone who quite literally is alike a Second Christ be rejected?
They can't explain it. Not just to the public, but to themselves. I sometimes wonder, slightly, why Fred Thompson didn't win; but they -- they! -- are almost dazed by distraction over the central mystery: "How can the world reject a God?"
Since this is so inexplicable to them, so beyond their experience and even beyond their capacity to imagine, the normal power of the Narrative is increased by a full order of magnitude.
How could so many fail to be "enchanted" (remember that word?) by Obama? Well, let's see: Fear, ignorance, lack of education, God told them not to be, Limbaugh told them not be, and, of course, hate and racism.
How could so many turn their backs on this wonderful man's determination to bring to the country the Democratic dream of ObamaCare? Well, obviously, ignorance, fear, lack of education, Gold told them it was bad, Limbaugh said it was bad, that stupid Wasilla Witch said the magic words "death panels," and, of course, hatred of minorities and/or the poor.
Now, by the way, on that point, the liberal media loves discussing how the Ryan plan will probably alienate many older voters who are hellbent to that their FDR-era bureaucracy of health delivery not be modified in any way.
But, when casting about for reasons that people might oppose ObamaCare, does it ever pass their lips that ObamaCare stole a HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS from older voters to give it to other voters?
If oldsters don't like Ryan's plan because it might cut half a trillion, how come Obama's plan, which definitely cut half a trillion (it's in the law and everything) cannot similarly be explained by the same desire to not lose the same half a trillion dollars?
Nope, let's not even discuss that. Let's go with fear, ignorance, hate, God, Limbaugh, Beck...
Liberals do not understand. They are literally -- literally -- in love with a man named Barack Obama, and cannot understand how anyone on earth could possibly fail to fall in love with him as well.
Only a black and cold heart, devoid of normal human warmth, could possibly find fault with the apple of the collective media eyes.
I understand this syndrome when it comes to political partisans and true believers. And many of the media are just that, of course. But they're something else besides: They're supposed to be professional fact-gatherers and fact-disseminators.
It's not as if these facts are kept secret from them. This is not a conspiracy to keep the truth from the liberals. We conservatives are not shy about our beliefs.
If they asked us why we didn't like Obama, we would tell them. Eagerly.
But they don't ask. They don't even listen when we tell them, unasked.
These are facts in plain sight. This is low-hanging fruit.
Easiest thing in the world if a liberal is bewildered by a conservative's position is to write him an email and ask him.
But they don't.
They've got their Narrative.
And they're sticking to it.
The Narrative answers all questions -- or, at least, all questions that matter.
Why are conservatives doing x? Because they're evil and stupid and crazy.
Why are conservatives saying y? Because they're evil and stupid and crazy.
God forbid you should pick up the phone, ask a question, write down someone's actual words, and then report that.
No, by all means -- keep telling me what I really think.
Because you're the ones to know, right?
Posted by: Ace at
07:43 AM
| Comments (476)
Post contains 3054 words, total size 18 kb.
How is this post posted almost an hour ahead of time?
Of course, we do live in bizarro world now, so...
Posted by: Book Geek at April 22, 2011 12:06 PM (1+OO5)
Posted by: ontherocks at April 22, 2011 12:07 PM (HBqDo)
Go ahead, c'mon.
Posted by: ontherocks at April 22, 2011 12:09 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: ace at April 22, 2011 12:10 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: joeindc44 at April 22, 2011 12:10 PM (QxSug)
C'mon this is soooooooo easy- he didn't want it. He never showed any interest of being in it to win it.
Aaaaaand I'm out of queer quips.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 22, 2011 12:11 PM (7dkEj)
More from Toonces Hollywood fundraiser last night -
We want a society where if we’re asking people to sacrifice, don’t just tell millionaires and billionaires you don’t have to do anything, just count your money,” Obama said.
Unbelievable. And of course he was surrounded by the ever fawning Hollywood crowd. Also there was this -
He launched into what are now becoming very familiar themes in his stump speech: the progress made coming back from recession and the challenges ahead, such as comprehensive immigration reform, revamping energy policy, reducing the deficit and implementing ‘shared sacrifice.’
Shared sacrifice? i.e. we want all of your money peasants.....
Posted by: Cheri at April 22, 2011 12:12 PM (oiNtH)
Fred's '08 campaign failure is indefensible.
I'm sorry, Fred, but you were the one we were waiting for and you blew it.
Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 22, 2011 12:12 PM (IKwYb)
I screamed about that BS "fire in the belly" meme even as more and more so-called conservatives bought into it. I always blames that asshole at Fox, Chris "commie" Wallace for the invention of it. In fact, I watched Thompson tear him a new asshole over it in one interview. I still scream about that crap-load.
The MFM always and it in for Thompson because he was the only true conservative in the list. They pushed the hell out of Marveriky right up until he got the nod then he was shit.
We have always been too willing to let the MFM pick our candidates for us in the manner of "only this RINO can win by turning those blue States Red". IT.IS.FUCKING.BULL.SHIT!
There are two reasons and ONLY two reasons to vote for a candidate in a Primary:
1) He/she reflects your position on the issues better than the other candidates
2) He/she can be trusted to stick to those positions.
Posted by: Vic at April 22, 2011 12:13 PM (M9Ie6)
If I had a popular conservative blog, I'd write long blog posts too.
Problem?
Short attention spans of the Gen Y variety I reckon.
Yeah, I was with Fred myself, particularly after Rudy flamed out. Anyone remember the website that ran "Chuck Norris" like humor about Teh Fred? Along the lines (although much cleaner) of AOS and Pat Caddell?
Posted by: Delta Smelt at April 22, 2011 12:14 PM (dWPyO)
Drinkers of the Narrative Kool-Aid need their strawmen, bugbears, and Emmanuel Goldsteins.
Posted by: Dr. Varno at April 22, 2011 12:14 PM (QMtmy)
I recall Fred campaigning in NH. He was new to the campaign trail up there. He got out of his walked around a bit, and I mean a bit. He didnt draw a crowd and packed up and left.
At that moment I knew his campaign wasnt for real. Watching him campaign in places like NH and MI is like watching a fish out of water.
He is so adored by a part of the base and so at ease in his southern confines, its as if he doesnt know how to act when people aren't automatically smitten with him.
If there is one trusim about NH, its that they make candidates work. They are not star struck, nor are they overly partisan. You better shake hands and talk to people. If you cant make any impression there. Your not fit for the candidacy. I dont mean you have to win, but you have to make an impression.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at April 22, 2011 12:14 PM (ZIpcL)
Holy Cow, that is a long post. I will have to read it sometime.
For what it is worth, someone I know well (A) knows someone (B) who knows Fred well. A told me that B had told him that Fred was a great guy in all respects, but lazy to the bone - "never could do a full day's work." (Incidentally, I also know B by reputation, though not to speak to).
Convoluted story, but I am persuaded that there is more to the "lack of fire in the belly" meme than mere narrative. Which is a pity.
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 22, 2011 12:16 PM (Wc7h8)
Posted by: Martin Bashir at April 22, 2011 12:25 PM (+lsX1)
Leftists are always trying to tell me what I think and they are always wrong but when I try to correct them they tell me I think some other awful thing and when I say that just isn't true they throw up their hands and toss out another false assertion. I never get a chance to answer any of the statements because the leftist is reciting a litany. They are never in conversation with me. They do not want to know what I think because they are telling me what I think. When I squeeze in a "That's not true" they glare back and raise the volume and say 'Yes! It! Is!'. And finally they run away... They have to go.
They cannot bear to hear that we are not what they have been told. They cannot understand the words. They cannot allow themselves to even hear what conservatives really believe.
And I am talking about a friend I have known for almost 25 years. We cannot discuss politics because she is convinced she knows what I think and she refuses to listen to me actually express my self.
Posted by: Steve In Tulsa at April 22, 2011 12:26 PM (f7ylG)
My supporting argument: Yah...no shit. Smack. That said, I also think there is a fair amount of projection at work here. As you said, they don't bother investigating our facts. Whatever they're putting into that void can only come from one source - themselves. If "Conservatives are evil, stupid, and crazy" its because there must be (by necessity for a source) some core self-identification going on within the liberal. The 'conservative' is just the stand-in for the darker parts of the liberal ego.
Speaking of evil, stupid and crazy...I think I just ate a spinach Jelly Belly. Ew.
Posted by: Abiss at April 22, 2011 12:32 PM (efUrF)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 07:55 AM (cDRYC)
Posted by: Dan at April 23, 2011 07:57 AM (mXBxH)
Posted by: Randolph Duke at April 23, 2011 08:00 AM (AYwIq)
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 08:01 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Johnny at April 23, 2011 08:02 AM (mhmc7)
Posted by: Louis Zamperini at April 23, 2011 08:02 AM (9/lhd)
Posted by: I'mWithStupid at April 23, 2011 08:04 AM (xhNbo)
Bonus check is in the mail!
Who the fuck is Fred again?
Oh, yeah THAT Fred.
http://tinyurl.com/3ndeju4
Posted by: AOL Board at April 23, 2011 08:04 AM (JpFM9)
Posted by: MemeMan! at April 23, 2011 08:05 AM (MMC8r)
I can think of several possible reasons ... but they're only possible reasons. We may never know the actual reason. (Note, by the by, that this comes from someone who voted for Thompson in the primary.)
1) southern politicians just don't make it in northern, and especially northeastern, states.
2) Thompson was delayed in really starting his campaign by the fact he was under contract to NBC for "Law & Order," and couldn't campaign while he was starring in a TV show.
3) Thompson was an old-fashioned Senator in an election year when the Republican electorate didn't want an old-fashioned Senator. The thing that leaps out at me about the 2008 Republican contest is that the voters really, REALLY wanted an anti-establishment candidate. They were told that McCain was exactly that, and that's why McCain won.
4) Thompson erred in listening to political strategists who told him to run a regional campaign
5) by the time Thompson actually got into the race, the buzz about him had faded, and other candidates were getting all the attention. If he had been able to get in when the buzz about him was highest, he would have done better. But he couldn't do that, probably because of item 2, above.
6) The Narrative on Thompson was that he was a tired old man and an old-fashioned Suth'n Republican ... and to too many people, 'old-fashioned Suth'n Republican' equals 'racist'.
But that's all speculation. The real reason(s) -- who knows?
Posted by: wolfwalker at April 23, 2011 08:06 AM (/fdGq)
You want to know why Trump is doing well... because he's taking Obama and his personage with confidence. This is confidence that you don't see out of most of the candidates... and some only have confidence when fragging other republicans (see: Huckabee, Mike).
Now, what I expected from Fred was what I sort of expect from Palin... I expected Fred to go on the aggressive... to talk to the American people... to use his celebrity no-nonsense image. To argue the points as he had been doing in articles and radio/audio leading up to the '08 campaign. I expected him to have a decent guerrilla web-based presence with audio clips. What happened... he whiffed and instead of doing all that he slow-paced the whole thing and let the story get written for him. Maybe he was just not enough in the new-media way and more in the old politician mold... if so then that's why he failed... I don't mean that he has to be "super-Twitter-dude"... I mean he just has to speak with a clear consistent message... he had to run his remarks, make them available... work on a clear confident tone and basis... because if you are going to run you are going to have to do things for yourself... MAKE YOURSELF RELEVANT... because the media isn't going to do things for you... working through the waves is for small ships... if you want to be president you have to make your own waves and blast through the ones that others construct.
If/when Palin runs, she will have to, and I think she's aware, that she will have to pen her policy positions, create her own image, create her own waves. Basically do all the things that Fred Thompson refused to do for himself. I think she has a good head start... but the same things will start to be said about Palin if she keeps waiting... further if Palin does blow off her own base and doesn't run then she will receive and deserve the same fate a Fred Thompson... left behind as another promising candidate who didn't have the heart to do it... and folks, I think a lot of us here are sick of wasting our time.
Fred disappointed me... i think he could have taken on Obama and the media narrative. All it takes is somebody with the confidence to oppose and to call out the madness. That's why Trump is doing well... though he's a chameleon and I do suspect that he's taking on conservative messaging just to gain importance.... nevertheless that is why he's doing well.... he's disrupting the narrative. If Fred had done that he could have cut Obama down to size... you make Obama '08 human you never have Obama '08 as president. If you make him human John McCain wins.... but John McCain never had the guts to make Obama human.... and really, Fred had the opportunity and tools to do just that... so very dissapointing.
Posted by: Patrick J. at April 23, 2011 08:07 AM (BeB0s)
Fred is absolutely right about managing the narrative, which is exactly how he fucked up during his campaign.
The small number of politically aware conservatives knew what Fred was all about and liked him. For the masses, Fred had an image forged in the movies of a cool, competent leader. What he didnÂ’t do was to accept the role of candidate as seriously as his roles as an actor.
Had Fred prepared a policy speech and a couple of stump speeches utilizing the same character he has played his entire life, the electorate would have fallen in line as Ace hoped. All that needed to be done was to confirm the perception already held in the public’s mind. But, for some reason, either Fred or his campaign handlers adopted a “let Fred be Fred” profile, which was a letdown from his screen image.
The only person that could have defeated unicorns and fairy dust was someone who had been a president, admiral, DA and fifty other authoritative things. Obama was totally scripted and stage managed throughout his campaign, but Fred shot from the hip. Not the way to do it.
Posted by: jwest at April 23, 2011 08:07 AM (qeYI9)
Posted by: Johnny at April 23, 2011 08:08 AM (mhmc7)
If the fabricated message that Thompson objected to was that he did not have the 'fire in the belly', to not counter the message *when it mattered* only validates the fabrication, does it not?
Posted by: KG (Thompson '08 supporter) at April 23, 2011 08:08 AM (Hu5B6)
Some do. They become conservatives.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at April 23, 2011 08:08 AM (oDMwn)
Posted by: Voice of Delusion at April 23, 2011 08:12 AM (xs5wK)
Ace. Listen and listen up good - - - please. In re. Fred Thompson. Mr. Thompson provides, as you correctly point out, all of the ostensible political assets (i.e. personal story, education, experience, etcetra) that would seemingly make him an "excellent" candidate for president.
However, this is simply not enough. There is a dimension and skills set that is missing. What is it? I mean, after all, Mr. Thompson has all of the "on-paper" presidential attributes. So what gives?
Answer: Mr. Thompson is unable to resoundingly connect with his audience. For Thompson speaks in an interrupted cadence... forceful in tonality however, lacking in quick turn nimbleness and lacking in the emotive.
Please don't go down the Fred Thompson path. He cannot gather and sustain a crowd beyond the first few lines.
This is not taking anything away from Mr. Thompson... it is merely pointing out an area that heretofore has not been discussed but should be in light of your above post and analysis.
Posted by: journolist at April 23, 2011 08:13 AM (iHfo1)
Posted by: Ostral B Heretic at April 23, 2011 08:16 AM (TprD1)
You gots to have some dirt bag in ya to connect.
Dat true.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at April 23, 2011 08:16 AM (JpFM9)
.....and Fred Thompson? Where the hell am I?
I'm going to the cable guide to establish some contact with reality.
Posted by: ontherocks at April 23, 2011 08:16 AM (HBqDo)
Fred's role is being a "bit" player. He's good at it; he should resign himself to it.
He's not a leading man. Fred is the guy in the background, the rock, the stable and wise figure. He's a senator; a senior partner among many partners; a general among many generals.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 08:19 AM (uFokq)
Bullshit.
Did you watch the Republican convention?
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 08:19 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: nickless at April 23, 2011 08:19 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: JackStraw at April 23, 2011 08:21 AM (TMB3S)
Just to stir up a hornets nest, I lurked (and trolled) and diary on Kos about the Tea Party's tolerance of gays. SHOCKA!!! An enterprising UK Guardian reporter finds that Tea Partyists don't prioritize or even express much interest in suppressing "gay rights" or a "gay agenda." They're concerned with government overgrowth and they're especially concerned about America's financials. The Kos gang chimed in that it simply Isn't So -- the teahadists are haters, bigots, etc. The Narrative must triumph!
As for the hornets nest, I bet there are some socons who would say solibs aren't true Tea Partiers.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 08:21 AM (/Zvyi)
Couldn't vote for him. He'd dropped out by the time CA primary hit. But I donated to him prior to that. Sad.
FWIW, I didn't buy the fire in the belly meme. Who cares about bellies, anyway? I care about minds. His mind was on fire.
I think it was a mismanaged campaign, like Giuliani, and perhaps also the face that he was already out of office and seen as an actor. So that made him seem more fringe to the folks not paying attention.
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 08:22 AM (pW2o8)
The pro-corruptocrat media pimp the narrative. Whatever it takes to get hideous democrats elected, they will do it.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 23, 2011 08:22 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Generic Republican at April 23, 2011 08:22 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Fred at April 23, 2011 08:22 AM (JpFM9)
He's not a sound-bite 24/7 communication guy like Palin is. He's a 1980's candidate.
I'd still vote for him in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Iblis at April 23, 2011 08:23 AM (CcNOT)
Spot on. When conservatives begin explaining their positions rationally, liberals look like my stupid dog, head held sideways, hearing a high pitched whine.
Or they're like the Saturday Night Live Ditka guys, only they think
Obama.
Universal health care.
Obama.
Crease in slacks.
Polish sausage.
Obama.
Posted by: fugazi at April 23, 2011 08:24 AM (4bvZp)
Posted by: wolfwalker
-----------
This. McCain was the "maverick"..
Republican voters (not all who are conservative - or are to many different degrees) wanted change as well.
I would take Fred in a heartbeat right now.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 23, 2011 08:24 AM (Do528)
Good job, Ace. Took you long enough to "get" it, but you nailed it. A really fine analysis--no snark intended, this is sincere.
Of course, you also can spot the Narrative concerning SWMNBN, right? Similar narratives have, and will be used against perceived threats from the Right, it's a working defense.
Posted by: irongrampa at April 23, 2011 08:25 AM (ud5dN)
Posted by: You Can't Disagree--I'm the Narrative, Bitch! at April 23, 2011 08:26 AM (VXBR1)
We all waited for the big announcement to come on July 4th, 2007. Fred wasn't ready, apparently.
Then, finally, on Jay friggin Leno at midnight, Fred officially announces his candidacy on Sept 5, 2007.
We all thought, okay, here we go! And then Fred went back to playing it low-key, saving his powder for another day. By the time Fred was ready to go with both barrels, he was getting creamed in the primaries and was way behind in fundraising and organizing.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 08:26 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 08:26 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: nickless at April 23, 2011 08:27 AM (MMC8r)
Yeah, probably true.
I know quite a few guys who'd make great husbands, but who are lousy boyfriends, too. Same phenomenon.
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 08:27 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at April 23, 2011 08:28 AM (mfQD5)
If/when Palin runs, she will have to, and I think she's aware, that she will have to pen her policy positions, create her own image, create her own waves. Basically do all the things that Fred Thompson refused to do for himself. I think she has a good head start... but the same things will start to be said about Palin if she keeps waiting...
Palin has said that if she runs, it will "of course" not be in a conventional way. She'll follow certain rules I'm sure, but her actions will be surprising enough to let her set her own schedule.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 08:29 AM (/Zvyi)
I keep saying this and no one believes me. Women make up at least half of the voters. Women (not moronettes) are stupid. Women vote for tthe man they would most like to go to bed with. . Find a guy who is, in ther minds sexy, and they will vote for him. Period. It's the ugly truth. That's why Fred didn't take off. That's whay Daniels is a no go. That's why Pawlenty's lack of charisma is a problem. That's why Barbour doesn' thave a chance. As much as I don't like Romney, he's the only onesone out there who is beddable unless say Rick Perry would run. It's not the policy, it's the mojo.
Posted by: dagny at April 23, 2011 08:29 AM (lq6sz)
She fell asleep on my arm, and i had to chew it off in the morning.
Like a coyote.
Posted by: lefty at April 23, 2011 08:31 AM (uz3hs)
Four years from now, I fully expect to read about a 2007 trip to the Iowa State Fair where I was driven around in the back of a stretch Hummer with tinted windows while sporting mirrored sunglasses and a Moammar Qaddafi cape, and being fed grapes by a nubile campaign volunteer.
How did you not quote this part ace?
Posted by: Beagle at April 23, 2011 08:31 AM (sOtz/)
I've been so impressed by how Ryan has handled Obambi over the budget thing, that I am officially on the draft Ryan bandwagon.
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 12:26 PM
Same here. I think he's gonna run, too. He sounds pissed. Like he has . . . fire in the belly.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 08:32 AM (/Zvyi)
Posted by: Cheri at April 23, 2011 08:35 AM (BA8k3)
Yeah. The Narrative is that he won't. That he wants to stay in Congress. I see no evidence of that. Why stay in Congress when you're under Boehner and Cantor's thumbs (essentially)?
He's shown a lot of spine and resolve. I used to kind of lump him in with Jindal - smart guy who looks like he should be studying in a library in Cambridge (UK) somewhere, but not a fighter - but now I think differently.
BTW, ace didn't really address it (unless I missed it, definitely possible), but the Narrative isn't confined to the Liberal media. It's alive and well in the GOP. Drives me nuts.
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 08:35 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: L Train at April 23, 2011 08:36 AM (B49Do)
Posted by: I Don't Bother With the Article at April 23, 2011 08:36 AM (NZMKc)
Here's what I'm seeing as our future:
Mitt has the nomination all sewn up, and here's why:
Mitt has already made an alliance with either Pawlenty or Gingrich to team up and knock out all the others.
Think about it. These are three who have the name recognition, can raise the $$, and already have an organized ground game. Romney, Pawlenty, and Gingrich will be the only viable contenders in the GOP field.
So the smart thing to do is team up with one of them and together knock out the other.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 08:36 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Charles Fourier at April 23, 2011 08:36 AM (5PiVP)
Posted by: Don at April 23, 2011 08:37 AM (3Ao0h)
Fine if you want to promote your gal or guy b/c s/he's been an executive, but please do not act like that's a requirement. It's not.
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 08:37 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Too Distracted to Read the Whole Thing at April 23, 2011 08:38 AM (NZMKc)
If there is one trusim about NH, its that they make candidates work. They are not star struck, nor are they overly partisan. You better shake hands and talk to people. If you cant make any impression there. Your not fit for the candidacy. I dont mean you have to win, but you have to make an impression.
Fuck NH and everyone in it. You too, Iowa.
No, seriously- fuck you, New Hampshire.
No, failure to "make an impression" in NH doesn't speak to a candidate's fitness for the presidency. It only speaks to the arrogance of those in NH (and Iowa) who seem to believe that unless a candidate has personally licked their asshole, they're not worthy of voting for.
The GOP should've cracked down on the NH / IA "me first" bullshit last election cycle. Though they seem to believe otherwise, neither state is particularly special- they don't hold many electoral votes, and aren't uniquely representative of Republican voters or the electorate at large. That they have such a disproportionate impact on the primaries is a serious flaw that should be stopped immediately.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 08:39 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: journolist at April 23, 2011 08:39 AM (iHfo1)
For me it's the pot. Plain and simple. Stupid "plan" and certainly stupid to feature legalization prominently in your set of goals.
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 08:39 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Charles Fourier at April 23, 2011 08:39 AM (5PiVP)
Posted by: You Can't Disagree--I'm the Narrative, Bitch! at April 23, 2011 08:39 AM (VXBR1)
I mean, I'd vote for the guy if he did (although those of you so enamored of him might want to look a little more closely at his votes for TARP...and the auto bailouts...and Medicare Part D...), so don't get me wrong. But it isn't happening. He has very, very young children. He's just become head of the Budget Committee, which is a position of power rivalled by few if any positions in either the House or Senate. He's got an agenda to push. It ain't happening.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 08:40 AM (NjYDy)
Fred was great, but the religious voters went with the Huckabee, The business voters went with Mitt, the security voters went with Rudy, the one afraid of debt (me) went with Duncan Hunter...
Fred was almost as good as all these in their specific arena, and maybe a little better, but not a slam-dunk.
The problem was the primary process and i think everyone thought they could beat Hillary or barry, so everyone wanted to be in the race. We had an oversupply of possibles, and no clear superstar.
Posted by: lefty at April 23, 2011 08:40 AM (uz3hs)
And along comes this idiot to prove Ace's point. Well done, sparky!
Posted by: Duke Lowell at April 23, 2011 08:40 AM (fqpYb)
I don't know nothin about no Gary Johnson. So that's strike one.
Then I began to think about his legacy. If he's such a staunch conservative, why did NM get blue-er during and after his tenure? That's strike two.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 08:40 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 23, 2011 08:41 AM (TATbF)
Posted by: ParisParamus at April 23, 2011 08:41 AM (bgSjf)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 12:39 PM (SY2Kh)
Aren't they first in line simply by virtue of the fact that they have a state law that says they are?
I've never understood how that works. Couldn't, say, Ohio pass a law that says, "No, we're first. Go fuck yourselves."
Posted by: ErikW at April 23, 2011 08:43 AM (oxCQI)
Gov Gary Johnson announced two days ago with little fanfare across the conservative blogs. Why?
It's less a question of "why" than of "who?".
While the likes of Pawlenty may also suffer from relatively poor name recognition, he's been very actively hitting the campaign circuit for quite some time. Gary (who?) Johnson? Not so much, hence the lack of fanfare.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 08:43 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: You Can't Disagree--I'm the Narrative, Bitch! at April 23, 2011 08:44 AM (VXBR1)
In general terms, for any candidate who chooses to run for the presidency, the mandatory prerequisite for a legitimate campaign is the candidate's personal, unquestioning belief that the survival of the country depends on his/her election to the highest office in the land. Period. Presenting one's opinions on the great issues is part of that, the other part, which was Thompson's weakness, was the unwillingness to forcefully present himself as the best candidate to effect the solutions for the nation's problems.
In other words, part of Thompson's job, if he wanted to be president, was to convince primary voters that he was the best man for the job, that he was a better choice than McCain, Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee, AND TO MAKE THE CASE FOR WHY that was so.
Thompson didn't do that. That's heavy lifting and Fred! made it clear that he reverered McCain for his naval service and for McCain's suffering at the hands of the North Vietnamese. Fred wouldn't take on McCain directly - meaning he wouldn't hammer McCain on policy issues and that was interpreted by primary voters as a "nice guy with no chance". This eventually led to rumors that Thompson was simply a McCain stalking horse for splitting the Huckabee base (and we know who came in second in delegate votes at the 2008 Republican convention).
Posted by: mrp at April 23, 2011 08:45 AM (HjPtV)
They could, and then the RNC would disqualify their primary votes (because this isn't a matter that the Feds have any say in unless it involves racial discrimination) or punish them in some other way. The DNC did something similar to Michigan last time around, if you recall.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 08:46 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: mockmook at April 23, 2011 08:46 AM (MtgQm)
Posted by: Some Burned-out Hippie at April 23, 2011 08:46 AM (NZMKc)
Posted by: Cheri at April 23, 2011 08:46 AM (BA8k3)
Posted by: mrp at April 23, 2011 12:45 PM (HjPtV)
Yet, he still entered the fray. Fred Thompson is unsustainable despite his failed invention stating otherwise.
Posted by: journolist at April 23, 2011 08:48 AM (iHfo1)
Posted by: Charles Fourier at April 23, 2011 12:36 PM (5PiVP)
A French Fop just came in here and proved Ace's point from the other day. So, as always, the question is: perfect froll or actual know-it-all idiot leftist, probably in college?
Posted by: Beagle at April 23, 2011 08:48 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 08:48 AM (mHQ7T)
Also, as Rep. Thad McCotter cracked on Red Eye the other night, "Legalize it, mon!" is not much of a national campaign agenda. And I'm not even a fan of the drug war, myself.
(I wish someone would convince McCotter to run for Senate in MI in 2012.)
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 08:49 AM (NjYDy)
So:
1) Is Teh Fred a candidate (or soon to be a candidate) again?
His article at NRO suggests "yes", in maybe 6 months.
2) Is he electable? Can he get enough support?
We need The Medicine to cure us of the Idoicy of Teh Won ... is Teh Fred it?
Posted by: Arbalest at April 23, 2011 08:50 AM (i4lwo)
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 12:46 PM (NjYDy)
Yes, I do remember it now that you mention it.
sigh
Clusterfuck is the only descriptor I can come up with.
Posted by: ErikW at April 23, 2011 08:50 AM (oxCQI)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 08:50 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 08:50 AM (SY2Kh)
Money.
Fred Thompson is not a personally wealthy man, and he had to raise all the needed money to run, and knew he couldn't run with his limited funds. His enthusiasm for running is well addressed by others here, but he had no financial staying power, and he knew it. I'm sure lots of people donated money to Thompson, but it wasn't nearly enough to organize state committees, mailings, commercials and the thousands of other things it takes to run a Presidential campaign.
McCain's wife's family has plenty of money. McCain is a "maverick" Republican, because he criticizes other Republicans on cue, when prompted by the Asshole Media, but as countless others have noted way before me, as soon as he became the adversary of Obama, he was attacked on all matter of things. And McCain has always been something of a jerk. He was a jerk at the Naval Academy (read "The Nightingale's Song" sometime - told by someone who liked McCain), and probably would have been flushed for his poor academics if it hadn't been for who his grandfather was (John 'Slew' McCain) - a great sailor and admiral.
Romney stayed in the race until it became obvious he couldn't win, because he had......money. This is what makes Romney a viable candidate, again. He's got his own money to pay for all the incidentals that you need to do to run a campaign. Airline tickets for staff to organize and troubleshoot campaign problems at the drop of a hat. Money to rent office space. Money to buy favorable press to be written about you.
This is also what makes Donald Trump a viable candidate. He is a rich man and can afford to pay for all the myriad things it takes to run a campaign.
And despite all the things the mean kids say about Sarah Palin, one of the things she has been doing the past few years has been making money. Will she run? I don't know, but she has been making money to pay for a campaign.
Which brings us to Barack Obama, who is allegedly going to raise.....(in my best Dr. Evil impersonation) -One Billion Dollars! for this campaign. He supposedly raised 600 million dollars last cycle "mostly from the small contributions" - what a lie. The FEC is a bunch of handpuppets with Barack and Axelrod's hand up their ass. We know he is a crook, and the rpoof can be found, but don't hold your breath.
Which brings us back around to Fred Thompson and the Campaign Finance hearings of 1997. Remember those? Remember John Glenn, American Icon, stonewalling and obstructing Fred in this effort. Remember the abusive Robert Torricelli - and where is he now? Fred probably knows how to play the game very well, and decided it was not worth mortgaging his soul to be the candidate that we really wanted and needed.
The Presidency is about being able to manipulate 3.6 Trillon dollars to benefit those who help you. A billion dollars is a small investment to make to leverage 3.6 Trillion dollars. If you don't grasp that fundamental truth, then you will always be subject to someone's narrative.
It's why Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and others are just rubber ducks in a bubble bath. They simply don't have the money, the juice, to run for President.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 23, 2011 08:52 AM (sJTmU)
Posted by: You Can't Disagree--I'm the Narrative, Bitch! at April 23, 2011 08:53 AM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 08:54 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 08:54 AM (mHQ7T)
@100
That's why the RNC just needs to man up and say they are going to have a single nationwide primary in the June or July of a Presidential Election Year. Popular vote winner take's all. And virtually all states would end up mattering equally because since it is a primary, candidates wouldn't necessarily have to hit up the big states to win.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 08:54 AM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Rosie O'Donit, part-time physicist and genius at April 23, 2011 08:54 AM (0WDcn)
Posted by: You Can't Disagree--I'm the Narrative, Bitch! at April 23, 2011 08:55 AM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 08:55 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: BurtTC at April 23, 2011 08:55 AM (IzKWj)
Posted by: Attention Whore at April 23, 2011 08:56 AM (uR5Zf)
Uh, I mean his position on capital gains, that's what I meant.
Posted by: nickless at April 23, 2011 08:56 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 12:46 PM (NjYDy)
I think the DNC fucked up by doing that and it eventually manifested itself at the Michigan ballot box in 2010. If the RNC fuckheads want to high-handedly lord bullshit like that over the party voters, they do it at their own peril.
Posted by: Captain Hate at April 23, 2011 08:56 AM (vEVry)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 23, 2011 08:57 AM (TATbF)
Dude how about letting me in on it. The utter epic fail that was Teh Fred Campaign has puzzled and troubled me for some time. If you've got some insight here let me know.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 23, 2011 08:57 AM (vULTR)
Also, as Rep. Thad McCotter cracked on Red Eye the other night, "Legalize it, mon!" is not much of a national campaign agenda. And I'm not even a fan of the drug war, myself.
I doubt he'd make legalization of weed his main campaign plank. I vaguely remember when he advocated that position as NM governor (though I since forgot who he was) and it made a decent sized splash in the MSM though.
That he's been out of office for over 7 years and not very visible since means he'd have a lot of work to do to rebuild name recognition and legitimacy in the eyes of voters.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 08:58 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 08:59 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 08:59 AM (mHQ7T)
I'm hoping that our increasing misery index will wake some of these broads up. When it gets harder to gas up and feed your family, when your family is enduring a job loss with no end in sight...will this prompt these women to get educated and to ya know, actually learn about the issues?
No
you grasp that they elected a guy who ran on $5 gas
I'm hoping that our increasing misery index will wake some of these broads up. When it gets harder to gas up and feed your family, when your family is enduring a job loss with no end in sight...will this prompt these women to get educated and to ya know, actually learn about the issues?
No.
They elected a guy who ran on $5 gas. They may be poorer but they are still shallow, uninformed, malliable, vain, and arrogant.
Posted by: dagny at April 23, 2011 09:00 AM (lq6sz)
We can thank them for much of the faux legitimacy given to tools like McCain and Romney.
Posted by: Beto at April 23, 2011 09:02 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:02 AM (AZGON)
I don't know that the Thompson analogy was necessary, but the final half of the post about the Left's view of things was spot on.
Posted by: andycanuck at April 23, 2011 09:02 AM (Y1DZt)
Ace wrote:
"I did not understand then, and still do not understand now, why Fred Thompson did not almost immediately become the front-runner and sweep virtually every single primary and caucus.
I still do not understand. I still don't get it. I can point at a few things -- he seemed to have a bit of stage fright and discomfort when announcing on Leno -- but these things are not enough, I don't think, to explain the failure of his candidacy."
Ace, it's because the GOP, with rare exceptions, are utter dumbasses about nominating presidential candidates. It's a natural talent that has been nearly perfected with years of careful honing. Between the "it's his turn" and "it has to be someone acceptable to the mainstream" (that is, some squish) mindsets, they have almost no chance of nominating a guy (or girl) who can and actually wants to win. (e.g...John McCain had zero freakin' interest in being the white guy who beat the potential first black president and campaigned like he had zero interest in it and mostly kept Sarah Palin from trying to help him win, either.) The party establishment doesn't want to have a nominee who - if he wins - will upset the applecart of Beltway World. A lot of them, consciously or not, would rather have a Dem win if it means their insulated little fantasyland niches stay safe, and to hell with the rest of the nation.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at April 23, 2011 09:02 AM (gVqEL)
Posted by: JackStraw at April 23, 2011 09:02 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:03 AM (AZGON)
My problem with Fred I think was that I had very high expectations. I thought he would aticulate a clear path for the country, dominate in the debates and relentlessly attack Obama in a way that would show his incompetentcy and inexperience.
He didn't do any of those things, I hardly remember anything he did or said because it just wasn't note worthy.
I never once thought when McCain was running that I wish we had fred, there just wasn't much difference between the two in how they campaigned. Maybe I missed something but I was watching pretty closely.
Posted by: robtr at April 23, 2011 09:03 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:03 AM (NITzp)
I don't think Huntsman will be nearly as successful as Mitt is at fundraising. He's toast in Utah. Complete toast. His dad is a committed member of the LDS (actually an area seventy or something I think) who is beloved by Mormons (I'm sure that contributed to his son winning the governorship), but Huntsman Jr. has made it really clear he's not that serious about his church. So who's giving him money? Not Mormons. I've met former supporters of his from his governorship who feel he lacks character. It's not even his positions so much as it is a sense that he is unreliable and insincere.
Posted by: Daniel Bernoulli at April 23, 2011 09:04 AM (pW2o8)
I only remembered Fourier as one of the early French socialists, though he himself was from a lot of money which he spent on himself. After a search it's also interesting to discover he was a virulent anti-Semite.
So yeah, things are different today, but not that much.
Posted by: Beagle at April 23, 2011 09:04 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: The Lutherans at April 23, 2011 09:04 AM (cDRYC)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 09:06 AM (mHQ7T)
I think the DNC fucked up by doing that and it eventually manifested itself at the Michigan ballot box in 2010. If the RNC fuckheads want to high-handedly lord bullshit like that over the party voters, they do it at their own peril.
The early states can move their primary to a later date to comply; it's not the RNC who decided that IA and NH are super special (and I mean "special" as in "special ed") states who should have such undue influence.
The RNC needs to ball up and tell NH and IA to either move their primary dates if they want their votes counted in the primary. Fuck 'em if they can't get in line.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 09:06 AM (SY2Kh)
Is it because conservatives let liberals tell them who they're excited about? Are we excited about Trump, or about a Governor who vetoed 750 bills, balanced a budget, and unapologetically embraces every single Tea Party ideal? Posted by: L Train at April 23, 2011 12:36 PM
NM is a light blue state only because of the Texans who have transplanted themselves there. Otherwise, it would be very, very dem. Gary Johnson was a terrific governor and is really more of a libertarian than a repub what with the pro-abortion and pro-drug legalization stuff. He is very fiscally conservative, though. He got re-elected because he kept his campaign promises to red areas of the state. I have more trouble with his pro-abortion stand than pot legalization. Pot should be legal. Other kinds of intoxicants, I would have to think more about.
Posted by: huerfano at April 23, 2011 09:07 AM (6zFxS)
We've been told byt the media literally for decades that the problem with modern elections is that they are all about popularity and personality, and not enough about substance.
Well, watching the media's treatment of Fred in 2008 put paid to all that bullshit. He was all about substance. His tone was measured, he put out substantive position papers, made serious arguments in his speeches, and they fucking pretended they never heard a bit of it.
He was exactly the kind of candidate they had all said they wanted. Only, they did happen to agree with, you know, his actual positions, and he was potentially getting in the way of their flash-in-the-pan media annointed political superstar. So, old and tired he became.
Ace, you keep dwelling on the power of narrative and the subversion of language in service to a cause and maybe one day your epiphany will finally arrive. Lord knows it's taken you this long to get this far.
Posted by: ThomasD at April 23, 2011 09:08 AM (UK5R1)
Most of this and the stealth funds on a state by state level will be laundered funds from hundreds of billions in crony capitalism funded by the taxpayers.
Posted by: Beto at April 23, 2011 09:09 AM (H+LJc)
The DNC may have fucked up by doing that, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with the results in Michigan in 2010 (the near-death/delayed-death of the auto industry, continued massive population loss from Detroit, plus years of Democratic misrule at the top did THAT). In fact, I honestly doubt that Michiganders even remember what happened in 2008 (it certainly didn't affect the electoral outcome, nor in Florida either for that matter).
I have no control over these things, and my approach probably has a ton of holes in it that I haven't yet realized, but in my perfect world the preeminent position of certain states' early primaries would be held on a rotating basis, with the important swing states staggered out over the months of January and early February. IA and NH may be states in the way they jealously hoard their "first" status, but they genuinely are swing states, so their results are more interesting (and valuable from a national perspective) than, say, Idaho or California or Texas. Moreover, they are two contrasting stereotypes of voters: a religious, pork-loving, heartland state versus a secular, flinty, Northeastern state and getting an early look at those two sets of voters' views is valuable. I just wish Ohio and Florida and Michigan and Colorado were early up there as well.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 09:09 AM (NjYDy)
I wouldn't be to sure of that, Reason mag did a short post of his announcement and made a short list of why they like him as a candidate, the fact that he sees weed legalization as a top priority was one of them. I personally couldn't care less about it, but anybody who thinks legalizing weed is a "very vital" issue is un-serious to say the least.
Posted by: booger at April 23, 2011 09:10 AM (9RFH1)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 09:11 AM (mHQ7T)
The Narrative serves several purposes: one is that the reporters (left and right) are generally of average intelligence (and less so the further down you go -- like the local evening news reporters). The Narrative is about all they can grasp.
Second is that it complements the age of sound bites, which we entered somewhere in the 1970s, I think, and never left.
It's largely built on "gotcha" politics, which we also never talk about anymore (like sound bites; it's just "how things have always been" at this point).
The Narrative is something of a tautology too; it reinforces commonly held beliefs, because to stray from the Narrative is to stray from commonly held beliefs (as you pointed out: things which are demonstrably false are still repeated every day as truths, though this is also how politics has always worked; now the mainstream Narrative works that way too).
But we are in an era of great change. This very blog is an example of that. I'm still waiting to see where it all goes.
Posted by: Bill Carson at April 23, 2011 09:12 AM (OO6Tv)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 09:12 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: I'mWithStupid at April 23, 2011 09:12 AM (xhNbo)
Posted by: George Orwell
Well, that explains a lot. 
Glad you cleared that up.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 23, 2011 09:12 AM (sJTmU)
Posted by: chemjeff at April 23, 2011 09:13 AM (7mSYS)
Posted by: The Lutherans
Or rubber dildoes in a dishwasher. Whatever.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 23, 2011 09:13 AM (sJTmU)
That's why the RNC just needs to man up and say they are going to have a single nationwide primary in the June or July of a Presidential Election Year. Popular vote winner take's all. And virtually all states would end up mattering equally because since it is a primary, candidates wouldn't necessarily have to hit up the big states to win.
I wouldn't go that far- there's something to be said for shaking hands, kissing babies, etc. Too much if it is concentrated in IA and NH though, and neither state well represents the party or electorate at large.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 09:14 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 23, 2011 09:14 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Queef Olberdouche at April 23, 2011 09:14 AM (mHQ7T)
Aw hell, if it comes to that (and we're fucked if it does), I'd even vote for Trump. As someone said in an earlier thread, I'm voting for Satan if he's the Republican nominee.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 09:15 AM (NjYDy)
I'm on board with everything you posted and have been for a long time. Fuck those Iowa and NH turds. That both of the parties are so willing to roll over for this has been infuriating.
Posted by: Captain Hate at April 23, 2011 09:15 AM (vEVry)
Posted by: JackStraw at April 23, 2011 09:15 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 09:16 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Beto at April 23, 2011 09:16 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 23, 2011 09:16 AM (6SIms)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:17 AM (AZGON)
I seem to remember a photo of Fred in a golf cart. But then I seem to remember a lot of things which may or may not be real.
Posted by: Meremortal at April 23, 2011 09:17 AM (Usk3+)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 09:17 AM (ven8N)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 09:17 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at April 23, 2011 09:18 AM (6IReR)
This would be a terrible, terrible idea. Part of the critical importance of a primary schedule is allowing candidates to rise and fall, to make moves or to self-destruct, to allow new shit to come to light, allow "vetting" (in other words, opponents digging up the worst shit on each other they can, to get it all out there before the Dems can use it against us in the general). You need time to do that. You need to have a candidate who can appeal to various sectors of the country and has been tested by the rigors of a campaign trail.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 09:18 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 23, 2011 09:18 AM (eOXTH)
>> They tend to inform us of what we think and then tell us why those thoughts they just claimed we have are in fact wrong, ignorant, and evil.
Bad enough, when my enemies do this fucking "I'm a mind-reader motherfucker, and I know, I know why you believe your evil crap" and they proceed to impugn my motivation, as if God gave them the clarity of mind-beams into my brains and soul.
You know what's worse? When my conservative like-minded companions to the same fucking thing when I dare to express reservations about, oh, say Christine O'Donnell as a senatorial candidate.
God I am so sick of that shit. The RINO brush is seventy feet wide and weight sixteen tons.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 23, 2011 09:18 AM (Wh0W+)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 09:19 AM (cDRYC)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 23, 2011 01:14 PM (eOXTH)
Well to be technical, he's running for president of Free Libya what with the mavericky rebel beheadings and all. He's nobody's fool.
Posted by: Beto at April 23, 2011 09:19 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 09:19 AM (piMMO)
We've been told byt the media literally for decades that the problem with modern elections is that they are all about popularity and personality, and not enough about substance.
I'm not sure that the media is responsible for that perception, but like it or not, it's mostly true. Personal likeability and name recognition play a much bigger role than policy positions, both in primary and general elections.
Point out the candidate in a presidential election that the average voter would rather share a six-pack with, and 9 times out of 10 you pointed at who will win.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 09:20 AM (SY2Kh)
And, frankly, I'm still waiting on him. I still want Teh Fred.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 09:21 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 09:21 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:21 AM (AZGON)
Just to be clear...not an "I told you so"....I bitched about the media narrative about the Fred back then...just as I bitch about the media narrative about Palin
...and please don't say I'm canonizing her. I'm saying she she is nowhere near as bad as the MFing MBM has convinced so many people she is..
...and that include a lot of people who should no better
Posted by: beedubya at April 23, 2011 09:21 AM (AnTyA)
Why the fuck would anyone have a liberal friend?
Tough question--I have a few, they know not to bring politics up with me. Otherwise I have no problem with them. In most other respects, they are what I would consider normal---and as a bonus, one friend of mine has seen the light after he became a cop and observes the ballet of the JEF.
Posted by: USS Diversity at April 23, 2011 09:22 AM (gJNMj)
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 01:15 PM (NjYDy)
I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for Satan over ODipshit. I still think we have nothing to worry about Trump; he's only in it for the ability to promote himself and no way does he make his finances public. The clean toga crowd should ask themselves why he's getting so much favorable attention though; he's performed a valuable wake-up call in that regard imo. As Jay Cost pointed out, people don't like McFly no matter what the MFM says.
Posted by: Captain Hate at April 23, 2011 09:22 AM (vEVry)
Posted by: Beto
True dat. It's about the money, for the money, and the money will decide it.
Is this a great country or what?
The various competing narratives or "memes" (from the memitic) are a distraction from the money. Paul Ryan is a compelling figure, but he is like the guy in "Network" *Howard Beale) who screamed out that he was "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore", except he's not "mad" but simply pointing out the obvious. Don't think that leaders of both parties don't want something bad to happen to Paul Ryan. They all want the gravy train to continue, until it can't anymore. Remember what ultimately happened to Howard Beale?
Ron Paul is an amusing insane person who the Democrats must really love, because much of what he says is a caricature of the narrative they want to create for the Republicans.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 23, 2011 09:22 AM (sJTmU)
167 ...Take a mere cursory trip down memory lane to compare the repeated words and catcalls that greeted Bush when gas was this highly priced, and look at the fumes rising from the media today. It's Alice in Wonderland. It's as if Earflaps McStrawman, President for Life, is living in an entirely different country; a poor fellow who simply has no relation to or responsibility regarding petroleum production in this nation. Just an innocent by-stander.
Speaking of, this is what Obama had to say about gas prices today. I would like to see more Republican candidates address the issues with this argument.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 23, 2011 09:22 AM (uVLrI)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 09:23 AM (cDRYC)
Tough question--I have a few, they know not to bring politics up with me. Otherwise I have no problem with them. In most other respects, they are what I would consider normal---and as a bonus, one friend of mine has seen the light after he became a cop and observes the ballet of the JEF.
Posted by: USS Diversity at April 23, 2011 01:22 PM (gJNMj)
Sure, they're great people. They're just actively assisting the complete destruction of the country. Other than that...
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at April 23, 2011 09:23 AM (6IReR)
BTW, ace didn't really address it (unless I missed it, definitely possible), but the Narrative isn't confined to the Liberal media. It's alive and well in the GOP. Drives me nuts.
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 12:35 PM
Agreed.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 09:23 AM (/Zvyi)
It's hard to believe that when he's won two gubernatorial elections there, and Mitt has won one... ever... and in Massachusetts. His brother is running the family business now and can doubtless help out. Also, I understand he's good about the tithing thing, but chose to attend a state school rather than Brigham Young.
You'd think that, but I did a lot of reading up on him and talking with folks here in the Beehive State. I was frustrated by the lack of substantive info on him, especially at HotAir, and by the immediate jump to "he's too liberal" meme which seemed ludicrous to me.
Anyhoo, he is not at all on the radar here. I literally never hear anyone talking about his candidacy. I think winning the state house in Utah when your dad is really really really important and beloved is a far cry from winning support for the White House. My husband is in fundraising and knows where the LDS philanthropic support is going right now and it ain't Huntsman. It's all Mitt with a bit of Palin.
Now I know people really dislike Mitt, but a lot of the things people say about Romney are actually true about Huntsman (Jr). He (Huntsman) seems to be perceived as far too quick to reverse himself on core issues. And he really spends a lot of time saying how un-Mormon he isn't. Whatever you think of Romney, he has been sincere about his LDS faith and has been really involved in his church (I believe he was a bishop when he was in the Boston area).
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 09:23 AM (pW2o8)
Nah, this is defeatist bullshit. Look, I split my time between two of the bluest fucking places on the planet (Madison, WI and the MD suburbs of DC), and the gas prices are now becoming the CONSTANT source of news and wailing and anger (some of it mine!) on the TV and radio. If Obama "ran on $5 gas," then he sure as fuck neglected to inform the folks who voted for him, or the media which never played that up.
I think a lot of the current MSM headscratching about "why is Obama down in the polls? Can't be his fault, must be gas prices!" is comically missing the point about how unpopular his policies are, but make no mistake: the gas issue is fucking HURTING him all over the country, turning the middle against him and driving the enthusiasm of his non-Kos base down, precisely because it feeds into the 'anti-growth, anti-oil, anti-business' NARRATIVE (...aaaaand we're back on topic!) that the RIGHT, of all things, has skillfully laid the groundwork for over the past two years.
Yes, that's right: narratives can help US as well, sometimes. Let it ride, bitches!
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 09:24 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Common sense Conservative. at April 23, 2011 09:25 AM (cDRYC)
The internet is creating a terrible lack of patience in people and the must-have-it-now mentality is, sadly, contagious. I've recently recognized that fault in myself and I'm re-learning how to lean back in my chair, take a deep breath, and just enjoy a good post or analysis.
The way it used to be.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 09:25 AM (piMMO)
Okay... I don't know why, maybe its just my personality, but I rarely comment on any posts (even if its a good one). But I just have to say..
THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST POSTS I HAVE READ... EVER!
I feel like Ace just dissected the entire liberal mind and laid it out for all to see. I have a feeling most conservatives know much of what was said, but I have never seen it articulated so cleanly and clearly before. Bravo.
Posted by: BanjoBonJovi at April 23, 2011 09:26 AM (hDEkw)
Posted by: Never Mind at April 23, 2011 09:26 AM (b3ZSk)
The problem with Conservatives is not that they are too afraid of Liberals and won't fight them, the problem with Conservatives is they are too afraid of Independents and won't fight them.
How many times here have we heard about the great squishy middle that must be obeyed?
Elect a RINO because only a RINO can win?
If you don't win over Independants, you don't win the election, period.
Running a candidate that appeals to Independants doesn't mean that candidate has to be a RINO though. Most Independants aren't very political; get them to like you personally, and you'll probably win their vote regardless of your political positions.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 09:26 AM (SY2Kh)
@172
You create a campaign that is long enough to do that by setting a very early entry date, such as December 31st or January 1st of the Presidential Election Year. And by entry date I mean have the necessary petitions for each state you wish to be on the ballot for in by that date.
However, I do also like the concept of simply forcing the early primary states to be rotated each cycle. The question is how to do that without having Iowa and NH throw a temper tantrum and punish us by voting Dem.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 09:26 AM (BBlzg)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:27 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Jobius at April 23, 2011 09:27 AM (sLy0s)
Please choose your candidate wisely while I'm gone for the rest of the day holding your future president (hint: Palin may not be electable, but this one should be).
Posted by: jwb7605 at April 23, 2011 09:28 AM (Qxe/p)
Sure, they're great people. They're just actively assisting the complete destruction of the country. Other than that...
Yeah but they're a product of the media/Hollywood/northeast/union upbringing. It's not like they're the people in masks sacking the G-8 or war protestors.
Posted by: USS Diversity at April 23, 2011 09:28 AM (gJNMj)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:28 AM (AZGON)
Also, having seen the quality of the work force out there, both as a co-worker and a hiring manager, there's not enough grey matter to spare on weed. Much simpler to just keep it illegal.
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 09:29 AM (pW2o8)
Ace is just taking a circuitous route to becoming a Palin supporter. Bringing up Fred and the injustice of media-generated false narratives is a bridge to inevitable bright light in Wasilla.
Posted by: jwest at April 23, 2011 09:29 AM (qeYI9)
This is all very entertaining and everything but I became a grandfather (for the 6th time) this morning at 3:44 AM mountain time.
Congratulations and register the little one to vote.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 09:29 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Valiant at April 23, 2011 09:30 AM (9/lhd)
I'm not sure that the media is responsible for that perception, but like it or not, it's mostly true. Personal likeability and name recognition play a much bigger role than policy positions, both in primary and general elections.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 01:20 PM (SY2Kh)
This is mostly true but the MFM had created a Ronnie Raygun warmonger attitude that had to be overcome by his likeable performance in the debates imo. Well that and Dhimmi Earl's complete incompetence.
Posted by: Captain Hate at April 23, 2011 09:30 AM (vEVry)
Congratulations and register the little one to vote.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 01:29 PM (uFokq)
If he's a democrat he's already voted...twice.
Posted by: Beto at April 23, 2011 09:30 AM (H+LJc)
Well to be technical, he's running for president of Free Libya what with the mavericky rebel beheadings and all. He's nobody's fool.
Posted by: Beto
Ah, the sweet taste of nuance.
Posted by: John Kerry, nuancy boy at April 23, 2011 09:31 AM (sJTmU)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:32 AM (NITzp)
Mitt is serious about his faith. Huntsman is not.
The most praise I've heard about Huntsman here is that he picked a great Lieutenant Governor, Gary Herbert, who is now our Governor.
He flipped on school vouchers, after running for them he bailed on the issue when it came up for a vote. He signed on to the regional cap and trade agreement and, from what I've read, that was not a popular decision.
I was intrigued by his candidacy until I read up on him and spoke with Utahns about him.
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 09:32 AM (pW2o8)
Just to be clear...not an "I told you so"....I bitched about the media narrative about the Fred back then...just as I bitch about the media narrative about Palin
...and please don't say I'm canonizing her. I'm saying she she is nowhere near as bad as the MFing MBM has convinced so many people she is..
...and that include a lot of people who should no better
I'm a Christian and believe that when Satan is tempting and tormenting you the most is at those times when you are closest to God. There's no need to waste time and effort on the souls he's already claimed. So, too, the narrative.
The media does not waste time on tearing McCain or Graham a new one because they've already claimed their souls. Palin and Thompson, nowhere near to being conquered. The bigger the threat, the greater the challenge, the harder they will work and the more rabid they will become.
We should look to the media for one thing: As a sort of Geiger counter wherein their furious beeping means that someone on our side has them running scared and feeling desperate.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 09:34 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Juan Muhammed McCain "President of Libya" at April 23, 2011 09:34 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: Common sense Conservative. at April 23, 2011 09:34 AM (cDRYC)
Just to be clear...not an "I told you so"....I bitched about the media narrative about the Fred back then...just as I bitch about the media narrative about Palin
...and please don't say I'm canonizing her. I'm saying she she is nowhere near as bad as the MFing MBM has convinced so many people she is..
...and that include a lot of people who should no better
I'm a Christian and believe that when Satan is tempting and tormenting you the most is at those times when you are closest to God. There's no need to waste time and effort on the souls he's already claimed. So, too, the narrative.
The media does not waste time on tearing McCain or Graham a new one because they've already claimed their souls. Palin and Thompson, nowhere near to being conquered. The bigger the threat, the greater the challenge, the harder they will work and the more rabid they will become.
We should look to the media for one thing: As a sort of Geiger counter wherein their furious beeping means that someone on our side has them running scared and feeling desperate.Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 09:34 AM (piMMO)
Sure, every now and then there's a decent article, but it's like the live worm or cricket on a fish hook: it's there to suck you in, not for your ultimate benefit.
Posted by: Adjoran at April 23, 2011 09:35 AM (VfmLu)
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 09:35 AM (piMMO)
If you don't win over Independants, you don't win the election, period.
Running a candidate that appeals to Independants doesn't mean that candidate has to be a RINO though. Most Independants aren't very political; get them to like you personally, and you'll probably win their vote regardless of your political positions.This. The problem with people like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann is NOT that they're "too conservative," not at all. It's that independents and swing voters just loathe them. We can spend all day (and have!) arguing about why that is, or whether it's "fair," but as William Munny would say, "'deserves' ain't got nothin' to do with it." It just IS. The reason I like Mitch Daniels and/or Tim Pawlenty is that, despite the hoots from fire-eaters and Palin-fans at places like HotAir that they're somehow "boring" or RINOs (seriously, Mitch Daniels, a RINO? How is that possible?) is not because they're moderate, but rather because they're CONSERVATIVE yet actually able to not scare stupid apolitical independent types away. If one of them were the nominee, the election would be about Barack Obama's unacceptability, not "ooh this crazy Republican is too scary!" And that's how we win.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 09:35 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Jobius
Brainwashed and inauthentic women. Not like Theresa, who pays for all my needs. Being a good Ctholic, of course I am Pro-Choice. I have many conflicting ideas, because, I am nuanced.
Posted by: John Kerry, nuancy boy at April 23, 2011 09:35 AM (sJTmU)
I was solidly sold on teh Fred and was very disappointed when he didn't catch fire. Before I had heard the stuff about him being lnot very committed to winning, the first knock I heard on him from supposed conservatives on websites I was involved in was his hot wife, Jerri, and how that would keep him from being successful. 'Scuse me?
Living in CA for 19 years, I knew a lot of liberals. In that amount of time I actually could only discuss politics and have a meaningful conversation only with one of my liberal friends, and while we agreed on very little, we had the type of friendship where we could be civil and end up agreeing to disagree and not start yelling at each other and hurling names around. I suspect that if a poll were taken of many here, there would be similar stories. You just can't talk to too many of them and have a meaningful conversation. Sad.
Posted by: Theresa D at April 23, 2011 09:35 AM (2hQbY)
Wouldn't it be better to ask if politician So-And-So is a person who would make a decent provider or parent? Or boss at work? Or would you trust him as a paid vendor, like your attorney or your doctor?
Exactly.
And you would think (hope) that those oh-so-smart people in the media, who otherwise deem themselves worthy of lecturing to us about everything, might actually reward (or at least pay attention to) the politician who presents himself in a serious and circumspect manner.
You know, perform their job in a manner consistent with what they purport to be.
Yeah, I know...
Posted by: ThomasD at April 23, 2011 09:35 AM (UK5R1)
If Obama "ran on $5 gas," then he sure as fuck neglected to inform the folks who voted for him
He did run on higher gas prices...and electric prices..
Thing is..the MFing MBM decided that wouldn't go over so hot..so it did not become part of the narrative
Posted by: beedubya at April 23, 2011 09:35 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:36 AM (NITzp)
I call this the "faux telepathy trick". They may not actually believe they are functioning telepaths but they sure act that why. It's all, "you believe this", and " you think X". Cram it jerkface. You can bitch about what I actually do or say but don't think you are living in my head.
The disrespect inherent in this is what bugs me. I believe this attitude is born from the idea they are so much more educated/compassionate/caring/smart than us that of course they don't need to consider us as actual people and listen to what we say, because they can just know what we think. Sowell had it dead to rights; Self congratulation as a basis for social policy.
Posted by: Kyle Kiernan at April 23, 2011 09:36 AM (iz5o9)
I can predict what a liberal will say on any issue. I will not only guess his position, I will accurately guess his reasoning. The latter, most of the time, anyway: I will either guess his primary reason, or his secondary reason, or a reason he's actually contrarian on (and thus departs from the liberal mainstream) but which he will at least recognize as a legitimate reason offered by may other liberals.
More than that, you can accurately predict how they will react to events as they happen. Laughner, and then Gosnell were perhaps the most recent examples of this, but I can write their headlines and blog posts before I see them. The neat thing about being a liberal too is that after a news event has been shown to damage teh Narrative, it gets disappeared from history, quickly wiped away from the public dialogue.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at April 23, 2011 09:37 AM (W0TZi)
speaking of babies...
==========================
What is an abortion?An abortion is when the contents of the womb (uterus) are removed, so that the uterus goes back to how it was before a woman got pregnant.
================================
that's from a taxpayer subsidized website in MA that advises teens on certain issues such as abortions.
More advice to children:
=============================
Can I get an abortion in Massachusetts if IÂ’m under 18?
Ok, I totally know that this information can sound pretty intimidating and overwhelming, but I promise you the reality of getting an abortion is much easier than it sounds here. It may be really hard for you to imagine talking to either your parents or a judge about getting an abortion, but there are people who can help you through it.
Again, I know it sounds crazy, but just keep reading . . . this really can be done and young women do this all the time here in Massachusetts.
...
=================================
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 09:37 AM (uFokq)
True, and have you considered how weird this formulation is? I've never like the "share a six-pack" test. Ask yourself: Do you really think the guy with the nuclear football and the most powerful government office in the world should be someone who make sharing a six-pack with fun?
Yeah, I don't like it either, but no point in denying reality.
I was very much in favor of Fred; in fact I didn't even have a second choice once his poor showing in SC finished him. If candidates were judged by voters solely on substance, I feel that Fred probably would've won. However, they aren't and therefore he didn't.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 09:37 AM (SY2Kh)
We can spend all day (and have!) arguing about why that is, or whether it's "fair," but as William Munny would say, "'deserves' ain't got nothin' to do with it." It just IS.
...and why do you suppose that is??...and isn't that the point Ace is getting at?
Posted by: beedubya at April 23, 2011 09:37 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:37 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 09:38 AM (0gSa/)
Actually, while I agree with this for the most part, Ben Smith is worth reading. He is indeed a Journolister (and doubtless a liberal away from the office) but my god I pore over that guy with a fine-tooth-comb and he's one of the fairest reporters I know. Even the CHOICE of his stories (which is a great place to hide bias) is pretty impressively fair.
I don't often feel the need to speak up in defense of anyone in the MSM, or especially Politico, but Smith is an everyday read.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 09:38 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 09:38 AM (mHQ7T)
Why the fuck would anyone have a liberal friend? Life is too fucking short, and there are seven billion people out there, and some large percentage of them aren't retarded dickmittens.
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at April 23, 2011 01:18 PM
I have a few, and here's the thing: they don't realize it, but they are not actually liberal. They just think they agree with liberalism. In their businesses, their charitable donations and actions, their belief in personal freedom rather than government authority, their disdain for living off handouts, they are conservative/libertarian. Millions of walking casualties out there because Republicans CAN'T FUCKING COMMUNICATE.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 09:38 AM (/Zvyi)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:40 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: ForYourOwnGood at April 23, 2011 09:42 AM (JQeUk)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 09:42 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: toby928™ at April 23, 2011 09:42 AM (GTbGH)
I have a few, and here's the thing: they don't realize it, but they are not actually liberal. They just think they agree with liberalism. In their businesses, their charitable donations and actions, their belief in personal freedom rather than government authority, their disdain for living off handouts, they are conservative/libertarian. Millions of walking casualties out there because Republicans CAN'T FUCKING COMMUNICATE.
Much better put than what I wrote, especially the last sentence.
Posted by: USS Diversity at April 23, 2011 09:42 AM (gJNMj)
Posted by: mare at April 23, 2011 09:43 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 09:43 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Y-not in the hive at April 23, 2011 12:26 PM (pW2o
Yep. Taken me a while to get there.
Posted by: long toss at April 23, 2011 09:44 AM (Y0ydm)
WHAT THE FUCKITY FUCK?
Don't tell me you're shocked. The Dems have been saying that for years. Obama will use high gas prices as proof that we need to get on wind and solar.
Sarah has already answered this, and with any luck will drill it in during the campaign (whether she runs or not). If these were viable technologies, the limitless greed of evil venture capitalists would be driving them to wind and solar like flies to fecal matter. That evil, money-grubbing venture capitalists who will hang their mothers if it will milk a ha'penny of profit out of any project have NOTHING to do with these alternate energy sources says worlds that idiot moderates need to hear.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 09:44 AM (/Zvyi)
There was a time where I could simply not stand listening to Hannity...his constant repition...same shit over and over and over
..then it just dawned on me that his shit was really useful because 1) there are some people who just don't pay much attention to things, but sooner or later they might catch Hannity on the 1000th time he mentions something that they might not have heard from anyone before, and 2) it does help to poke holes in the MFing MBM meta-narratives
the Rev Wright is an example on both points
Posted by: beedubya at April 23, 2011 09:45 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Bill Swerski at April 23, 2011 09:45 AM (mfQD5)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 23, 2011 09:45 AM (eOXTH)
>>He did run on higher gas prices...and electric prices..
>>Thing is..the MFing MBM decided that wouldn't go over so hot..so it did not become part of the narrative.
I actually agree with this, and you know what? Too fucking bad for him, then. Maybe he wouldn't have gotten elected if the MSM hadn't downplayed his remarks about coal and "green energy," etc. (I remember them too), but that ship has sailed. Fact is, this isn't what America thought they were buying, and that's redounding to our advantage now. All the MSM water-carrying in the world won't cover up the fact that my price at the pump just leaped 20 cents/gallon in the past two weeks.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 09:46 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:46 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 09:46 AM (mHQ7T)
Sadly, my best friend since junior high seems to be turning to the dark side (and not in a good way). But he doesn't insist on himself or attempt to use his "enlightened" politics to prove himself superior to me.
If and when he starts to display those odious qualities, then I'll consider cutting him off if he gets too insufferable.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 23, 2011 09:46 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: mare at April 23, 2011 09:47 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: beedubya at April 23, 2011 01:45 PM (AnTyA)
I'm out of shape! You're a great American! Where's Bob Beckel?
But you're right--he simply pounds the message and that may be effective.
Posted by: USS Diversity at April 23, 2011 09:48 AM (gJNMj)
So none of you morons voted for him in the primaries. How'd that work out for ya?
Some of us never got the chance - he was out by the time Texas' primary rolled around, if I recall....
And why they don't have the big Republican state primaries before the smaller ones, I'll never understand. I guess it's so that the voters in the smaller states can feel like their voices count, but forgive me if I don't always feel like "Republicans" in some of the NE states are reflective of the philosophy of the majority of Republicans in the rest of the country.
Posted by: Teresa in Ft. Worth, TX at April 23, 2011 09:48 AM (N24Tj)
Posted by: arhooley
Well, maybe not. My brother -in -law is very much a Jacksonian Democrat, which means he shares very little with the Obama crowd. He is enthused about Obama's ideas about bringing bradband to rural areas (he and my sister still use dial-up), but is pro-gun rights, anti-immigration, etc. , right on down the line.
He and his friends all hate Republicans. This is not a new thing. He is nearly 60 years old. Wanted to shoot George Bush. Severe Cognitive Dissonance.
The ability to hold several conflicting ideas in his head at the same time is remarkable. This is a trait commonly found among the Democrat of the species.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes... at April 23, 2011 09:48 AM (sJTmU)
The stupidity is wide and deep, deep enough to sink the republic which is already taking on water.
Yes, like I said. They have un-educated the population.
Posted by: dagny at April 23, 2011 09:49 AM (lq6sz)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:49 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 01:46 PM (mHQ7T)
I guess but it does make it much harder for Romney in Utah.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 09:50 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 09:50 AM (Gr1V1)
Ultimately, it was a huge disappointment. It kind of felt that out donation was a huge waste of money since we never actually saw Fred really campaign.
Posted by: Geronimo at April 23, 2011 09:50 AM (KVI8B)
Well, I'm not sure what part of I am in Utah Valley, ground zero for Mormonism, is not getting through to you, but I really don't think Huntsman has a chance. This isn't based on my opinions, but on the things I'm hearing in political circles at GOP and community events and in private conversations.
Mitt saved the Olympics. That's a big thing here that gives most of the folks I've spoken with complete and utter confidence in Mitt's executive acumen.
And Gary Herbert has already signaled that he's not endorsing his old boss.
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 09:50 AM (pW2o8)
arhooley......uh your liberal friends are EASILY swayed by the COMMUNIST PRESS.....and frankly the easily swayed are USEFUL IDIOTS AND DANGEROUS TO THE COUNTRY.....and if they are running around voting for democrats and they aren't really "liberal" then there is no hope for this country..... \
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 23, 2011 01:45 PM
So far, two of them have flipped. There may be hope for the country. You're not going to like this, but I think it lies in the direction of Greg Gutfield, Stephen Green, and John Stossel . . . pro-defense libertarians.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 09:50 AM (/Zvyi)
Posted by: I'mWithStupid at April 23, 2011 09:50 AM (xhNbo)
In their businesses, their charitable donations and actions, their belief in personal freedom rather than government authority, their disdain for living off handouts, they are conservative/libertarian. Millions of walking casualties out there because Republicans CAN'T FUCKING COMMUNICATE.
Meh; maybe. I've known more than a few like that; most say that they're turned off by the social conservativism aspect. SoCons are still such a driving force amongst the GOP electorate that they can't be ignored, so it's going to be a tough sell to the habitual Dem voter who just doesn't realize that his own views are actually more in line with the Republican party.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 09:51 AM (SY2Kh)
233 @187 ...Just consider the headline:
Obama: Gas Price Solution Lies in Renewable Energy Sources
Is this coming from the same talking flatworm who mocked "drill, baby, drill," because it would take so many years for new petroleum production to come online and deliver oil?
The House Rs will be passing a number of bills next month addressing the moratorium, expanding drilling, and EPA regs, but the Dems have already lined-up to protect Dear Leader. Apparently, Pelosi has told them to do photo-ops at gas stations, screaming about price gouging and speculation. Plus this gem:
Democrats will counter with “use it or lose it” legislation that aims to force companies to produce on, or have a valid reason for not producing on, their existing leases or risk losing other drilling opportunities.Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 23, 2011 09:51 AM (uVLrI)
Posted by: nickless at April 23, 2011 09:51 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 23, 2011 09:52 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 23, 2011 09:52 AM (eOXTH)
We have conceded large parts of our culture to the left, and our attitudes are, "well fuck the arts/film/music/television".
This is the part that drives me nuts. Who is more likely to use the term "artsy fartsy" -- a conservative, or a liberal? Yes, a conservative is more likely to rhyme "arts" with "farts," and then to lament that actors, directors, and screenwriters are all liberal.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 09:53 AM (/Zvyi)
The GOP does not want to win the presidency in 2012.
They do not want to one-term America's historice first black president.
Some Republicans, e.g. Palin and Bachman, may want to win, but the party doesn NOT.
The GOP establishment will do all in its power to make the 2012 presidential election nothing more than a ritual.
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 23, 2011 09:53 AM (7+pP9)
These "unimportant" aspects of our lives dominate our decision making whether we realize it or not. Just letting the libs take over culture because "fuck it" is terribly destructive.
Absolutely--Mediawood influences far too many voters, more than people think. Was W Bush really a hateable guy? Is Obama?
Posted by: USS Diversity at April 23, 2011 09:53 AM (gJNMj)
All the MSM water-carrying in the world won't cover up the fact that my price at the pump just leaped 20 cents/gallon in the past two weeks.
Have to disagree with that. Ogabe is out there demaoguing the issue and blaming it on the evil speculators...and the MFing MBM is going right along with him.
Before, the narrative was Bush was allowing his oil buddies to price gouge...and I was fucking stunned to hear from people, whom I thought should have known better, fall for that crap
Posted by: beedubya at April 23, 2011 09:53 AM (AnTyA)
Aw hell, if it comes to that (and we're fucked if it does), I'd even vote for Trump. As someone said in an earlier thread, I'm voting for Satan if he's the Republican nominee.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 01:15 PM (NjYDy)
All Satan wants is your eternal soul. Democrats want your soul, your money, your property, and all of that from your children too.
Posted by: buzzion at April 23, 2011 09:54 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:54 AM (NITzp)
don't know who green is.....
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 23, 2011 01:52 PM
Vodkapundit at Pajamas Media. Sorry about the "you're not going to like this." Some people here don't like libertarians.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 09:54 AM (/Zvyi)
I think if Palin runs she could create a bandwagon effect for independents. Independents are so hopelessly stupid but they follow wherever the bandwagon goes.
Palin running a successful campaign though is all up to her.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 09:54 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 09:55 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: mare at April 23, 2011 09:56 AM (A98Xu)
Not to mention conservatives ceded the field of academia to the liberals decades ago and now colleges are mostly liberal indoctrination centers. We need to storm the Ivory Towers as well and bring the shallow "intellectual" underpinning of collectivism crashing to the ground.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 23, 2011 09:56 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: nickless
This! Is exactly right. This is where the muddled middle live.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes... at April 23, 2011 09:57 AM (sJTmU)
Very nice Ace.
I wonder though about what exactly will help a Republican Presidential candidate win the election.
Right now the media is constructing a primary 'narrative' of the Republican candidate needing to be a 'birther' or 'radical' or whatever.
For a Republican candidate to win, they have to 'triangulate' just like Obama wants to do. They have to position themselves as the moderate broker between major parties. We need someone who can speak this language, yet be relied upon to fight for conservative values.
Posted by: Paper at April 23, 2011 09:57 AM (VoSja)
Can I point out something obvious here? We've got our own modern-day version of "the Narrative" among conservatives. Which goes like "Tim Pawlenty? Yeah, sure, he has great conservative credentials, little to no baggage, he's right on the issues and has been a successful two-term governor....he's just not EXCITING enough."
Posted by: Vyceroy at April 23, 2011 09:57 AM (jmWy/)
Millions of walking casualties out there because Republicans CAN'T FUCKING COMMUNICATE.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 01:38 PM (/Zvyi)
Amen...but also because there are so many ostensibly on our side, but who are intellectually lazy and fall for the MFing MBM false narrative
BTW...any further word from our friend or his family on the West Coast?
Posted by: beedubya at April 23, 2011 09:57 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 09:58 AM (Gr1V1)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 09:58 AM (0gSa/)
The casual person out there believes what he believes, but still wants to be thought of as a decent person. The media tells them that to be a decent person they have to be Democrat Populist Obama Voters, so they do it. It doesn't change what they believe, but they reconcile to two without considering the divergence.
Posted by: nickless at April 23, 2011 01:51 PM
Another big truth. The liberal friends I flipped said they simply thought of Republicans as being "mean."
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 09:58 AM (/Zvyi)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 01:54 PM (NITzp)
---
Yes, but when you are running against the incumbent POTUS, you lose the executive experience argument automatically.
POTUS beats governor or CEO every time.
So I think it's unwise to repeat the mantra (not saying you're doing this, but it's being done) that NO Representative or Senator should be the nominee. Because we can run a two-term governor or a CEO or mayor and we'll still use the executive experience argument against Obama in the general.
The argument about the importance of executive experience only flies if you accept the fact that Obama has failed as POTUS and that a major contributor to his epic fail is his lack of executive experience.
So I guess I'm saying, promote executive experience as a positive, but do not use it to form a negative attack in the primary, because our best candidate may wind up being Allen West or Paul Ryan or some other non-exec.
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 09:59 AM (pW2o8)
Jonathan Haidt.
He's the guy (psychology prof at Virginia, actually) who stood up in front of a meeting of psychologists and said "hey, how come there aren't any conservatives in this room? Is there maybe a problem with us, not them?"
This, of course, had the predictable response from the usual suspects.
Posted by: filbert at April 23, 2011 10:00 AM (smvTK)
No, they aren't actually.
Obama is their Ashley Wilkes. They're supposed to be in love with him. He has the right parentage, the right credentials. He's the one they've been picturing next to them at the top of the cake since they were a child. There's nothing wrong with him that they can (that they're allowed to) articulate. All of their friends say that they should be in love with him.
And so they defend him, they will trash anybody who trashes him, but deep in their hearts they're tired of his games. They're tired of having to be hypocrites just to defend his lies and cheating. They're at the stage that they want to get out, but don't know exactly how to justify it to themselves. They simply can't say it out loud.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 23, 2011 10:01 AM (73tyQ)
Instead of relying on Thompson to build his own brand he got some unhelpful help in overbilling and hype that described a person who wasn't running and never would. He might have met with more success if he hadn't been oversold as some fireball.
Guliani could have won as a pro-choice candidate, BTW, but only running against Obama and only by having more to say than he ever really did. It wasn't the PC thing that killed him, it was his narrowness and disappointing failure to live up to expectations of leadership and vision.
Think about it. McCain had not much to live up to, except his mavericky middle-ness. He wasn't ever expected to be a beacon of greatness.
Posted by: SarahW at April 23, 2011 10:01 AM (Z4T49)
Meh; maybe. I've known more than a few like that; most say that they're turned off by the social conservativism aspect. SoCons are still such a driving force amongst the GOP electorate that they can't be ignored, so it's going to be a tough sell to the habitual Dem voter who just doesn't realize that his own views are actually more in line with the Republican party.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 01:51 PMAgreed to this, too.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 10:01 AM (/Zvyi)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 10:02 AM (Gr1V1)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 10:02 AM (mHQ7T)
Nice post, Ace.
Your insight is obvious, but only in the way we say "2 + 2 = 4" is is obvious. Of course, 2 + 2 = 4, but it's only obvious to those with enough of a background in mathematics to be familiar with the symbolic representation of quantities, the operation of combining quantities in the abstract sense, the symbolic representation of such combinations, the symbol for the outcome of a mathematical operation, and enough experience with this particular operation that we instantly recognize its meaning and accuracy.
Now try to explain "2 + 2 = 4" to someone who doesn't already know it. Maybe you're explaining it to a high school kid from Asia who already knows math but needs help translating the characters. Maybe your talking to a child who knows how to count but doesn't yet grasp the concept of addition. Or maybe you're talking to a cat, and he'll never understand no matter how you explain it.
Who are you dealing with when you explain The Narrative? I talked with a gentleman about Iraq back when things weren't going so well over there. I mentioned that I still came across signs of good stuff, and a polite discussion ensued. Eventually, I asked him how he knew with such certainty that things were so bleak in Iraq. He answered, "Direct observation." In other words, he got his knowledge from the news. He thought that, by watching the news, he was looking at the world instead of merely consuming a medium of mass communication.
Is this guy like the Asian high school kid, the toddler, or the cat? Where do you begin? How do you explain?
(Sorry -- the comment went a little long -- and no, I'm not trying to impress Breitbart.)
Posted by: FireHorse at April 23, 2011 10:02 AM (uUo97)
Obama is their Ashley Wilkes.
Holy crap, that's so brilliant I'm going to use it the next time I go trolling at Kos.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 10:02 AM (/Zvyi)
I hope that Iowa and New Hampshire lose their status to states like Florida, states that end up deciding the election.
What does it help to spend millions of dollars building campaign structures and bringing in volunteers in states with fifteen total electoral votes?. It is a waste of time and money. At least in Florida the money spent would help in a vitally important swing state.
While the Republicans spend and campaign, Obama will rake in the campaign dollars. It would be nice to get something out of the money spent besides eleventy-thousand campaign managers in Iowa.
Posted by: Paper at April 23, 2011 10:03 AM (VoSja)
Love you guys/gals.
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 10:04 AM (pW2o8)
I had to laugh at people touting Biden's "foreign policy experience". Yes, he has a long career in the foreign policy arena and he's been regularly and spectacularly wrong almost every time.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 23, 2011 10:04 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 10:04 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 10:04 AM (Gr1V1)
BTW...any further word from our friend or his family on the West Coast?
Hmmm, no. I'll e-mail the wife and get back.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 10:05 AM (/Zvyi)
Posted by: arhooley
Well, they are. I was having a discussion about the Iraq War with my Democrat brother -in -law in 2006, and he started to choke me. I probably had it coming, because I'm personally so mean. He's also about 5 inches taller and 50 lb heavier than me, so he had that going for him too. Plus, I'm mean.
Yeah, liberal Democrats. They be swell folks.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes... at April 23, 2011 10:05 AM (sJTmU)
How many times did he say the words "So that you never have to utter the words Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi"? I wish folks had really listened to those words.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:05 AM (piMMO)
Right. And, it spreads like wildfire. We are often our own worse enemy.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:06 AM (piMMO)
I think if Palin runs she could create a bandwagon effect for independents. Independents are so hopelessly stupid but they follow wherever the bandwagon
The "bandwagon" is disdain for her. Even Independents overwhelmingly have an opinion about her, and it's a negative one. All the Hannity appearances and paid speeches in the world won't change that.
This notion that if only the voters knew Palin the way her devout supporters know her, they'd also support her is little more than projection-based fantasy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 10:06 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 10:07 AM (mHQ7T)
I've worked for some spectacularly successful idiots.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:08 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 10:10 AM (/Zvyi)
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 23, 2011 10:10 AM (kUaEF)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 10:11 AM (mHQ7T)
The "bandwagon" is disdain for her. Even Independents overwhelmingly have an opinion about her, and it's a negative one. All the Hannity appearances and paid speeches in the world won't change that.
This notion that if only the voters knew Palin the way her devout supporters know her, they'd also support her is little more than projection-based fantasy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 02:06 PM (SY2Kh)
Chill out there man. I know independents and they do not have "disdain" for her. Liberals and you have that. Independents just think she is dumb and can see Russia from her house. I fully expect her to run a good campaign to turn it around. You dont think it can, support someone else. Palin's got a devout base and it could be used to advantages. I love your fox news talking point as well. If she runs, her contract expires and is no longer anchored to FNC.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 10:11 AM (0gSa/)
The timing was just poor for him, alas.
Posted by: toby928™ at April 23, 2011 10:12 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: exceller at April 23, 2011 10:12 AM (Z7Znk)
Who will be 2012's Chuck Hagel?
That is, who will be the "I Despise The GOP Base/Arlen Specter" candidate who is only running on pure arrogance and ego?
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at April 23, 2011 10:12 AM (uFokq)
Obama is their Ashley Wilkes.
Holy crap, that's so brilliant I'm going to use it the next time I go trolling at Kos.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 02:02 PM (/Zvyi)
Thanks. And people wonder why Breitbart reads the comments here.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 23, 2011 10:14 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: C. S. P. Schofield at April 23, 2011 10:15 AM (7eONq)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 02:07 PM (mHQ7T)
It was not her best performance but she has done other interviews and has done better. I think she has gotten better.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at April 23, 2011 10:16 AM (0gSa/)
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 01:38 PM (/Zvyi)
Right, it's OUR fault they're retards.
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at April 23, 2011 10:16 AM (6IReR)
Posted by: ForYourOwnGood at April 23, 2011 01:42 PM (JQeUk)
I read this as "I'm a big whiny pussy that has a fit when I'm sent to a youtube link that is over 3 minutes." Sack up and read it. There is nothing wrong with a post like this. And fat adds flavor to the meat.
Posted by: buzzion at April 23, 2011 10:16 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 23, 2011 10:17 AM (kUaEF)
Posted by: MlR at April 23, 2011 10:18 AM (uxyPr)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 10:18 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 10:20 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 23, 2011 02:17 PM (kUaEF)
I like that. But to be fair, she could at least lip sync without a teleprompter.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 23, 2011 10:20 AM (73tyQ)
Frankly if you are going to do some stuff like this I would prefer a heads up about the subject some time in advance. Maybe a little comment free ad post about it with a key quote. Otherwise I am operating in snark mode for most of the time.
Posted by: Rocks at April 23, 2011 10:21 AM (th0op)
Posted by: MlR at April 23, 2011 10:22 AM (uxyPr)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at April 23, 2011 10:22 AM (bxuoY)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 10:23 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: MlR at April 23, 2011 10:23 AM (uxyPr)
Like running a libertarian will win over the GOP base and the moderate middle?
Posted by: andycanuck at April 23, 2011 10:26 AM (Y1DZt)
I believe this attitude is born from the idea they are so much more educated/compassionate/caring/smart than us...
I've heard these folks described as "pseudo-intellectuals", and I'm starting to think that's an accurate description of their grossly inflated opinion of themselves.
There's a bit more to the left's blind belief in so many Things. That. Just. Aren't. True. In addition to their perceptual immaturity and their seeming refusal to recognize reality, they take some bizzare comfort in being told what to think, as if someone else, rather than themselves are somehow in a better position to dictate their beliefs than they are. This outer direction and willingness to go along with the crowd of "cool people" is what separates them from us.
I'd be willing to bet that most of us Morons count on our own experience and intuition rather than anything anyone else tells us, unless we know that other person as one who shares our outlook (for the most part) and can be trusted. We have an inner "something" that's difficult (for me) to put into words that helps us wend our way through this life.
They do not.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 23, 2011 10:26 AM (d0Tfm)
Chill out there man. I know independents and they do not have "disdain" for her.
Pity for her then that the Independents you personally know don't get to appoint the president. Poll after poll, month after month show that her favorability amongst Independents is horrible. A campaign isn't going to magically change that; if she was capable of dramatically and quickly improving her favorability with Independents, why hasn't she already?
Engage in your fanboy fantasies all you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously by those of us living in the real world.
Chances are that she's not running anyways; I suspect she's being a tease about it simply because it helps keep her profile high.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 10:26 AM (SY2Kh)
Dude, try some self-editing. Try tightening things up. It's not so much that the post is too long that's the problem (although that is a problem), it's what makes it too long. You just ramble on and on. You say the same thing over and over. You drone, you slog. "One time, at band camp," etc. It's not a question of the reader lacking an attention span. There's a message in there somewhere--maybe several messages--but it (they) get lost in all the flab. Cut away the fat. You've got such a pretty face, you'd look so much better if you lost 100 pounds, if you get my drift.
Dude, try some self-editing. Try tightening things up. It's not so much that the post is too long that's the problem (although that is a problem), it's what makes it too long. You just ramble on and on. You say the same thing over and over. You drone, you slog. "One time, at band camp," etc. It's not a question of the reader lacking an attention span. There's a message in there somewhere--maybe several messages--but it (they) get lost in all the flab. Cut away the fat. You've got such a pretty face, you'd look so much better if you lost 100 pounds, if you get my drift.
Posted by: FireHorse at April 23, 2011 10:27 AM (uUo97)
100% agreed. Every group large enough to constitute a coherent "group" has its own narratives, counter-narratives, and sub-narratives. This is EASILY one of the most annoying ones on the Right, and one that I mentioned already above.
Again: how can ANYONE who has looked for even a MOMENT at the pro-life, pro-gun, union-DESTROYING (as in, he went much farther than Scott Walker and actually decertified all public sector unions in the state within days of taking office) fiscal superstar like Mitch Daniels and call him a "RINO?" That ought to be a punch-in-the-face offense. Similarly, Tim Pawlenty shut down the entire state of Minnesota's government not once, but twice, rather than cave in to the Democratic legislature's bullshit. And he's a ball-less RINO too? Why? I have my theories, and they don't have shit to do with their political or campaigning merits, but rather the prejudices of certain vocal groups in the online GOP base.
Narratives can be deadly for the group that falls prey to them precisely because they take the place of correct objective assessment.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 10:27 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: blaster at April 23, 2011 10:28 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: mockmook at April 23, 2011 10:29 AM (MtgQm)
It's a JOKE people.
What the hell are you getting the fevers about? Somebody, QUICK!, get blaster to a cool room and a comfy fainting sofa.
And some peach iced tea.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:30 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 10:30 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 10:30 AM (ven8N)
Posted by: TexasJew at April 23, 2011 10:32 AM (uR5Zf)
Like running a libertarian will win over the GOP base and the moderate middle?
Pretty much. As much as most Republican voters might believe (or pretend to believe) in libertarian free-market principles, tell them that you want to take their Social Security, student loans, and farm subsidies away and they'll bail on you.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 10:32 AM (SY2Kh)
Breitbart has been trolling?
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:33 AM (piMMO)
You first. [See you later; I've got other afternoon things to do.]
Posted by: andycanuck at April 23, 2011 10:34 AM (Y1DZt)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 10:34 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: TexasJew at April 23, 2011 10:34 AM (uR5Zf)
We have conceded large parts of our culture to the left, and our attitudes are, "well fuck the arts/film/music/television".
This is the part that drives me nuts. Who is more likely to use the term "artsy fartsy" -- a conservative, or a liberal? Yes, a conservative is more likely to rhyme "arts" with "farts," and then to lament that actors, directors, and screenwriters are all liberal.
Posted by: arhooley at April 23, 2011 01:53 PM (/Zvyi)
This may offend Breitbart if he is reading this (sorry, Andrew!) but this is one of the things that drives me nuts about Big Hollywood's commentors. The site itself and the idea behind it is great. The commentors, not so much. They bitch and whine and moan about how much they hate Hollywood and movies and TV. To which I want to yell back, "Then why are you reading and commenting on a site called "Big Hollywood"?!" They make the same lame comments over and over about "Hollyweird" (ooh, that's original); they brag about how they haven't been to a movie theater in 10, 20, 30 years; they talk about how there have been no movie stars since John Wayne died. The same schtick over and over. Mostly now I just read their articles and skip the comments.
Posted by: Book Geek at April 23, 2011 10:34 AM (1+OO5)
That's the same reason lazy-ass, unmotivated, 9-5 female workers give anytime another woman succeeds in business. At least they're consistent.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:35 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 10:36 AM (mHQ7T)
Fuck winning them over.
Grab them by the hair and drag them over.
They are the ones that give Liberals so much power.
Stick to principles and tell the Independents to wake the fuck up.
Yeah, I don't think the "stick a gun to their head in the voting booth and force them to vote Republican" strategy would prove very practical.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 10:36 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 10:37 AM (cDRYC)
Breitbart has been trolling?
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 02:33 PM (piMMO)
Oops. I meant lurking.
Please please please don't hate me Andrew!
Posted by: TexasJew at April 23, 2011 10:38 AM (uR5Zf)
Posted by: TexasJew at April 23, 2011 10:41 AM (uR5Zf)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 10:42 AM (NITzp)
Well that takes the fun out of it. I was imagining that he might be KayinMaine or Nick(the dick).
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:43 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Ramsey at April 23, 2011 10:43 AM (SxyPc)
@361
The problem with what you are saying though is that no one in our field is "perfect" for conservatives. Every single one of our declared or potential candidates has legitimate flaws, policy or other externals. So it comes down to comparing and contrasting the flaws and coming to a decision about which candidate has the least unacceptable flaw(s).
Hence why it makes no sense to slice and dice all of our candidates at this point like you are doing.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 10:43 AM (BBlzg)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 10:45 AM (Gr1V1)
I took the original comment less literally with regard to Pawlenty and/or Daniels. I do see that we frequently jump on the narrative bandwagon, just as many did with Thompson. As much as we know that the MSM are lying POS, we too often fall for their BS hook, line and sinker. Worse, we as a party are so damned disjointed that anyone who wants to provide a bump to their own favorite candidate can plant a seed and watch it grow with nothing more than a little manure to make it grow. Kind of like a mushroom.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 10:49 AM (piMMO)
Yeah, I don't think the "stick a gun to their head in the voting booth and force them to vote Republican" strategy would prove very practical.
Then what? A Ka-Bar behind a kidney? A garotte? Perhaps poison them and only give them the antidote after they vote Republican?
Posted by: FireHorse at April 23, 2011 10:49 AM (uUo97)
What worries me is not that Oliar will have that advantage of incumbency because he is not popular, but that (1) I can't see a candidate on our side that can take advantage of that and that (2) the media is trying to pick Trump as our candidate.
So save us Superman or Superwoman wherever you are.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 23, 2011 10:49 AM (IXLvN)
Totally agree with the remarks about Hannity going for the 'lowest common denominator' on his program. I just can't stand watching shows like his or O'Reilly's because for me I have to work too hard to glean any real information with everybody talking over everybody else.
Posted by: Theresa D at April 23, 2011 10:51 AM (2hQbY)
Because he didn't have "fire in his belly". Duh. And you were one of the people making sure we all knew.
Good Lord, Ace, you are one of the least introspective people I've ever seen. You follow the press like a puppy following a toddler, and then act all shocked, shocked to find out you've been led astray.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at April 23, 2011 10:52 AM (1A9l9)
And you keep falling for them. What does that tell you?
Posted by: Rob Crawford at April 23, 2011 10:53 AM (1A9l9)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 10:53 AM (ven8N)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet channeling Glenn at April 23, 2011 10:54 AM (cDRYC)
But the point is that these Narratives are begun, and started, to disguise laziness, incompetence, and ignorance.
And you keep falling for them. What does that tell you?
That media is the industry to be in for middle-aged singles, because even the lazy, the incompetent and the ignorant can get that special someone to fall for them?
Posted by: FireHorse at April 23, 2011 10:55 AM (uUo97)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 23, 2011 10:56 AM (7utQ2)
Here's the question I'm wondering though: if we had nominated Fred Thompson, would he have had a chance at beating Obama? For instance, I know some Romney supporters still to this day feel cheated about what happened in 08 with Huckabee and McCain tag teaming to prevent him from winning the nomination. But arguably losing in 08 was much better for Romney's chances now in 12, then his chances would have been if he had lost to Obama in the general.
So maybe there was an unfair narrative that hurt Fred, but in the end did it really matter for us in the election?
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 10:56 AM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 11:00 AM (cDRYC)
So maybe there was an unfair narrative that hurt Fred, but in the end did it really matter for us in the election?
Probably not, but one can only guess. I suspect that Fred, Romney or Huckabee would've also lost in the general; it was just a bad year for us.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 11:03 AM (SY2Kh)
And yet (and this what keeps upsetting some of us) you don't seem to realize that NONE OF THESE HAVE A SHOT AT ALL. I'm not talking about winning in a general election (though there's certainly that), but also in winning primaries. Bolton, West, and Thompson aren't running (simple as that), so only Palin and Cain remain from your list. I doubt Palin is running either, but if she does, then, well we've already hashed out all the ways she's utterly toxic to independents and moderates and damn unimpressive to a significant segment of honest-to-god trueblue conservatives as well. Therefore, no matter how much you personally like her, she cannot win. Meanwhile Cain has no experience whatsoever beyond running a pizza chain and a (pretty decent, I hear) radio show, plus he's already made that horrifyingly inexcusable bigoted "religious test" gaffe on camera, so who's going to vote for him? Seriously, our narrative with Cain would be...what, exactly? "Hey, America! So you voted for an inexperienced guy with governance skills in large part because he was a black guy...how about you do it again, but this time from the conservative side?"
It seems obvious that your bias in the GOP field is towards guys you perceive as being blood 'n guts red-meat "truthteller" types. Leaving aside the fact that such types never win elections, EVER, in the modern era (name one guy who did, and before you say Reagan I'll point out that no, that wasn't his campaigning style in the slightest -- he was your friendly dad who spoke in uplifting, nonthreatening patriotic conservative messages with every last bit of anger shorn away for maximum stylistic appeal), your criterion gives absolutely no space to questions of competence or experience, which are primary issues for independents. I'd love a US electorate that voted based on your criterion -- then I could really let my freak flag fly, so to speak -- but we have to run elections based on the electorate we've got.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 11:05 AM (NjYDy)
Good point, but I only mentioned two Candidates. Pawlenty and Daniels and why they are not for me. Let's look at who the Oldsailor finds acceptable, in this order, Palin, Cain, Thompson, Bolton, West
Considering that the only candidates you find "acceptable" are either not going to run or have no chance in hell of winning in the general election, you might've saved yourself some typing and just said "I support Obama in 2012".
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 11:06 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 11:07 AM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 11:11 AM (NITzp)
The Who Sell Out is a fantastic album, but other than that I'm no sellout.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 11:11 AM (NjYDy)
If you cant control or fight the narrative in a primary, you'll never be able to fight it in the general or during office. Fred got off easy.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at April 23, 2011 11:12 AM (ZIpcL)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 11:15 AM (NITzp)
Why not? Because the press tells you they don't, that's why.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at April 23, 2011 11:15 AM (1A9l9)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 11:18 AM (NITzp)
What do you want from me, what is this 'active participation'? I love the arts, but I'm not an artist. You want me to write some crappy book or draw some crappy painting, even though I have no talent?
And, again, I didn't 'concede' anything. I just made the mistake of being born in the 80s, by which time the values and institutions that made great culture possibly had been thoroughly destroyed by the left.
I didn't 'concede' the academy. I went to a great school, and I went there with innocent intentions. Not as some conservative reactionary trying to politicize everything, just wanted to learn. But I couldn't, because everything already had been politicized by the liberals. So, I left. What is done cannot be undone. Being a more 'active' student cannot turn back time.
It's gone, it's over, deal with it. We cannot reclaim it. As Chesterton and others clearly saw and clearly predicted, it's a whole lot easier to tear something down than to build it back up - once you destroy it, it's gone for good.
The only thing left to do is to ignore the rubble and all the crappy culture of today and, via TCM, via the library, via the museum, at least make the most of enjoying the great art that was produced before liberals showed up to ruin everything.
It was a beautiful culture while it lasted.
Posted by: Adrian at April 23, 2011 11:18 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 11:21 AM (ven8N)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 11:21 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: Theresa D, the happy wonderer at April 23, 2011 11:21 AM (2hQbY)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 11:23 AM (cDRYC)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 11:25 AM (ven8N)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 11:26 AM (ven8N)
Not because of economics, but because of culture: education, family, values, etc, etc, etc. These are the reasons Obama and the left have the power they do. All because people didn't want to be mean and all social conny back when it still would have meant something.
Posted by: Adrian at April 23, 2011 11:27 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: Bob Saget at April 23, 2011 11:32 AM (NLWij)
Liberal bias in the arts is a huge problem. Conservatives tend to focus on the overt examples and they also focus on examples targeted at an educated adult audience, but these kids today are warped by the time they start watching Barney and Sesame Street. Then stuff like Wall-E and Avatar.
And its not the overt stuff. "Conservative" movies often fail because they are too literal. Its the constant repetition of the subtle stuff that is harming. All the villains being old white men in "big corporations". The systemic deification of mother nature. The constant, repetitious belitting of organized faith. How older men deferring to traditional vlaues are always wrong, and usually corrected by an "open-minded" outsider or youth. How white on black racism is the only racism and how movies tug on the heart-shrings like its 1956....
Never in an obvious or overt manner. Just the constant bombardment of all these little cultural associations. By the time someone turns 18, they hate "corporations" without stepping foot a academia.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at April 23, 2011 11:33 AM (ZIpcL)
No, not because the press tells us so. But rather because I can cite, for each example, a ton of very serious CONCRETE issues that make them losing candidates. To pretend that we can just "will" certain people into office because they "tell it like it is" is the sort of magical thinking that makes some of us want to beat our heads against a wall. For example, Alan West? Nice guy, hope he'll be a good Congressman, but what exactly are his qualifications for office? Served in Iraq? Um, I respect the fuck out of that, but it sure as hell doesn't make me think "huh, he'll be an ace hand at managing our delicate trade relationship with China" or "yeah, he's totally got a handle on the best way to ramp down our commitments to Social Security and Medicare before it all goes kaboom." All it tells me is that he's a solid dude whose opinion on military matters I would respect.
Also, let's not kid ourselves here: if either Alan West or Herman Cain were white dudes, nobody would be talking about them as possible Prez/Veep candidates at all. Can we at least be honest with ourselves about this? I like BOTH of them quite a bit, but their experience level SCREAMS "not ready to be President." Hell, Barack Obama had more experience than both of those guys, and we all agree that he's been tragically unprepared for the rigors of the office. (This is a separate issue from his awful liberal policies, by the way -- one that I think a lot of partisans on our side don't fully grasp and therefore don't fully appreciate how much the nonideological middle cares about it -- on a functional level he just can't hack the job, before we even get to talking about what shitty politics he has).
I don't need the media to tell me Sarah Palin would make a poor candidate in the general election, I have the evidence of her many cack-handed PR missteps and thin-skinned overreactions to the most unimportant critics (seriously, talking back to Bill fucking Maher? Talk about "punching down"). I don't need the media to tell me that Herman Cain "can't win," I can just look at the obvious fact that he doesn't have a day's worth of experience in any form of government to know that people aren't going to vote for that (and SHOULDN'T -- experience matters, and people who think it somehow 'ennobles' him as a candidate rather than fatally wounds him are engaging in a thinly-veiled variety of anti-intellectualism), especially in an election where one of our main arguments to independents and moderates is gonna be "see what happens when you elect an unqualified cipher as President for silly Affirmative Action reasons?" It would undercut our campaign even worse than having Mitt Romney out there arguing against Obamacare would.
You cannot blind yourself to those sorts of critical considerations merely because you 'like what the guy says' when he gives speeches.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 11:36 AM (NjYDy)
We as conservatives like to offer explanations, they don't want to hear logic and reasoning (of course, they're liberals, if they responded to that they'd be conservatives, etc - emotional response!)
Posted by: Darin H at April 23, 2011 11:44 AM (mYph5)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 11:49 AM (ven8N)
I was a Fred Thompson supporter, he's the first presidential candidate that I'd donated my hard earned $$$$$$.
Posted by: Just Chillin at April 23, 2011 11:50 AM (1ZXRm)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 11:51 AM (NITzp)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 11:51 AM (Gr1V1)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 11:51 AM (cDRYC)
Posted by: JackStraw at April 23, 2011 11:53 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 11:53 AM (Gr1V1)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 11:53 AM (ven8N)
Oh dear Lord.
I missed this comment earlier and refuse to believe that you actually believe this.
Posted by: Clueless at April 23, 2011 11:56 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 12:02 PM (NITzp)
@413
Would you be willing to agree that Reagan's success was in part because he was able to guage the electorate's desires in 1980? Every politician does this to some extent in order to win or deflect attacks.
Pawlenty's overall record is more important than what he said in a very Blue state running for reelection in a terrible year for Republicans.
If Reagan had been in a tough reelection fight in 1984, I would have expected him to deflect challenges in a similar way by reacting to the changes in the electorate (That doesn't mean you have to kowtow on policy.)
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 12:03 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 12:05 PM (mHQ7T)
Ace-
You wasted how many words and how much of our time on this? Because you're late to the party if you just figured this all out. THEY THINK WE'RE EVIL, AND THEY HAVE THOUGHT THAT WAY FOR SOME TIME.
About a year a ago, I was sitting and talking with a co-worker and of course politics came up (these people ALWAYS turn to politics, it has to be injected into every single area of life) and I mentioned I was a Republican, and he literally goggled at me.
"I've never met anyone who was a Republican before" he said. A 36 yr old man said that. The suggestion I made that he was ill-served hanging around in his little bubble, and maybe it would do him well to actually go out and meet people with different viewpoints simply bounced off of him. Then the conversation to Reagan.
"You liked him? But he was evil!"
I just looked at him for a minute. Then I pointed out some names: Hitler. Stalin. Castro. Chavez. Bin Laden. THOSE guys are evil. And you're putting Reagan in there? For what? Well, lots of hemming and hawing, and no looking me in the eye either, but he didn't back off either.
So you see what we are up against.
Another idiot at my job, someone mentioned Palin (because we were discussing baseball and of course, politics must pervade EVERY SINGLE AREA OF LIFE for these people) and some woman just explodes "Oh, I hate Palin! She's just like the Gestapo." I just snapped on her. "The Gestapo? The f**king Gestapo? Tell me you stupid a**hole, how many Jews did Palin load onto boxcars to go to the deathcamps? How many women and children did Palin have a hand in murdering? How much genocide did she commit?"
And of course, I was the bad guy, because I yelled at this obviously well-intentioned and intelligent woman, and I called her a naughty name, and I dared to throw her stupid cow-like assumption in her face.
I no longer speak with people at my office unless it is work-related or the most tapioca of subjects. The minute the talk shifts away from sports or television, I walk away.
I no longer believe in engaging with these people. Because they can't be engaged with. The only way to engage with them is through violence. And I don't feel like going to jail.
Posted by: Trump at April 23, 2011 12:05 PM (hK2Ya)
Posted by: macbrooks at April 23, 2011 12:05 PM (1BqZG)
The really obnoxious part of the 2008 campaign was The Narrative that suddenly sprang up about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Seemingly overnight, Hillary went from Inevitable Front Runner Who Is Already Measuring the Oval Office Windows to Inept Old Shrew With Husband Who Is Probably Racist. Obama went from Great Speaker But Hopelessly Naive Leftist to The New Liberal Jesus. And I mean it happened OVERNIGHT. WTF?
The MBM simply REFUSED to investigate, at the time or later, the facts about Obama's campaign - namely that he more than likely stole a bunch of the early caucuses, illegally bussed hundreds of supporters into Iowa from Illinois, had thugs tearing up sign-in sheets at the caucuses and literally locking Clinton voters out, had people yelling "racist" at Clinton votes in the caucuses and mau-mauing them into silence, probably had hundreds of illegal Mexicans voting in Nevada and Texas, etc. etc.
Obama actually lost the majority of primaries to Hillary. She got more actual votes from Democrats than Obama did. yet halfway through the process the MBM invented this Narrative that Hillary's Campaign Screwed Up and Obama's Campaign Is Brilliant. When the Jeremiah Wright thing blew up and threatened Obama's candidacy, the madia rallied around Obama and literally saved his ass by fawning over his Greatest Speech Since Gettysburg. And on and on and on.
America elected a Narrative. And now the people are finding out it was pretty much 100% bullshit.
Posted by: rockmom at April 23, 2011 12:06 PM (Y01Pi)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 12:06 PM (mHQ7T)
Ace,
seriously Ace this?
I did not understand then, and still do not understand now, why Fred Thompson did not almost immediately become the front-runner and sweep virtually every single primary and caucus.
here is a tip for you Ace. Fred did not become the front runner and did not sweep because his actions reinforced the narrative and thus he made the narrative impossible to break.
This also explains why the narratives about Palin do not catch on and destroy her. Her actions are the exact opposite of the narratives the MSM are trying to crerate about her and thus are easily disprovved, except for people that are too lazy to want to get the facts.
Let's take the narrative that she "quit". If Palin would have resigned and gone fishing she would have reinforced that narrative and the narrative would have been complete. She did not do that. She went to work the next day writing her book, going on book tours, speaking out about the events of the day, giving speeches, ect. In fact she has not stopped since her resignation. that is not a sign of a "quitter" Thus the narrative can not be completed in the minds of her supporters and it does not harm her support. It limits the expansion of her base but does not weaken it.
So the new narrative was she was in it for the money. If Palin would have flashed her wealth and "sold out" and been seen spending time at Macy's and Saks that narrative would have stuck and people would have accepted the narrative. But her supporters saw none of that thus they never gave the narrative much thought. again no damage to her support base but again a limiting factor to the expansion of it. since the narrative was the easy answer for her non supporters.
The narrative she isn't running again all her actions point to her running so again the narrative is not taking hold on her supporters but it limits the expansion for those that excpet the narrative.....etc
Fred on the other hand reinforced the narrative of no fire in his belly but waiting, by never showing his DESIRE for the job. Being the reluctant hero drafted to save the day. Remember the "draft Fred" movement. You don't draft someone with fire in their belly. All of Fred's actions reinforced the false narraitive being put out about him and thus his supporters started to believe the narraitve.
The reason that Palin is still a major factor in politics is because the false narraitives put out about her are NOT being reinforced by her actions. Thus her supporters give them short shift.
You being lazy about her and not really interested in finding the truth simply accept the false narratives like she quit, she wants fame, make money etc. To you the narrative is enough. The trick Palin will have to make is to make people like you understand the narrative is false. And that can only be done through a campaign because that will be the only way you will pay attention to her since you have acceptted the false narratives.
Posted by: unseen at April 23, 2011 12:07 PM (7/Dwa)
#330 Um Clyde, what ever gave you the impression Hot Air (or Allah Pundit) were truly intersted in promoting the conservative candidate?
You do know they are a bought and paid for cog in the beltway machine don't you?
Posted by: ThomasD at April 23, 2011 12:07 PM (UK5R1)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 12:08 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 12:10 PM (mHQ7T)
I see the discussion of reactionary, ears-wide-shut Liberals connected with the other night's "why did you become a Conservative" thread. There's the potential for either some real gains in communication and actually making progress with more of that discussion, or at least some first-rate bitch sessions.
The former being productive, the latter at least being cathartic.
The left lives with a caricature of the right, and the right needs to come to terms with that in a big way. The left dominates academia and the press, so the "mushy middle" grows up with that caricature instead of reality.
It's not really unique, genuine bigots always construct caricatures of "the hated other..."
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 23, 2011 12:11 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 12:15 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 12:17 PM (ven8N)
Posted by: sartana at April 23, 2011 12:20 PM (7Xm5b)
@426
I sort of agree here. But 1984 nationally was not 2006 in Minnesota.
What I am trying to say is I have some "flexibility" for change in beliefs or policy stances as long as they are right on the issues when it matters.
So for instance, I like both Palin and Pawlenty, but I don't care how as much with how consistent (because in my opinion no one in our field has been 100% consistent) either of them are in the end, just that they accomplish what we the conservative base want.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 12:21 PM (BBlzg)
The Narrative certainly hurt Fred Thompson, but the fact is that forever and ever, Republicans have nominated the person next in line. I've been involved in the GOP since 1976 and this has not changed. And in 2008 that person was John McCain. McCain's people never stopped after he lost the nomination to George W. Bush in 2000. I knew some of them and they were tireless. They raised money, got endorsements, and I think they worked behind the scenes to keep Huckabee going in order to drain votes from Romney. Most of the Bush people went to Romney. The social cons went to Huckabee. There wasn't anyone left for Thompson to get.
The person in line in 2012 is Mitt Romney. I will personally bet anyone here some serious money that he will be the GOP nominee.
The only way Sarah Palin or Donald Trump will be on the ballot in November 2012 is as a third- or fourth-party candidate. And that will only guarantee Obama is reelected.
Posted by: rockmom at April 23, 2011 12:21 PM (Y01Pi)
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 23, 2011 12:22 PM (ven8N)
@433
But that is who most of our electorate is. That's liberals, independents, and even some conservatives. I just hope she and her staff has a great campaign plan coming together.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 12:23 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 23, 2011 12:24 PM (NITzp)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 04:10 PM (mHQ7T
Seen? by whom? those that are too lazy to get the truth and/or those that want to continue to push that false narrative. Like ace's post says that narraitive is simple. And thus the lazy latch on to it. and thus it is pushed. the reason she resigned was a combination of liberals filing ethic after ethic charge driving up the state costs as well as her personal legal debt, her inability to raise funds to pay for those legal fees due to more ethic charges against her defense fund etc. With no end in sight the only result of her staying in office would have been personal bankruptcy and a complete shut down of the governor's offics as 80% of their time were already going to fighting this ethic charges. The fact that there is strong evidence that Obama/DNC were behind the funding of these etic charges also showed it was losing cause to conintue to fight on that battlefield. Thus her resignation and her immediate need to rasie money to cover said bills.
Which is a long story full of facts and figures and not a soundbite so the lazy simple accept the false narrative that you push...
Posted by: unseen at April 23, 2011 12:25 PM (7/Dwa)
I have no idea what will happen in 2012. I am hoping that people's memories are long enough that they remember the way that the media was completely in the tank for Obama in 2008, and discount their information in response, but I am not optimistic. The one thing I do kind of think is that America seems to need a Jimmy Carter or a Barack Obama once a generation or so to remind the short-memoried and to teach the idiot college students what naked liberalism and anti-"American Exceptionalism" look like. Maybe we needed a Carter to get a Reagan, and maybe we will have needed Barack Obama to get Palin/Bachmann/Romney/Ryan/West, whoever.
On the other hand, I think it is just as likely that we will lose in 2012, and that will be even more energizing to the Tea Party base, causing them to really come out in force and retake their government. Maybe our problem is that we are counting on the Second Coming of Reagan, and the truth is (shudder) "we are the people we have been waiting for." Honestly, if we get things back under control, it will be much less of an issue who is running things.
Posted by: David, infamous sockpuppet at April 23, 2011 12:29 PM (HvPvs)
It's not the big conservative issues I'm talking about, whether a film makes a pro-life or small-government point. I'm talking about random silly light and fluffy 1930s romantic comedies about nothing, but in which the men all wear hats and talk and behave a certain way and the women behave a certain way and there are shared values and everyone knows who their father is and there is no need for political arguments because politics isn't even an afterthought. That world is gone. You can make as many Whit Stillman films attacking modern culture, you can make as many Bogdanovich period pieces as homages to the way it used to be, but that doesn't undo the 60s, that doesn't undo the dissolution of the family and the church, that doesn't bring the culture back.
Great movies were made because of the culture of the 1930s, because of the studio system and its demands and limitations. They weren't made by conservatives or liberals, but by the people of a certain place and time. Ditto for the great art before the 20th century. Funding a conservative filmmaker will not, cannot, get you even a light piece of nothing like His Girl Friday, because times have changed. And funding a conservative artist cannot get you even a cheap knockoff of, say, The Taking of Christ, because times have changed and artists don't do stuff like that anymore. And you can throw a gazillion dollars at every single up-and-coming ambitious Young America Foundation wannabe writer, and you'll never get Middlemarch, because the culture that produced a work like that no longer exists.
Not a single work named in that paragraph is explicitly conservative in the way you are suggesting 'our' take-it-back-from-liberals art should be, by the way, which is why we're talking at cross-purposes here. I don't want conservative or republican art. I want great art. And great art has nothing to do with funding or encouragement or whatever, it has to do with a culture that is able to produce it. Ours no longer is.
I could not disagree with your suggested tactics more strongly. Tactics of 'infiltrating' the modern art community and tricking them or subtly converting them thanks to conservative messages in your art. Well, it's still modern art! That's still fundamentally playing by their rules. The point for me isn't scoring political points or garnering republican votes, it's the very concept of modern art in itself and what it reveals about the emptiness and lack of the sacred in modern culture.
And the response to that isn't to make an art exhibit commenting about the lack of the sacred in modern culture, by the way. I don't need a chronicle of my depravity. The response is to make the most of enjoying the art that existed before the stuff hit the fan.
It's like we all lived in a beautiful house for centuries, then some jerks came and tore it all down with a wrecking ball. So, let's rebuild it, right? But we can't. It was a special house, slowly cobbled together by generations and generations, over thousands of years, there are no blueprints to it, it cannot be rebuilt. It is gone for good. Building our own specially funded conservative piles of rubble won't change that.
Posted by: Adrian at April 23, 2011 12:31 PM (PY4xx)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 12:34 PM (Gr1V1)
@436
I think it is possible but not inevitable.
If Huckabee runs, Huckabee wins Iowa, therefore stopping Romney.
If Huckabee doesn't run, he endorses someone for Iowa other than Romney, therefore stopping Romney.
Then we go to NH and Nevada , Romney probably wins those.
Then SC, same thing applies to Iowa.
Florida, Romney and Huckabee poll neck and neck right now, could go either way, maybe with Rubio and Jeb being the key endorsee for some candidate.
Then the super tuesday states will tell us alot, will Romney do well in the South? (not so much with Evangelicals but with voters who were given the impression that he was a flip flopper.) If those states split, then we go out further.
So I still think the race has the opportunity to break the historical trend.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 12:35 PM (BBlzg)
@439
I read hotair every day. Allah Pundit may take some shots at Palin but she has a lot of supporters there. It isn't some conspiracy against her there.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 12:39 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at April 23, 2011 12:44 PM (cDRYC)
Posted by: sTevo at April 23, 2011 12:44 PM (FzVlt)
Very insightful, Ace, but I kept asking myself... I said, "Self, when's Ace going to bring the funny? Surely there's a gut-buster somewhere. There has to be." Then I got to that line. Self responded, "There's the funny! Right there. Finally! And don't call me Surely."
They go to school to be indoctrinated into the club. They spend inordinate amounts of money to learn how to perform this task. It's a Liberal Art, fer chrissakes. And the progressive media Borg is nothing if not thorough.
But, yeah, American media (aka MFM) is rapidly approaching scourge status against the nation. It already is against conservatives. Consider it the tip of the spear of Liberalism.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 23, 2011 12:54 PM (Ilc9V)
That aside, this is the part where I think you misunderstand me: "If you want to just let the whole world burn down, it is nihilistic and silly, but thats what you want."
I see it as the opposite. Modern culture is born of nihilism, in rejecting it I am being anything but nihilistic. On the other hand, buying into that nihilism half-way and going with it, but then sneaking in conservative messages so we can recruit a few 'conservative' nihilists instead of having only liberal nihilists seems a much less fruitful proposition to me.
To invent a very poorly thought-out theatre example, it's like I am saying, 'let's ignore the Vagina Monologues and refuse to even engage with it, and instead spend our time being all old-fashioned and loving Shakespeare.' You are responding, 'oh, no, rejecting modern theatre in favor of old theatre is nihilistic! Instead, let's embrace today's culture, and perform Penis Monologues, with lots of liberating vulgarity and swearing so the kids and the liberal critics will be drawn to it, but we'll hit 'em with a few conservative messages in there so we can convert them, or at least begin the process of doubts and conversion in their subconscious.'
I think nihilism is too strong a word for what you're doing (maybe, to borrow one of Orwell's formulations, I would settle for calling it 'objectively pro-nihilist'), though I disagree with the tactic, but as for my approach, nihilistic? Of all the things I could be accused of in my insistence on focusing on the great, uplifting art of the past instead of the vulgar, soul-corrupting art of the present, I can't believe nihilism is on the list.
Posted by: Adrian at April 23, 2011 01:03 PM (PY4xx)
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 01:59 PM
---
Jimmuh, 1980.
----
Well, I meant in terms of campaign rhetoric, but I'm not sure I'd put much stock in Carter versus the VP from the most hated POTUS in history...
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 01:45 PM (pW2o8)
Good post Ace. I was a Thompson supporter too and even voted for him in my state primary long after he'd withdrawn. I can't buy into the argument that he was unfairly portrayed as a reluctant candidate. He ran a horrible campaign and consistent lookedly like a worn out tired old man. He made that other worn out tired old man, McCain, look energetic by comparison. Even the photo chosen for his campaign website homepage was unflattering. The winner takes all format of the Republican primaries made him come out with very few delegates after the first few contests and then he just quit. Afterwards rumors were repeated that he had been a stalking horse for his good friend McCain all along. These rumors were mentioned even before he formally announced in the summer of '07. This stalking horse theory of his failed campaign is the one that makes sense to me notwithstanding his protests at this late date.
Posted by: jesse helms think alike at April 23, 2011 01:46 PM (x8p4x)
But I'm not sure that's how we campaigned against Obama, seeing as how our candidate was a Senator.
Really. Was that the message we used?
I thought the message we used was: our old guy will be trustworthy and protect you... not, our guy is a more efficient manager/executive.
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 01:48 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 01:54 PM (Gr1V1)
Posted by: CAC at April 23, 2011 01:58 PM (Gr1V1)
@453
No, what he mean't was that conservatives can't expect someone like Cain or West to gain traction when in 2008 the Democrats nominated a black guy themselves with no executive experience.
His bigger point is that it is kind of true that we probably wouldn't be talking about them or Rubio as seriously as we are if they were not black. In the end, neither of them will have as much sway with black or hispanic voters as we think they would.
What we need to aim for in 2012 is double digits (10%+) with African American, and about a 1/3rd of hispanic voters. Put those two together and that is deadly to Obama's reelection prospects.
Posted by: Nate at April 23, 2011 02:19 PM (BBlzg)
So I guess I'm saying, promote executive experience as a positive, but do not use it to form a negative attack in the primary, because our best candidate may wind up being Allen West or Paul Ryan or some other non-exec.
Posted by: Y-not at April 23, 2011 01:59 PM (pW2o
Aren't you the one that was pushing executive experience so heavily not too long ago? What happened?
Posted by: Steph at April 23, 2011 02:30 PM (AkdC5)
The "bandwagon" is disdain for her. Even Independents overwhelmingly have an opinion about her, and it's a negative one. All the Hannity appearances and paid speeches in the world won't change that.
This notion that if only the voters knew Palin the way her devout supporters know her, they'd also support her is little more than projection-based fantasy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 23, 2011 02:06 PM (SY2Kh)
See, that's the narrative that you push. Independents aren't just independents. Some lean Democrat. Some lean Republican. Right now, she has the highest favorables among Republicans and Republican leaning independents over all the other potential candidates. It's the ones that lean Democrat that she has to convince just as all the other candidates have to convince. Go ahead and believe the narrative that the media pushes, but isn't that the point of Ace's post? It's what you want to believe so you don't question it, at all. It's wrong, but hey, that's what the media says, and even some conservatives say it, so it must be true.
Your nic fits you so well.
Posted by: Steph at April 23, 2011 02:40 PM (AkdC5)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 23, 2011 02:36 PM (mHQ7T)
Good narrative, but full of shit. That never was one of her reasons.
Posted by: Steph at April 23, 2011 02:48 PM (AkdC5)
Bullshit comment is no less bullshit for being true.
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 23, 2011 03:06 PM (NjYDy)
You are intimate with bullshit it seems, because that comment and yours is bullshit of the highest order. That was never given as a reason for her resignation.
Posted by: Steph at April 23, 2011 02:57 PM (AkdC5)
Posted by: Will at April 23, 2011 03:04 PM (s0m8O)
Posted by: steevy at April 23, 2011 03:27 PM (z18dJ)
Well, I am a bit conflicted about picking a specific time or movement in the early 20th century to pinpoint, though I will agree that it was definitely screwed after the 60s-70s changes you mention. The reason it's harder for me, besides being far more ignorant about art than you, is related to the Monty Python discussion that's been around the past couple days, if you haven't been following it, see here:
http://tinyurl.com/3m4kblp
Let me say that I love love love Monty Python, think they're hilarious, memorized many of their skits, all that jazz. That is my honest first reaction to them. But upon further reflection I also understand and agree with Shaidle's and Driscoll's points that Cleese complaining about what's happened to England is especially rich, since he and Python and that satire that I loved played a major role in destroying the old England and getting them to the point they are at today. Institutions are never as strong as they appear to be, poke enough fun at them, get enough people to scoff at them, and they disappear. And then there's nothing left.
To get back to the art timeline, that's why I'm conflicted. Some of the early modern art, I like very much, I 'get' it as they say and appreciate it and am a fan of it. But at the same time I realize how it led inevitably to the bad modern art, because the conventions it defied were a lot less stable than people thought and pretty soon there were no conventions left to defy.
Another reason I'm conflicted: here I am prattling on about how great culture and society used to be. But had I grown up with that great culture, come of age during the boundless optimism at the end of the 19th century, when people really thought the 20th century would be the greatest one yet, and then, after all that, had I then witnessed, lived through, even fought through the absolutely senseless incomprehensible civilizational murder-suicide that was the Great War, well, I'd have become a disillusioned shell of a man, too. And I could see myself, in that situation, tossing all the old stuff aside and hating it bitterly and needing something new and ugly and deliberately unbeautiful just to express the pointlessness/cruelty/evil of it all, etc, etc. And even more so after WWII - I understand how people can get that attitude, the attitude of, 'after the holocaust, how can there be beauty? how can there be art?' and just adopting the f-it-all attitude you mention, because, well, who cares?
But here's the thing. Time is on my side. I don't mean the future. I mean the past. It may be a foreign country, but I've got my passport, I can visit it whenever I want. And if the upheavals of the 20th century changed culture and changed art, well, I can just explore the art that was created before all that.
I think, then, based on your latest response, that where we disagree is on the 'new' part. I believe that art exists to uplift the eternal soul. Eternal being the key word there. Great art from the 17th century, then, can affect me, uplift me, even though I am living in the 21st. Just because it is old does not mean it is no longer relevant (I know you're not arguing this, I'm just stating the obvious).
So, if I want to read a powerful poem that shakes me to my core, I can just walk over to my shelf and pick up the Tennyson. It's not any less meaningful to me just because I happen to be born a hundred years after it was written. Why should I have to wait around for some modern poet to get his head out of his butt, or to discover and fund some as-yet-unknown lyricist, to get my fix, when I have my bookcase within reach and my Amazon prime free shipping for those established classics I've yet to read?
One of the (many) borderline insane things I like to do is pretend I'm living in a certain year and then read, say, the enduring classics of 1818, so I get my Austen and Scott and Shelley and Coleridge or whatever. It's not a repeat if they're new to me! Why should I have to slog through Franzen and Dellilo just because they know better than the Bronte sisters how to program a VCR?
But, what, then, of encouraging the next Bronte? Shouldn't I go looking for great new artists and do my best to support them as they struggle? Heck no. Two reasons:
1) I am on the record, and sincerely believe for reasons previously stated, that great art is all but impossible in our culture, that that ship has sailed. It's not a question of individual talent, but of education and values and atmosphere. If you went back in a time machine and brought baby Shakespeare to today and let him grow up now, I honestly believe he would never write a great play. Not because I dispute his unique genius, but because I believe the culture has to exist a certain way and for a variety of reasons it no longer exists in that way.
2) Ignoring that idea completely, assuming great art could be and is being made, I have no effect on that. A great artist will do his thing not because he likes to or because he wants to, but because he HAS to, it is an all-consuming vision that will drive him mad if he doesn't produce it, and could very well drive him mad anyway. This is why I hate the NEA and all this government arts funding type stuff. A mediocre artist will choose between doing his art or paying the bills, if you fund him and make it comfortable for him to do his art, of course he will choose the art, but the art will still be mediocre. A great artist will not choose between art and paying the bills, he will do the art even if he has to beg for food, he will do it even if it kills him. (Then Puccini will write an opera about how he died of consumption.) I trust enough in art and in its lasting power to know that if, by some miracle, great art is being made right now, it is being made despite any funding or public attention, and that it will outlast us all and live forever. So that a hundred years from now, that art, even if we don't know it today, will be treasured.
Finally: " the concept of beauty, perhaps even the general concept of aesthetics, was assasinated well before the rise of the 70s/80s art market" and "My more legitimate response to that would be to encourage that which is new, perhaps something that harks back to an earlier stage in art."
This is another reason I think art is likely doomed. Because, like you say, beauty and aesthetics were assassinated. The only way to make great art again is to harken back to an earlier stage. But that very act, that conscious harkening back, damages it. That world of beauty is lost, and even the most skillful imitation of it remains just an imitation.
Wow, that was a long rant, sorry! I really need to get back to studying now...
Oh wait, one last thing, about the arc of history. I don't view it as going upwards towards continuous progress, but as more of a straight line with occasional peaks of cultural genius and then valleys of forgettable eras. Perhaps even that latter view is too optimistic and it's more of a bell curve type distribution, with one great peak behind us and nothing but decline in front. Point being, only with the first view, the continual upward progression, does having faith in the 'new' make sense, because then whatever is new is better and things just get better and better until we reach the best. art. ever. In the other two views, when you're in a peak, you enjoy it, and when you're in a valley you just tough it out and wait it out and content yourself with perusing the great art of previous peaks, and pray that somehow a new peak will come. If that new peak does ever come, I think it will be long after America and the West are no more.
Posted by: Adrian at April 23, 2011 03:36 PM (PY4xx)
Posted by: Professor_Chaos at April 23, 2011 04:00 PM (jzhFC)
Conservatives who reverence life should not employ the phrase "pro choice." Undoubtedly those as yet unborn babies strongly would choose to live. The urge to live is the strongest of motivations.
Posted by: Charles at April 23, 2011 05:08 PM (y85Ph)
I can't wait for the first debate.
Posted by: 5th Level Fighter at April 23, 2011 06:23 PM (hfWKa)
Posted by: 5th Level Fighter at April 23, 2011 06:30 PM (hfWKa)
Most politicians wait to do that after they finish their term. Instead she is seen as quitting to make money. You outdid your prior bullshit comment. Congrats. Gonna go for the trifecta?
Posted by: Color Me Surprised at April 23, 2011 07:43 PM (Mbgyv)
Often I believe that the "Narrative" is simply easier for those who can't defend their position any other way or they are adopting pseudo intellectualism (particularly from anyone with a "Studies" degree) from their college professor that taught the "Narrative" and assured them their agreement with it placed them in the ranks of the best and brightest and good things would would come to the for being in that group.
Almost a religious sales pitch to people that are proud of their anti-religion "Narrative." Maybe they sense that they are missing something.
Posted by: RRRoark at April 23, 2011 08:34 PM (cL2MQ)
I supported Thompson too. The trouble was/is 'the media picked both candidates'.
The lame stream endorsed McCain during the primary. He was their sweetheart and they treated him nicely up until he locked the nomination. They they turned on like sharks eating their own.
In a fair and balanced view, Thompson would have walked away with. He was everything that the conservatives wanted, but, thanks to the lame stream, they were never allowed to know anything truthful about him.
Posted by: SirKnob at April 23, 2011 08:53 PM (moEsG)
---
I've been asking myself that a lot in the last couple of years. But it's hard to just fork over life-long friends.
Posted by: Alana at April 23, 2011 08:57 PM (/N/wg)
You win wars by bringing your forces to bear on the enemy. Fred Thompson faded last time around because he didn't bring his forces to bear. If he is to entertain running again, well he needs to think about how he's going to apply his strengths to the problem at hand. He needs a plan.
Posted by: Anonymous Dan at April 23, 2011 11:01 PM (Eg+hD)
Most Leftists really don't know they live in a media bubble. We really need a conservative website that creates a one page, sourced, reasonable toned, facts focused, and point by point article on each "issue" of the day that I could link to on Facebook and thus expose my lefty friends to info outside the MSM protected bubble. If its not in my link or on a second page or buried in unrelated info they aren't ever going to see it.
Currently I have to read all kinds of places and then usually pick the best all around article form the likes of WSJ, NRO, Paj,Hot air, Ace, etc.. whichever comes closest but they usually have side stories (like the Fred thing here) or only cover part of the issue etc...
Anyway we have a lot of great writers well worth reading but what we have is a huge dearth of easily linkable consolidated facts.
Posted by: Shiggz at April 23, 2011 11:19 PM (mLAWK)
http://tinyurl.com/3kskry7
Posted by: JadedByPolitics at April 24, 2011 12:51 AM (az/f2)
Posted by: Terrye at April 24, 2011 04:57 AM (f8jKx)
Adrian @ 463: The only way to make great art again is to harken back to an earlier stage.
First, thanks to Adrian and CAC for the exchange. I got more out of your back-and-forth than I bargained for.
It seemed to me that there was something missing from your discussion, and I'd like to toss in my two cents about art and culture. Penny number one is that artists rarely set out to make great art. There have been exceptions, of course, but they mainly set out to produce works of art for their culture of their time. Shakespeare's plays, for example, were meant foremost to be preformances for Shakespeare's contemporaries. Practically all great art started out as good pop culture. Only later, after their timelessness has been demonstrated, can certain pieces be deemed "great."
Penny number two ties into what Adrian said (quoted above). If you accept that great art is born as popular culture, then the only way to really make great art is to excel at what people are creating and consuming right now, not to harken back to earlier ages. This could mean coming out with good paintings or sculptures or orchestral opera, but it can also mean expressions through media that didn't exist three hundred years ago -- photography, novels, television, movies, music using electric and electronic instruments. Added to these newer media is the accumulated history that artists have to draw from. While free to re-portray Christ's passion or the tales from Greek mythology, they can also make art about the Titanic tragedy, World War II or space travel.
Is any recent art truly great? I'd have to say yes, but I can't be sure yet as to what it is. Prevalent wisdom offers some opinions. I have some thoughts, too, and I'm guessing that even you, Adrian, must think that something from the past forty years qualifies as great and is worthy of such recognition forty or more years from now.
(End, dissertation. I welcome any bones you have to pick with this post.)
Posted by: FireHorse at April 24, 2011 05:49 AM (uUo97)
Fred Thompson was my #1 choice. I was so disappointed when he dropped out of the race. And then McCain just gave up and didn't even try, like he had some inside info (not that I wanted to vote for him, but he was the only other option besides Obama). And then comments McC made later, made me wonder if he made a deal, that it would be Obama this time, but next time, it would be his turn. He sure seems to be acting like that. Who wants to bet that McCain will be the next Republican choice (even tho he's a socialist pretending to be something else so he can "fool" us).
WTF is going on? None of the candidates anyone wants to vote for are being given the chance to win.
I think we have a conspiracy. Sure do wish we still had journalists who took their jobs seriously about getting the news and getting it right and breaking the STORY. Did we ever have that? Or was it always just a Disneyesque myth? And the reality is that whoever owns the media creates the "truth?"
News venues in print and on TV want to know why the viewer/buyer numbers are falling. It doesn't take rocket science and scientific polls. The truth is, people are not as stupid (in general) as they think we are, and we don't want to waste our time listening to a bunch of lies when our eyes and intellect are telling us a completely different story.
Posted by: Dianne at April 24, 2011 11:11 AM (RPC8g)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at April 24, 2011 12:20 PM (mfQD5)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at April 24, 2011 01:15 PM (mfQD5)
It was always a myth. Newspapers and periodicals have never been objective purveyors of fact. They always had political agendas. It's just gotten worse in the last thirty years or so because there's so little competition anymore (once every city had many daily and dozens of weekly or monthly news-periodicals, now they generally have one or two dailies and a handful of weeklies), and because those few papers are nearly all run by 'professional journalists' whose politics lean left.
Oh, and don't forget Watergate, which initiated the era of celebrity journalists in which breaking a major story brought a journalist fame and fortune.
Delve into some genuine unvarnished history books, instead of the pap we were all fed in school. You'll be appalled at how blatantly the press has sometimes manipulated politics, and how blatantly some politicians have manipulated the press.
Posted by: wolfwalker at April 25, 2011 02:46 AM (/fdGq)
for those that still claim that Fred can't campaign ... Google his first campaign ... narrative fail once again ...
to those in NH who saw Fred once I would say ... who gives a shit ... New Hampshire ??? way too small a sample size ...
Posted by: Jeff at April 25, 2011 06:25 AM (A3tpD)
Posted by: FeFe at April 25, 2011 12:52 PM (TjlA2)
Posted by: machen at May 08, 2011 07:47 PM (h+YM1)
Posted by: canada goose at June 15, 2011 07:51 PM (+Yddc)
Posted by: Philadelphia Phillies Jersey at July 09, 2011 09:55 PM (dwhLX)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2471 seconds, 604 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Rocks at April 22, 2011 12:05 PM (th0op)