December 13, 2011
On the Ben Howe Podcast
— Ace Over Now.
— Ace Over Now.
Basically we discuss how we are politically doomed and there's no way out.
I recorded this between 4:30 and 6 today. It's on now, the Ben Howe show. There's a Listen & Chat button at the top left. It's working now. It gives you a sign-in page, but you don't have to sign in.
Posted by: Ace at
07:06 PM
| Comments (439)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
3
hmmmm... it's possible it's not there at all. I think I'd better take this post down.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 07:15 PM (nj1bB)
5
Stop playing with my emotions Ace! Sending me off on wild goose chases and taking this post down and then putting it back up!
Posted by: marine at December 13, 2011 07:19 PM (18jU4)
7
Oh yeah. They just mentioned Ace. It's alllll good. A big hint was the Ewok sounds. D'uh!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:22 PM (zLeKL)
8
It's there. But the audio buttons are reversed. Press mute to listen.
Makes sense, right?
Posted by: Andy at December 13, 2011 07:22 PM (XG+Mn)
10
Did Ben Howe play hockey like his brother Gordy?
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 13, 2011 07:24 PM (jucos)
11
ace will have high standing in the Recovering Republic.
Posted by: eman at December 13, 2011 07:25 PM (kEKwc)
12
Can we comment on what we're hearing? That would be a good idea...
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:25 PM (zLeKL)
13
not necessarily channel our anger, but clearly be strong enough to lay out a plan for recovery, and also express What was done wrong, what the consequence of that was and is. and what we cannot do again.
give confidence in their knowledge and their ability.
give confidence in their knowledge and their ability.
Posted by: willow at December 13, 2011 07:28 PM (h+qn8)
15
A conservative record necessarily matches the rhetoric. I don't want a conservative Obama.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:30 PM (zLeKL)
16
"I think Barack Obama is an asshole" Hahaha! Nice!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:31 PM (zLeKL)
17
Did Ace just say "asshole" and "bitch" on the radio?
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 13, 2011 07:31 PM (jucos)
19
complicate in portraying Obama as a moderate
Posted by: willow at December 13, 2011 07:33 PM (h+qn8)
20
Did Ace just say "asshole" and "bitch" on the radio?
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 13, 2011 11:31 PM (jucos)
No, I think he said asshole and selfish bitch.
Posted by: robtr at December 13, 2011 07:33 PM (MtwBb)
22
Say he's dangerous, but explain why. That's what I would do...
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:33 PM (zLeKL)
25
Personal attack!!! Personal attack!!! He called Obama a bitch.
*faints*
---
Good think they're not listening ha!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:35 PM (zLeKL)
26
which one? the Abramoff one or the Perry one?
Posted by: AltonJackson at December 13, 2011 07:36 PM (JMmQ9)
29
I guess "asshole" & "bitch" are cool on FTR Radio, bit shit gets bleeped.
Posted by: Jobius at December 13, 2011 07:38 PM (sLy0s)
30
I don't hear any discussion on how we're doomed...you promised me DOOM!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:41 PM (zLeKL)
31
I don't think I really cursed there but who knows.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 07:43 PM (nj1bB)
33
Sadly, I agree with this part about the electorate.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:44 PM (zLeKL)
34
and the left acts moderate for the general
Posted by: willow at December 13, 2011 07:45 PM (h+qn8)
35
We'll see how the Tea Party does next year...
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:47 PM (zLeKL)
36
How can the Tea Party have any influence when we're nominating Newt?
Exactly.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:48 PM (zLeKL)
37
A poll today shown at HA has the Tea Party down quite a bit in support/popularity from 1.5 years ago. But one thing is for sure -- they plan to vote. I do think that Newt has the Tea Party to thank for his surge.
It's hard to stay engaged every day though. There should be a resurgence of activity as the primary process nears a decision point.
It's hard to stay engaged every day though. There should be a resurgence of activity as the primary process nears a decision point.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 13, 2011 07:52 PM (ENKCw)
40
Alton, I don't know, I'll ask ben tomorrow. if there's a download I'll post it in the sidebar.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 07:53 PM (nj1bB)
41
I think the tea party has taken the next step. They protested and organized now they are voting together. I don't see the point in continuing protests.
Posted by: robtr at December 13, 2011 07:54 PM (MtwBb)
43
Here's what I think (hope) is happening right now. Newt is surging because no one (the general public) is looking at his record right now. Once they do, and it becomes a story after a story after a story, he'll be done. Cain was always a horrible candidate, but even after a bad debate people were still defending him. Then came a reason not to support him (scandals) and he was done.
Once Newt fumbles, and it keeps getting hammered on, people will find a reason not to support him. Then he will be done. It's just a matter of time.
Meanwhile, Perry is still in this thing and is building a strong foundation of support. That's why I believe Perry will be the frontrunner.
This Newt wave is irrational and will fade soon.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:56 PM (zLeKL)
44
The only thing I do 'locally' is talk the hell out of politics at work and with friends.
Really, what else an we do 'locally'?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:58 PM (zLeKL)
46
The owsers don't have jobs. They could 'afford' to hang out in their camps for weeks at a time. TPers go to a meeting, establish connections, then go back home and to work the next day. I get weekly phone calls, there are bi-monthly meetings, plus I receive quite a few emails. We are active in state level politics as well.
We are not going away.
We are not going away.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 13, 2011 08:00 PM (ENKCw)
47
You have to inject politics and political discussion into your daily lives. That's all.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:01 PM (zLeKL)
48
Yeah when he was talking about going out and protesting I wanted to scream "Its not easy to constantly protest when you actually have JOBS"
Posted by: buzzion at December 13, 2011 08:03 PM (GULKT)
53
He should have dropped in "Federal Reserve" or "silver dimes".
Posted by: Andy at December 13, 2011 08:07 PM (XG+Mn)
54
Most Paul supporters won't vote. So fuck 'em.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:08 PM (zLeKL)
55
Being a precinct committee person isn't going to directly correlate in improving the quality of the candidates to fit Tea Party ideals. Candidate recruitment is something that often can occur outside of the party. Like minded people should do a better job at looking for people from their local community on up to run for positions, especially people that have the competency to receive and afford the consulting help to start and run a campaign.
Posted by: Nate at December 13, 2011 08:10 PM (BBlzg)
56
Aaaaachie, are those 2 men on the radio making fun of me?
Posted by: Edith Bunker at December 13, 2011 08:12 PM (7bTty)
57
>>>Being a precinct committee person isn't going to directly correlate in improving the quality of the candidates to fit Tea Party ideals.
Sure, but you have those occasional situations like Congressional resignations (Dede Soozzafazzafazzafazza).
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:13 PM (nj1bB)
58
I don't think we have any bases in Taiwan.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 13, 2011 08:13 PM (ENKCw)
60
I don't think we have any bases in Taiwan.
We do.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:16 PM (zLeKL)
61
60 I don't think we have any bases in Taiwan.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 14, 2011 12:13 AM (ENKCw)
Forget it - he's rolling.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 14, 2011 12:13 AM (ENKCw)
Forget it - he's rolling.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 08:16 PM (/IES6)
62
you know, the podcast is sorta meh, but then comes those drums on Levee, and all of a sudden I'm thinking Wow, what a professional operation.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:17 PM (nj1bB)
64
Good job on the show Ace. Are you on regularly?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:17 PM (zLeKL)
65
Just clicked. Listening to music. Is there a recording or something, is it over, or is this it?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:17 PM (YiE0S)
67
Just clicked. Listening to music. Is there a recording or something, is it over, or is this it?
He'll be on in about twenty minutes.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:18 PM (zLeKL)
68
Thanks, Joffen. He asked me to cohost generally but I hate committing so I said "How about a frequent guest."
Fookin awesome song.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:18 PM (nj1bB)
70
Yeah I got my headphones in. Sounds great.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:19 PM (zLeKL)
72
Thanks, Joffen. Ace is on in 20 minutes, check.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:19 PM (YiE0S)
73
I have to start stuttering I, I, I-- I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean like, like on every single sentence.
I will work on this.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:19 PM (nj1bB)
74
Thanks, Joffen. He asked me to cohost generally but I hate committing so I said "How about a frequent guest."
---
As long as you let us know when you're on.
Great song. Fits my mood perfectly.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:19 PM (zLeKL)
77
he edited stuff out, and I couldn't hear where. not cursing. just boring asides I got into. So he did a good edit there.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:21 PM (nj1bB)
78
76 I have to start stuttering I, I, I-- I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean like, like on every single sentence.
I will work on this.
I will work on this.
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:19 AM (nj1bB)
I think you get just a little too high in your Ron Paul impersonation too ace. 
You've got his cadence down but he doesn't get up into squeaky range all the time.
Posted by: buzzion at December 13, 2011 08:22 PM (GULKT)
79
76 I have to start stuttering I, I, I-- I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean like, like on every single sentence.
I will work on this.
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:19 AM (nj1bB)
Your cell phone connection wasn't great - it seems like it distorted the start of your sentences after a silence.
It reminded me of a conference phone we had in an old office that we called the 'drunk phone' because everyone on sounded like they had had a long island iced tea or two.
I will work on this.
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:19 AM (nj1bB)
Your cell phone connection wasn't great - it seems like it distorted the start of your sentences after a silence.
It reminded me of a conference phone we had in an old office that we called the 'drunk phone' because everyone on sounded like they had had a long island iced tea or two.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 08:22 PM (/IES6)
80
Aaaand I'm done. Very nice. Made some good points, and I didn't notice the stuttering. I will say, I heard some chomping a bit...might wanna chew your hobo during commercial breaks.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:23 PM (zLeKL)
81
and I wasn't stoned, I just sound like that a lot.
The thing is, I used to get all hyper and stage-frighty for these things.
Now for some reason I'm kind of the opposite. Just a little too relaxed about it.
I think I've gone too far in the other direction. Half the time I was laying down and that has an effect on how you sound.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:23 PM (nj1bB)
82
>>> You've got his cadence down but he doesn't get up into squeaky range all the time.
I know, I said it wasn't good. I don't have it down. Sometimes I start doing it and it sounds pretty good, but it's not reduced to something where I can repeat it.
I used to be able to do Mark Levin, and it would be the same thing. Sometimes I'd nail it, other times it would just be talking in choppy syllable-bursts.
I wasn't really expecting to do it.
I will retire my Ron Paul.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:25 PM (nj1bB)
83
I have to start stuttering I, I, I-- I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean
like, like on every single sentence.
I will work on this.
Three things about public speaking. Sometimes it gets....................
................ better the more you do it.
Sometimes.......................
................. it doesn't.
I will work on this.
Three things about public speaking. Sometimes it gets....................
................ better the more you do it.
Sometimes.......................
................. it doesn't.
Posted by: Rick Perry at December 13, 2011 08:26 PM (7bTty)
84
I think I've gone too far in the other direction. Half the time I was laying down and that has an effect on how you sound.
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:23 AM (nj1bB)
One of the tips they tell you about doing a phone interview is to always do it standing up with good posture. It changes your sound and the other person can hear the difference even if they're not aware of it.
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:23 AM (nj1bB)
One of the tips they tell you about doing a phone interview is to always do it standing up with good posture. It changes your sound and the other person can hear the difference even if they're not aware of it.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 08:26 PM (/IES6)
85
Yeah, laying down during interviews is probably not good.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:26 PM (YiE0S)
86
so if you liked Levee might as well do Four Sticks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvDYyyGu66Y
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:26 PM (nj1bB)
87
I will retire my Ron Paul.
Probably a good idea. He'll be irrelevant soon.
Love to hear your Levin impression haha
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:27 PM (zLeKL)
88
>>>One of the tips they tell you about doing a phone interview is to always do it standing up with good posture. It changes your sound and the other person can hear the difference even if they're not aware of it.
I realized that. I started out laying down, then said "I have to sit up to sound awake," then 20 minutes again I just laid on my bed.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:27 PM (nj1bB)
89
so if you liked Levee might as well do Four Sticks...
---
Good call.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:28 PM (zLeKL)
90
Ace, what did you think of the NBC/WSJ poll that came out, showing Newt at 40% and Perry at 6% in 5th place behind Bachman?
I think that may be Newt's high water mark, but then ... who knows?
I think that may be Newt's high water mark, but then ... who knows?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:29 PM (YiE0S)
91
It throws things off when it's over the internet too. There's a lot of dead air because you're not quite certain when someone's done talking and wants you to jump in. In person you can clearly see visual cues to jump in or shut up.
Sometimes Ben stops talking and I didn't expect him to, and that's when I'm like, "Oh, right, yeah, I I I I I mean, I mean like--"
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:29 PM (nj1bB)
92
I think the odds are good that Newt is our nominee, that's what I think.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:30 PM (nj1bB)
93
I don't think we have any bases in Taiwan.
We do.
We do.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 12:16 AM (zLeKL)
Okay, I found it......Cha Shan Air Base, Taiwan. You are correct sir.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 13, 2011 08:30 PM (ENKCw)
94
Ann Althouse does video discussions with people on her blog. 2-ways usually. They seem to work well.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:31 PM (YiE0S)
95
You and Ben are a good match for radio. The cellphone trips up the conversation a bit, though.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 08:31 PM (nRTou)
96
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 14, 2011 12:30 AM (ENKCw)
---
Didn't think you cared that much. I would've provided a link.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:31 PM (zLeKL)
97
"I think the odds are good that Newt is our nominee, that's what I think."
I favor Newt and think you could be right. But this race has been so topsy-turvy, and I think Newt lost his stride a bit this last week (though not as bad as Romney), so I could see him reversing. Also, in Iowa at least, Perry seems to be rising, Paul is rising (and has a good ground game, I suspect), and Newt is falling (and has no ground game to speak of).
So personally, I'm not sure of the outcome at all.
I favor Newt and think you could be right. But this race has been so topsy-turvy, and I think Newt lost his stride a bit this last week (though not as bad as Romney), so I could see him reversing. Also, in Iowa at least, Perry seems to be rising, Paul is rising (and has a good ground game, I suspect), and Newt is falling (and has no ground game to speak of).
So personally, I'm not sure of the outcome at all.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:32 PM (YiE0S)
98
I think Newt and Mitt are going to kill each other and Perry will just sail on by.
Mitt is obviously scared of Newt, and Newt is gonna find it harder and harder to resist attacking Mitt.
It's gonna get ugly.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:32 PM (zLeKL)
99
98 You and Ben are a good match for radio. The cellphone trips up the conversation a bit, though.
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 12:31 AM (nRTou)
Yeah I recall reading in a book on podcasts that a lot of the semi-pros use skype and record each end of the conversations separately and edit them back together. The sound quality is better and both people's audio is more balanced.
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 12:31 AM (nRTou)
Yeah I recall reading in a book on podcasts that a lot of the semi-pros use skype and record each end of the conversations separately and edit them back together. The sound quality is better and both people's audio is more balanced.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 08:33 PM (/IES6)
100
I'm very frustrated about this. There's a lot of blame to go around.
I'm a little frustrated that people seem to not talk to each other or respect opinions outside the group. I know right now people who knew and worked with Newt are trying to warn people, and people are ignoring them, branding them "The Establishment" and putting them out of mind.
I think we used to talk more. Now I think people segregate who they talk to, factions of factions, and only get input (mostly self-amplifying) from the faction they trust.
Thus leaving a great deal of information entirely unconsidered.
There is really an unhealthy amount of paranoia/factionalism/groupthink going on right now.
I'm also annoyed at the moderate/"credentialed" wing, because I think it was clear the base would not go for Romney, and so they would have to support the most plausible base-acceptable conservative candidate possible if they hoped for a compromise decision. I think that person was Perry. But they didn't support him, maybe trusting that Romney would eventually prevail.
Well, I don't think he's going to prevail.
So I think neither side compromised on a candidate the other could support and now we'll have one faction's Fuck You Anyway candidate.
But it could turn out that Gingrich is the right choice despite this paranoid/distrustful process that led here.
I can only hope so. (Or that Perry makes a run.)
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:36 PM (nj1bB)
101
"I think Newt and Mitt are going to kill each other and Perry will just sail on by."
Maybe, but apparently he'll have to do it from 5th place nationally.
Maybe, but apparently he'll have to do it from 5th place nationally.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:36 PM (YiE0S)
102
>>Yeah I recall reading in a book on podcasts that a lot of the semi-pros use skype and record each end of the conversations separately and edit them back together. The sound quality is better and both people's audio is more balanced.
We stared on Skype, but we had a glitch and went to the phone. then we had problems with the phone.
Which I think proves the problem was on ben's computer or his connection, which was the common element in both.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:37 PM (nj1bB)
103
Didn't think you cared that much. I would've provided a link.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 12:31 AM (zLeKL)
It's just interesting from the geopolitical perspective. It's a tripwire. We have kowtowed so much to China I didn't figure we would put a base there. I've never even seen it mentioned that I recall.
I'm sure Ron Paul would pull it out.
Oh and ace, you did fine I thought.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 13, 2011 08:38 PM (ENKCw)
104
But it could turn out that Gingrich is the right choice despite this paranoid/distrustful process that led here.
I can only hope so. (Or that Perry makes a run.)
Very possibly.
On the other hand, despite him being needed in his current position, I started out a huge Paul Ryan fan and hoped he'd throw his hat in the ring. I thought brokered conventions were impossible in the GOP, but have been told recent rule changes make it possible.
So no chance of a Ryan/Rubio/Christie last minute brokered win?
I can only hope so. (Or that Perry makes a run.)
Very possibly.
On the other hand, despite him being needed in his current position, I started out a huge Paul Ryan fan and hoped he'd throw his hat in the ring. I thought brokered conventions were impossible in the GOP, but have been told recent rule changes make it possible.
So no chance of a Ryan/Rubio/Christie last minute brokered win?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:39 PM (YiE0S)
105
Bookmarked for Friday, Ace, and thanks for posting this. And, your mouth to God's ear on the whole "Perry makes a run" thing. I'm sick of the whole damn bunch of 'em, except for that one humble, patriotic, trying very hard to do the right thing man.
Posted by: Peaches at December 13, 2011 08:39 PM (tkhAz)
106
Ace, do you know if a recording of the interview will be posted?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:41 PM (YiE0S)
107
I think the party has really split into two factions, and the "grassroots" faction so distrusts/hates/wishes to repudiate the "establishment" faction they just don't consider anything the establishment says at all.
Meanwhile the establishment actually doesn't even really put its opinion or experience (as with Gingrich) out there very firmly. This is why I don't agree with ben about the Republicans not fearing the Tea Party-- they fear them so much they won't even attempt to engage with them. They stay silent.
We really did not have a consensus candidate this time, as we had with Bush in 2000. Nevertheless, I wish people would have tried to find someone mutually amenable to most of the factions, rather than attempting to prove "We own this bitch" or whatever's going on now.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:42 PM (nj1bB)
108
random, I don't know, if one is available, I'll put it in the sidebar. I think there'd be a rebroadcast next tuesday.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:43 PM (nj1bB)
109
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:36 AM (nj1bB)
---
I have my reasons for supporting Perry. Good reasons, I think.
If there are people trying to warn us about Newt, they aren't being ignored.
This isn't over yet. Perry is rebuilding, which is what he does best. Look at his campaign the last few weeks.
The bad debates are history. No one is talking about them anymore. He has a very mature campaign.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:43 PM (zLeKL)
110
They have to improve the streaming interface. It's pretty much a nightmare.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 08:43 PM (nRTou)
111
The GOP has such a "he's paid his dues; he's the guy," mentality, that I think the establishment thought Romney is it.
But with Romney's flip-flops, prior defenses of progressivism and abortion, etc., his disapproval of Reagan Republicanism, they were foolish in thinking he could be it. That, plus Romney's Mormonism as perceived by the base, set a floor above which he could not rise.
Conservatives on the other hand, have themselves to blame for not fielding a good candidate.
So maybe Newt is the best and worst of both worlds, and who it has to be.
But with Romney's flip-flops, prior defenses of progressivism and abortion, etc., his disapproval of Reagan Republicanism, they were foolish in thinking he could be it. That, plus Romney's Mormonism as perceived by the base, set a floor above which he could not rise.
Conservatives on the other hand, have themselves to blame for not fielding a good candidate.
So maybe Newt is the best and worst of both worlds, and who it has to be.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:45 PM (YiE0S)
112
>>>The bad debates are history. No one is talking about them anymore. He has a very mature campaign.
Your conclusion is wrong, I'm pretty sure. People aren't talking about them because the information is internalized and doesn't need to be discussed much any further.
One thing I said in the podcast, which got edited out, is that I am now having the "Dumb Candidate Who's Unelectable" Card played on me. And I said "And that's a deserved irony for me, since I played that so many times on Palin."
I am still hoping for Perry but I think he may have either been Palinized, or, as far as the Palin people go, they might be thinking "Eff you, if you said our candidate is dumb then screw your own dumb candidate."
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:46 PM (nj1bB)
113
random, I don't know, if one is available, I'll put it in the sidebar. I think there'd be a rebroadcast next tuesday.
Thanks for answering.
Thanks for answering.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:46 PM (YiE0S)
114
I had pretty much settled on Newt this month. Not because I supported him, but just because it seemed like that's where it was headed (mostly because of time and momentum). I had made peace with the three wives thing (I didn't personally care that much) and the Pelosi couch thing. I was even able to handle the Freddie stuff.
Then came that FDR video. It scared the crap out of me. Today, someone dug up a video of him praising Woodrow Freakin' Wilson. He actually called himself a "Wilsonian".
Sorry, I'm out.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 08:48 PM (nRTou)
115
There is an unhealthy drive to "win" over allied factions. Win as in win completely, without regard to other factions.
This is dangerous. People don't seem to recognize that alliances are voluntary associations.
A rising group, like the Tea Party, CAN throw its weight around and demonstrate that it needs to consult no other faction to win. This will have a very deleterious effect on the other factions, though.
"Winning" doesn't mean you own someone, after all.
Again, I just hope that hot heads have somehow produced a cool candidate.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:49 PM (nj1bB)
116
I am still hoping for Perry but I think he may have either been
Palinized, or, as far as the Palin people go, they might be thinking
"Eff you, if you said our candidate is dumb then screw your own dumb
candidate."
Perry has a better resume than Palin, but I'm not seeing any evidence he's much smarter. (And, for a brief while, I supported each candidate, until coming to that conclusion about each.)
Perry has a better resume than Palin, but I'm not seeing any evidence he's much smarter. (And, for a brief while, I supported each candidate, until coming to that conclusion about each.)
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:49 PM (YiE0S)
117
I am really beginning to fear this comes apart at the seams.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:50 PM (nj1bB)
118
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:46 AM (nj1bB)
----
You thought Palin was a dumb candidate who was unelectable? I did too. Still think that way.
I don't see how Perry's flubs could have been predicted. He seems like the type of candidate we want. You may be right about the "internalization" part, but I hope that changes. It happened early enough for him that it shouldn't matter. Who knows.
What I don't understand is how Newt was polling at 7-8% or something then all of a sudden he's the frontrunner? What a crock. If he was a good candidate to begin with he'd have a steadier base of support.
The problem with Mitt is he's got a steady base of support but it's flatlined.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:51 PM (zLeKL)
119
Then came that FDR video. It scared the crap out of me. Today, someone
dug up a video of him praising Woodrow Freakin' Wilson. He actually
called himself a "Wilsonian".
I'll have to watch them. I'm no fan of Wilson in particular, that's for sure. But then, I think Romney's not electable and Perry doesn't deserve to be elected (nor does there appear to be any great danger of that). And Newt did pass conservative legislation and lead a GOP congressional slate to victory.
Perfect candidates seem to be in short supply this cycle.
I'll have to watch them. I'm no fan of Wilson in particular, that's for sure. But then, I think Romney's not electable and Perry doesn't deserve to be elected (nor does there appear to be any great danger of that). And Newt did pass conservative legislation and lead a GOP congressional slate to victory.
Perfect candidates seem to be in short supply this cycle.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:51 PM (YiE0S)
120
110 I think the party has really split into two factions, and the "grassroots" faction so distrusts/hates/wishes to repudiate the "establishment" faction they just don't consider anything the establishment says at all.
Meanwhile the establishment actually doesn't even really put its opinion or experience (as with Gingrich) out there very firmly. This is why I don't agree with ben about the Republicans not fearing the Tea Party-- they fear them so much they won't even attempt to engage with them. They stay silent.
One thing I never liked about the Tea Party is the huge streak of populism in it which tends to come out as anger against 'The Establishment' - which is pretty much anybody who's considered a professional expert. So there's a lot of paranoia about how 'THEM' are controlling which candidate runs or whether any damaging details come out.
The problem is that sometimes (even often) the experts know what they're talking about but Tea Partiers view anything they say as part of some grand conspiracy to elect 'their guy'.
Meanwhile the establishment actually doesn't even really put its opinion or experience (as with Gingrich) out there very firmly. This is why I don't agree with ben about the Republicans not fearing the Tea Party-- they fear them so much they won't even attempt to engage with them. They stay silent.
One thing I never liked about the Tea Party is the huge streak of populism in it which tends to come out as anger against 'The Establishment' - which is pretty much anybody who's considered a professional expert. So there's a lot of paranoia about how 'THEM' are controlling which candidate runs or whether any damaging details come out.
The problem is that sometimes (even often) the experts know what they're talking about but Tea Partiers view anything they say as part of some grand conspiracy to elect 'their guy'.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 08:51 PM (/IES6)
121
Looks like you need flash to listen. Not good for mobile devices, and I'm at work so can't listen to it. Need a YouTube channel for it as well. Would be nice.
Posted by: Tendstl at December 13, 2011 08:52 PM (kb15i)
122
The problem is that sometimes (even often) the experts know what they're
talking about but Tea Partiers view anything they say as part of some
grand conspiracy to elect 'their guy'.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:53 PM (YiE0S)
123
>>>What I don't understand is how Newt was polling at 7-8% or something then all of a sudden he's the frontrunner? What a crock. If he was a good candidate to begin with he'd have a steadier base of support.
People seem to have taken the article that suggested he did not, in fact, demand a divorce from a wife in a cancer ward, as a full clearing of all his baggage.
I don't think any candidate has ever run with Newt's amount of baggage. Two divorces, at least two affairs. Current wife began as an adulterous affair during the last marraige.
Second wife likes talking to the press about Newt, and not in a good way.
I don't know. I want "smart" in a candidate but I want a psychologically stability and steadiness more than that.
I didn't say this but it wasn't Palin's dumbness that really soured me on her. It was her flightiness and flakiness and her inability to work with other people and her diva-like persona (and yes, I believe she was a diva; if five people all start saying you're a diva, you're the problem, not them).
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:54 PM (nj1bB)
124
Trying hard not to lose my temper here, but I don't honestly understand how anyone could watch that Perry video and not wish with every particle of their being that he would be our next president. I don't give a rat's ass that he's not slick enough to out-debate a Willard or a Newt, he is exactly the kind of person I would like to have in the Oval Office, in any situation. This is all so sad . . .
Posted by: Peaches at December 13, 2011 08:54 PM (tkhAz)
125
Tendstl, it's over now. Ace said it should be rebroadcast next Tuesday, and if and when there's a download, he'll put it in the sidebar.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:54 PM (YiE0S)
126
Perfect candidates seem to be in short supply this cycle.
---
They were abundant in 2008? 1996? Any election cycle?
Also: why don't you think Perry deserves to win?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:55 PM (zLeKL)
127
One thing I never liked about the Tea Party is the huge streak of populism in it which tends to come out as anger against 'The Establishment' - which is pretty much anybody who's considered a professional expert. So there's a lot of paranoia about how 'THEM' are controlling which candidate runs or whether any damaging details come out.
The problem is that sometimes (even often) the experts know what they're talking about but Tea Partiers view anything they say as part of some grand conspiracy to elect 'their guy'.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 14, 2011 12:51 AM (/IES6
Sometime you so thoroughly destroy your trust that everything you say is disbelieved. And even if it sounds correct they will not immediately believe you and go out and look anywhere for evidence that you are again trying to screw them over.
Posted by: buzzion at December 13, 2011 08:55 PM (GULKT)
128
Tendstl and other latecomers --
it was actually broadcast already. I just updated to let people know it's over.
Sorry about that. It's not really a podcast. It's something played at a particular time. I think it's repeated at some point though.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:55 PM (nj1bB)
129
I didn't say this but it wasn't Palin's dumbness that really soured me on her. It was her flightiness and flakiness and her inability to work with other people and her diva-like persona (and yes, I believe she was a diva; if five people all start saying you're a diva, you're the problem, not them).
---
Yes, that's what I meant by 'dumb', too. She's an intelligent woman, but yes, you've got my reading of her exactly. Proof is the fact she strung her supporters along for so long I felt sorry for them.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:57 PM (zLeKL)
130
Oh I thought it was recorded and posted like the other 20 that are posted on that website....my bad.
Posted by: Tendstl at December 13, 2011 08:57 PM (kb15i)
131
"Trying hard not to lose my temper here, but I don't honestly understand
how anyone could watch that Perry video and not wish with every particle
of their being that he would be our next president."
Which one?
The "Strong" ad is what ultimately soured me on him completely.
Which one?
The "Strong" ad is what ultimately soured me on him completely.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:57 PM (YiE0S)
132
>>>ometime you so thoroughly destroy your trust that everything you say is disbelieved. And even if it sounds correct they will not immediately believe you and go out and look anywhere for evidence that you are again trying to screw them over.
yeah but this really bugs me. There's a real attitude prevalent that NOTHING CAN BE BELIEVED and EVERYTHING IS A LIE. Except of course the cant of like-minded factionalists, and that's all 100% true.
There is a dangerous tendency right now towards selecting only the claims which support pre-existing beliefs and screening out all contrary claims-- not evaluating them, just dismissing them.
Ask the left how that worked out for them, the parrot-talk echo chamber effect.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:58 PM (nj1bB)
133
Trying hard not to lose my temper here, but I don't honestly understand how anyone could watch that Perry video and not wish with every particle of their being that he would be our next president. I don't give a rat's ass that he's not slick enough to out-debate a Willard or a Newt, he is exactly the kind of person I would like to have in the Oval Office, in any situation. This is all so sad . . .
I lose my temper all the time over this. I take it out on some here at AceofSpades and I really shouldn't, but God damn it! Can we please buy a fucking clue at some point?!
...sorry
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 08:58 PM (zLeKL)
134
Can I just inject a tiny bit of levity here and say that Christine O'Donnell just endorsed Mitt Romney?
I am not kidding. Romney's campaign even sent an e-mail out about it. It's on NRO.
That is some through-the-looking-glass shit right there.
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 13, 2011 08:58 PM (r590z)
135
>>>Oh I thought it was recorded and posted like the other 20 that are posted on that website....my bad.
to be honest with you I don't know. you could be right. I've never listened to FTR before tonight.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:59 PM (nj1bB)
136
Wow I guess I need to watch that video.
I'll put it up tomorrow.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 08:59 PM (nj1bB)
137
Also, seriously, you get angry, Peaches, that every single person doesn't listen to a single advertisement and doesn't fall completely and totally in love with your candidate, currently polling in 5th place nationally?
No offense intended, but that's a bit crazy.
No offense intended, but that's a bit crazy.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 08:59 PM (YiE0S)
138
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 12:57 AM (YiE0S)
---
God damn it, Random. You completely misread what he was saying. That's why I doubt you saw it. He's not saying what you think he's saying. *sigh*
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:00 PM (zLeKL)
139
Wow I guess I need to watch that video.
I'll put it up tomorrow.
FDR and/or Woodrow Wilson?
Sure, let's have an honest vetting and debate.
I'll put it up tomorrow.
FDR and/or Woodrow Wilson?
Sure, let's have an honest vetting and debate.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:00 PM (YiE0S)
140
Which one?
The "Strong" ad is what ultimately soured me on him completely.
The "Strong" ad is what ultimately soured me on him completely.
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 12:57 AM (YiE0S)
This one. I got it from Ace's link. Perhaps I was misdirected, but in a very good way.
Posted by: Peaches at December 13, 2011 09:00 PM (tkhAz)
141
yeah but this really bugs me. There's a real attitude prevalent that NOTHING CAN BE BELIEVED and EVERYTHING IS A LIE. Except of course the cant of like-minded factionalists, and that's all 100% true.
There is a dangerous tendency right now towards selecting only the claims which support pre-existing beliefs and screening out all contrary claims-- not evaluating them, just dismissing them.
Ask the left how that worked out for them, the parrot-talk echo chamber effect.
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 12:58 AM (nj1bB)
Well I'm not saying its definitely good to no longer have that automatic distrust. Just that its there and I can understand the reason they have arrived at it.
Posted by: buzzion at December 13, 2011 09:01 PM (GULKT)
142
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 14, 2011 12:58 AM (r590z)
----
Serious post-bait for tomorrow, Ace!
Oh, and if Mitt attacks Newt for those videos that would be awesome!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:01 PM (zLeKL)
143
God damn it, Random. You completely misread what he was saying. That's
why I doubt you saw it. He's not saying what you think he's saying.
*sigh*
I think he's saying what I think he's saying, and so do many other people. I think he included what you think he's saying as plausible deniability.
I think he's saying what I think he's saying, and so do many other people. I think he included what you think he's saying as plausible deniability.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:02 PM (YiE0S)
144
Sometime you so thoroughly destroy your trust that everything you say is
disbelieved. And even if it sounds correct they will not immediately
believe you and go out and look anywhere for evidence that you are again
trying to screw them over.
Posted by: buzzion at December 14, 2011 12:55 AM (GULKT)
Yeah but who is 'they'? The RNC? National Review? Hot Air? Ace?
And how exactly did they destroy your trust?
This is the paranoia that I'm talking about. There are people in the RNC and mainstream right wing media I don't agree with, but I don't see any grand conspiracy going on among them. What if they're not constantly peddling lies - and hear me out on this - actually believe what they say?
Posted by: buzzion at December 14, 2011 12:55 AM (GULKT)
Yeah but who is 'they'? The RNC? National Review? Hot Air? Ace?
And how exactly did they destroy your trust?
This is the paranoia that I'm talking about. There are people in the RNC and mainstream right wing media I don't agree with, but I don't see any grand conspiracy going on among them. What if they're not constantly peddling lies - and hear me out on this - actually believe what they say?
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 09:02 PM (/IES6)
145
Random is an idiot. I didn't really appreciate his little line here implying that the base is not falling behind Romney because of anti-Mormon bigotry.
Posted by: buzzion at December 13, 2011 09:02 PM (GULKT)
146
I honestly think, this distrust of anything the "Establishment" says is a direct result of the last election. McCain was shoved down our throats and the way he performed was pathetic. Refused to go after Obama, remember the ole "You have nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency" crap. And TPers feel that Mittens will softglove it as well.
Pretty much "We did it your way last time, not this time."
Posted by: Tendstl at December 13, 2011 09:03 PM (kb15i)
147
My problem is that we have degenerated from merit to status.
Ideas and claims aren't being debated much on the merits, but primarily by the status of the person proffering them.
If that person is Trusted -- in the familiar faction -- the statement or claim is true. If that person is Distrusted -- from the rival factions-- that statement or claim is false.
I know this has always gone on, and will always go on, and in fact is a very useful quick-and-dirty way to find the likely truth. (But only the likely truth, and only some of the time.)
But... I see so many statements now dismissed entirely out of hand with the Status-Negating postulates of "RINO," "Romney-Supporter," "Well you're just trying to trick people into supporting the Establishment's choice of Romney," etc.
It's really very... stupid.
Stupid is the correct word.
These are not arguments. They are seethings.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:03 PM (nj1bB)
148
I think he included what you think he's saying as plausible deniability.
*blinks*
what. the. fuck? are you talking about?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:04 PM (zLeKL)
149
Hardly anyone is going to sit down and watch an 11 minute infomercial, Peaches. And no matter how good it is, it's borderline crazy to get upset that not everyone likes a one-sided ad so much that they instantly conclude he must be President.
Obviously Perry has his strong points, but he isn't my cup of tea.
Obviously Perry has his strong points, but he isn't my cup of tea.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:04 PM (YiE0S)
150
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 12:59 AM (YiE0S)
I'm pretty good with words, I don't need you putting them in my mouth or on a comment. Your reading comprehension needs some work, but it looks like that's already been mentioned. Have a good night.
I'm pretty good with words, I don't need you putting them in my mouth or on a comment. Your reading comprehension needs some work, but it looks like that's already been mentioned. Have a good night.
Posted by: Peaches at December 13, 2011 09:05 PM (tkhAz)
151
>>>cCain was shoved down our throats and the way he performed was pathetic
I believe that is a myth. I think he was PICKED by voters because he had, on paper, a good record on abortion, and Giuliani and Romney did not, and Fred just didn't seem to catch fire anywhere.
It is a myth that McCain was "forced" on anyone. The establishment didn't even seem to like McCain. They thought McCain was a grandstanding prick.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:05 PM (nj1bB)
152
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 01:03 AM (nj1bB)
---
Yeah, that might explain why I have a hard time getting specifics out of some posters here.*cough**cough*Random*cough*
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:05 PM (zLeKL)
153
"I didn't really appreciate his little line here implying that the base
is not falling behind Romney because of anti-Mormon bigotry."
I definitely think it's a factor. Not the only factor, but bigger than is being admitted.
I definitely think it's a factor. Not the only factor, but bigger than is being admitted.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:06 PM (YiE0S)
154
I honestly think, this distrust of anything the "Establishment" says is a direct result of the last election. McCain was shoved down our throats and the way he performed was pathetic. Refused to go after Obama, remember the ole "You have nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency" crap. And TPers feel that Mittens will softglove it as well.
Pretty much "We did it your way last time, not this time."
Posted by: Tendstl at December 14, 2011 01:03 AM (kb15i)
Hey McCain was my absolute least favorite GOP candidate too but how exactly did the "Establishment" shove him down our throats?
Me - I blame Republican primary voters who usually vote for the next guy in line especially if has a familiar name - not some vague "Establishment".
Pretty much "We did it your way last time, not this time."
Posted by: Tendstl at December 14, 2011 01:03 AM (kb15i)
Hey McCain was my absolute least favorite GOP candidate too but how exactly did the "Establishment" shove him down our throats?
Me - I blame Republican primary voters who usually vote for the next guy in line especially if has a familiar name - not some vague "Establishment".
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 09:06 PM (/IES6)
155
>>> Just that its there and I can understand the reason they have arrived at it.
I understand it, but I also understand it's very Easy and Comforting to think this way, and if the way you're thinking is Easy and Comforting, it's almost always a sign that you are not thinking critically.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:07 PM (nj1bB)
156
Romney endorsed by Christine O'Donnell AND Lisa Murkowski.
It's the Seventh Sign.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:07 PM (Fw2Gg)
157
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 01:05 AM (nj1bB)
You could be right, I just remember that feeling of "fuck me running, not McCain" and always reading on NRO and National Review that McCain MUST be our guy.
Posted by: Tendstl at December 13, 2011 09:07 PM (kb15i)
158
It is a myth that McCain was "forced" on anyone. The establishment
didn't even seem to like McCain. They thought McCain was a
grandstanding prick.
McCain had stamina. I think that's one of the reasons Gingrich is doing well now.
Sure that's simplistic, but each had ample opportunity to fold. I'm not sure about McCain, but with Gingrich, his wife was instrumental in supporting him to carry on. These human factors matter.
Plus both -- love them or hate them -- have serious resumes.
McCain had stamina. I think that's one of the reasons Gingrich is doing well now.
Sure that's simplistic, but each had ample opportunity to fold. I'm not sure about McCain, but with Gingrich, his wife was instrumental in supporting him to carry on. These human factors matter.
Plus both -- love them or hate them -- have serious resumes.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:08 PM (YiE0S)
159
Romney endorsed by Christine O'Donnell AND Lisa Murkowski
-------------
And Meghan McCain.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 09:09 PM (nRTou)
160
2008 was a lot like this year -- candidates who looked good on first examination but were pretty crappy, and all eliminated for one reason or another.
McCain was in fact eliminated by voters early in the process. He got elected because they eliminated all the other ones, too, for also being crappy, and decided he was the least-crappy of the crappy alternatives.
I just did not think "The Establishment" manipulated us. I think we just had some bad candidates, and one guy, Huckabeee, who would not exit the race and let Romney compete against McCain mano-a-mano, but instead played Wingman for McCain.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:09 PM (nj1bB)
161
@Joffen - the most surreal thing about O'Donnell endorsing Romney is that, IIRC, the O'Donnell/Castle split around here was the harbinger of the crazy stuff we're seeing now in the primaries, don't you think? For her to endorse Romney after all the Tea Party energy that poured into her isn't so much "awesome!" as it is literally absurd.
I also didn't want you to think I'm trolling or anything like that, just for the record. It's late, it was a crazy thing, that's why I mentioned it.
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 13, 2011 09:09 PM (r590z)
162
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 14, 2011 01:09 AM (r590z)
---
No, I didn't think you were trolling at all. I mentioned it's perfect comment-bait for ace to post tomorrow...for that exact reason.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:11 PM (zLeKL)
163
Yeah, that might explain why I have a hard time getting specifics out of some posters here.*cough**cough*Random*cough*
We went over this ad in great detail on previous threads, Joffen. Regardless of what his intended point is, I think my conclusion that it is bad politics will be born out. I don't feel like going into infinite detail on that during every conversation on it. You were involved in the prior thread and can go reread my thoughts there if you care enough to bother: but don't say I didn't say what I meant, when I did.
And Peaches, I'm listening to your recommended 11 minute infomercial on Perry, and it's fine, but come on: it's not so great one is going to instantly go for him. Be a bit realistic.
Any of the candidates can do good 11 minute commercials for themselves!
We went over this ad in great detail on previous threads, Joffen. Regardless of what his intended point is, I think my conclusion that it is bad politics will be born out. I don't feel like going into infinite detail on that during every conversation on it. You were involved in the prior thread and can go reread my thoughts there if you care enough to bother: but don't say I didn't say what I meant, when I did.
And Peaches, I'm listening to your recommended 11 minute infomercial on Perry, and it's fine, but come on: it's not so great one is going to instantly go for him. Be a bit realistic.
Any of the candidates can do good 11 minute commercials for themselves!
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:11 PM (YiE0S)
164
You know how after you finish a project companies sometime like to do a lessons learned discussion? Well to me it seems like after Scozzaflava and Castle/O'Donnell everyone went to that lessons learned segment and learned the wrong lesson. They think the lesson is, "See what happens when you don't fall in line behind the candidate "WE" want" The lesson that actually needed to be learned is "Find someone you can all agree on"
Posted by: buzzion at December 13, 2011 09:11 PM (GULKT)
165
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 14, 2011 01:09 AM (r590z)
Whats funny is the Romney campaign is sending emails out about the Odonnell endorsement and so is the .........DNC.
Posted by: Tendstl at December 13, 2011 09:12 PM (kb15i)
166
It is absurd. I think Newt is going to burn out and eventually Republicans will go aww crap I guess it is Romney then.
He'll give a nice concession speech that will be well received in the press.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:12 PM (Fw2Gg)
167
>>>You could be right, I just remember that feeling of "fuck me running, not McCain" and always reading on NRO and National Review that McCain MUST be our guy.
When did they make that call, though?
Besides is NRO really "The Establishment"?
We are conflating a couple of different groups here. When I think of "The Establishemnt," I think of the permanent bureaucracy in DC, the guys who never leave the town, the party graybeards.
NRO isn't the establishment. they are an important part of the intellectual wing, and if that's what you mean by establishment fine, but I never considered them that.
I do actually refer to them that way a bit as "The Establishment" (in quotes) because people seem to view this frankly rinky-dink magazine as some Death Star of political power but they're not. They're eggheads at a magazine. They're not even in DC, they're (largely) in NYC.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:12 PM (nj1bB)
168
The frustrating thing about Perry's numbers is that he really is a great candidate. He has not flipped on one issue. He's a strong governor, and he's fantastic on the one issue that will matter a hell of a lot in 2012: the economy. The only reason he's doing so poor is because of some bad debates.
People freaked out because he called them heartless. Ok, I get that. But to go from that to Romney or Newt? Very strange. I don't get it at all.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:13 PM (zLeKL)
169
It is absurd. I think Newt is going to burn out and eventually Republicans will go aww crap I guess it is Romney then.
He'll give a nice concession speech that will be well received in the press.
According to Ace's analysis, that would be basically what happened in 2008 with McCain.
He'll give a nice concession speech that will be well received in the press.
According to Ace's analysis, that would be basically what happened in 2008 with McCain.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:14 PM (YiE0S)
170
Dramatic much?
God y'all. Everyone needs to learn to stop worrying and love the Rom. You know he's the only one who can win, and you know he probably will win. He'll pick up New Hampshire easily, and put Pennsylvania in play.
God y'all. Everyone needs to learn to stop worrying and love the Rom. You know he's the only one who can win, and you know he probably will win. He'll pick up New Hampshire easily, and put Pennsylvania in play.
Posted by: Mr. Estrada at December 13, 2011 09:15 PM (/+B2Y)
171
@Joffen - Cool. Just making sure.
And honestly, OK, I admit, I want to read the comments once it gets posted here. I can't be the only one, can I?
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 13, 2011 09:15 PM (r590z)
172
The frustrating thing about Perry's numbers is that he really is a great candidate.
He may be a good governor, and this is hardly a trivial thing. But I must strongly disagree: he has, despite initial strong support and enthusiasm, been a terrible candidate.
He may be a good governor, and this is hardly a trivial thing. But I must strongly disagree: he has, despite initial strong support and enthusiasm, been a terrible candidate.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:15 PM (YiE0S)
173
We went over this ad in great detail on previous threads, Joffen. Regardless of what his intended point is, I think my conclusion that it is bad politics will be born out. I don't feel like going into infinite detail on that during every conversation on it. You were involved in the prior thread and can go reread my thoughts there if you care enough to bother: but don't say I didn't say what I meant, when I did.
----
I must have missed your actual reasons for not supporting him, but if so it was a fluke. I am genuinely interested in people's reasons for not supporting Perry so I am very patient.
It's too late in the day to go over it now, but if you have reasons that you'd be willing to go over, I will be here tomorrow.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:16 PM (zLeKL)
174
>>>People freaked out because he called them heartless. Ok, I get that.
I think that's it. The flubs then were just confirmation of their distrust, an intellectual pretext to justify where their gut was heading.
Big, big mistake.
Newt Gingrich supported Dede Scozzaflavanoid -- and HARD, and in terms insulting to conservatives -- but that was a couple of years ago and everyone seems to have forgotten that.
Now it's just the latest insult that rankles.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:16 PM (nj1bB)
175
>>>Sorry about that. It's not really a podcast. It's something played at a particular time. I think it's repeated at some point though.
NERD RAGE BUILDING!!!!
Posted by: Max Power at December 13, 2011 09:16 PM (+wxCD)
176
I must have missed your actual reasons for not supporting him, but if so it was a fluke. I am genuinely interested in people's reasons for not supporting Perry so I am very patient.
It's too late in the day to go over it now, but if you have reasons that you'd be willing to go over, I will be here tomorrow.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 01:16 AM (zLeKL)
Don't you know he wants teachers to force kids to pray in school!
Posted by: buzzion at December 13, 2011 09:17 PM (GULKT)
177
I think a lot of the conservative base got radicalized by 2008 election of Obama and Obamacare. So previously mainstream conservative politicians are now considered RINOs or worse by the base even though they really haven't shifted to the center.
In my occasional moments of despair I worry that radical base just won't ever be satisfied until we run a 'pure' True Conservative - and suffer a Goldwater-magnitude defeat. sigh.
In my occasional moments of despair I worry that radical base just won't ever be satisfied until we run a 'pure' True Conservative - and suffer a Goldwater-magnitude defeat. sigh.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 09:17 PM (/IES6)
178
When people here talk about NRO, they think of them as "The Establishment." Because they're the big dogs.
But the big dogs of what? The big dogs of the ONLINE CONSERVATIVE COMMUNITY.
Which is... what? You think NRO has the pull that a single large corporation or business association does?
They only seem to have power to US, because we actually read them.
Most of the party does not read NR.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:18 PM (nj1bB)
179
@Tendstl - That's what's crazy! It doesn't make any sense for Team Mitt to publicize this, does it? Are they *that* hard up for support, thinking that COD will buy them some of that sweet, sweet Tea Party demographic? They can't be that tin-eared, can they? Or are they just flop-sweat panicking?
I'm the last guy to say that Mitt's not going to take it in the end. But then I see stuff like this, and I go...maybe I'm wrong. Again.
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 13, 2011 09:19 PM (r590z)
180
But to go from that to Romney or Newt? Very strange. I don't get it at all.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 01:13 AM
And you don't get why the Strong ad is bad politics, and other things also.
Look, I can acknowledge strengths in Perry, and even in weaknesses in my preferred candidate, which Ace just said he'd post tomorrow, and I said something like, "Go ahead. Let the vetting continue."
Perhaps if you don't understand to what degree Perry took an advantage it and squandered it by being a horrible candidate, and you can't understand why people jumped ship away from him, first to Cain, and then also to Newt ... well ... maybe you should work on increasing your understanding rather than criticizing mine?
And you don't get why the Strong ad is bad politics, and other things also.
Look, I can acknowledge strengths in Perry, and even in weaknesses in my preferred candidate, which Ace just said he'd post tomorrow, and I said something like, "Go ahead. Let the vetting continue."
Perhaps if you don't understand to what degree Perry took an advantage it and squandered it by being a horrible candidate, and you can't understand why people jumped ship away from him, first to Cain, and then also to Newt ... well ... maybe you should work on increasing your understanding rather than criticizing mine?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:19 PM (YiE0S)
181
Most voters, even primary voters, do not follow politics that closely. If you're looking for rational, strongly thought out explanations for why they drift to specific candidates you're already probably lost. Most are emotional, short-sighted, and follow the crowd, meaning they are malleability and easily transition between candidates due to minor points of personality or (non)issues.
It doesn't make for a romantic view of democracy, but that's what it is. It's also the primary reason that elections and politics, under whatever regime or system, shouldn't matter all that much in an ideal world. People are just as feckless with other people's political well-being and liberties as they are their with their money.
It doesn't make for a romantic view of democracy, but that's what it is. It's also the primary reason that elections and politics, under whatever regime or system, shouldn't matter all that much in an ideal world. People are just as feckless with other people's political well-being and liberties as they are their with their money.
Posted by: MlR at December 13, 2011 09:20 PM (/v94V)
182
I have a picture of Mitt Romney here, and I'm fapping to it, and learning...
Posted by: Mr. Estrada at December 13, 2011 09:20 PM (/+B2Y)
183
Newt Gingrich supported Dede Scozzaflavanoid -- and HARD, and in terms insulting to conservatives -- but that was a couple of years ago and everyone seems to have forgotten that.
Now it's just the latest insult that rankles.
----
This is why I get so damn frustrated. Are we rational adults here? I can honestly forgive the Dede Scuzzymothafucka endorsement but with Newt it's the tip of the iceberg.
It's all there for those that will look. Yet people don't seem to be willing to do the homework on the candidates. It's unserious and frankly, irresponsible.
Are we only conservative on the surface or do we have conviction? If we have conviction then we should vet our candidates fully and go over their record and see how consistent they are.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:20 PM (zLeKL)
184
Most voters, even primary voters, do not follow politics that closely. If you're looking for rational, strongly thought out explanations for why they drift to specific candidates you're already probably lost. Most are emotional, short-sighted, and follow the crowd, meaning they are malleability and easily transition between candidates due to minor points of personality or (non)issues.
It doesn't make for a romantic view of democracy, but that's what it is. It's also the primary reason that elections and politics, under whatever regime or system, shouldn't matter all that much in an ideal world. People are just as feckless with other people's political well-being and liberties as they are their with their money.
---------
That's just it then. My whole problem summed up nice and neat. *sigh*
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:23 PM (zLeKL)
185
I think most people actually make decisions largely-to-exclusively based on emotion, then pretend the decisions were made by intellectual process.
Then other people expose the fact that these decisions are not strictly rational and do not follow consistent patterns of prioritization of values, and the first group says "yeah, fuck you anyway," because it's true, and they don't want to admit that.
But the people in the second group are ALSO making largely emotion-based decision.
And so we throw spitballs at each other over who's being MORE emotional.
I don't know if "emotional" is the right word, but we're employing something which is more akin to emotion than logic. It's guesswork based on hunches and vibes and intuitions.
Intuitions-- that's the right word. Not intellect but intuition.
So I agree, Joffen, Perry is a great guy with a great bio and only one damn wife and who actually WORE THIS COUNTRY'S UNIFORM but apparently the choice is between a guy with three wives who, um, had other priorities during Vietnam, and another guy who did missionary work during Vietnam.
But then some other people's intuitions start going crazy when they think of INNOCENT LITTLE GIRLS getting immunized against cancer, instead of having the threat of cancer remain with them to teach them not be whores, and oh god I give up.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:26 PM (nj1bB)
186
I must have missed your actual reasons for not supporting him, but if so
it was a fluke. I am genuinely interested in people's reasons for not
supporting Perry so I am very patient.
It's too late in the day to go over it now, but if you have reasons that you'd be willing to go over, I will be here tomorrow.
In short, a plurality if even GOP voters supported repealing DADT.
The reason for this is the culture is seriously shifting and most people, including most Christians, just don't have a major problem with gays anymore. In many of our lifetimes, the military has integrated both blacks and women (in non-combat roles) ... and people see it as a natural evolution of our culture that we'll accept gays too, if not now, then someday.
Well -- now has arrived! I have nothing against gays, so objected to Perry's premise, using disapproving body language, talking about gays serving openly in the military, and contrasting that, with approving body language, of kids celebrating Christianity openly.
Many people found it reprehensible to contrast the two, with the first depicted negatively, "Many things are wrong with America ..." palms down, disapproving voice tone, or however exactly he put it. I'm not looking at the script now.
Gay or not, they're serving in harms way, and I salute them. I understand not everyone does, but I do, so it turned me off Perry.
I wasn't the only one.
Perry could have resonated with Christian conservatives in a much less politically harmful matter than that, and I mentioned a few ways his ad could have been better structured on that thread.
Anyway, you may completely disagree with me, Joffen, and that's fine. But a lot of people saw it as I did, and as a CANDIDATE ... it's up to Perry to resonate with constituencies without pissing off others he'll need. He failed at this.
It's too late in the day to go over it now, but if you have reasons that you'd be willing to go over, I will be here tomorrow.
In short, a plurality if even GOP voters supported repealing DADT.
The reason for this is the culture is seriously shifting and most people, including most Christians, just don't have a major problem with gays anymore. In many of our lifetimes, the military has integrated both blacks and women (in non-combat roles) ... and people see it as a natural evolution of our culture that we'll accept gays too, if not now, then someday.
Well -- now has arrived! I have nothing against gays, so objected to Perry's premise, using disapproving body language, talking about gays serving openly in the military, and contrasting that, with approving body language, of kids celebrating Christianity openly.
Many people found it reprehensible to contrast the two, with the first depicted negatively, "Many things are wrong with America ..." palms down, disapproving voice tone, or however exactly he put it. I'm not looking at the script now.
Gay or not, they're serving in harms way, and I salute them. I understand not everyone does, but I do, so it turned me off Perry.
I wasn't the only one.
Perry could have resonated with Christian conservatives in a much less politically harmful matter than that, and I mentioned a few ways his ad could have been better structured on that thread.
Anyway, you may completely disagree with me, Joffen, and that's fine. But a lot of people saw it as I did, and as a CANDIDATE ... it's up to Perry to resonate with constituencies without pissing off others he'll need. He failed at this.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:27 PM (YiE0S)
187
even though I think I agree with most people here right now (and agree, at least, to the extent we're having a very civil discussion) I think you guys are misleading yourselves about the extent to which you, too, make decisions based on intuition, rather than strict intellect, too.
I do too.
I think we all appear rational to ourselves.
That said, some people really are just plainly irrational.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:27 PM (nj1bB)
189
Newt is popular now because he fights. He doesn't just say he does, he does. This is something an out of power party likes and needs.
Unfortunately he's a bit of a mess.
So we have Romney who is not a mess, but seems awkward at best in a fight. Awkward compared to cool. I think we need to somehow keep Newt engaged as a skirmisher who will ruffle Obama's cool.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:28 PM (Fw2Gg)
190
@172 Joffen
I'll admit I have a bias here but the main reason I haven't liked Perry from the start is because I feel he was foisted upon us by a Tea Party/Grassroots version of the Establishment. Folks like Erick Erickson promoted Perry as being "the Guy" who checked all the "right" boxes in terms of religious, regional, and rhetoric stereotypes.
In turn we've had Tea party/Grassroots folks like Erickson who thrashed candidates like Daniels or Christie for some of the same reasons they are now ironically supporting Newt.
It's like neither the Grassroots folks or the Establishment is free from being hypocritical on following a set of consistent principles when it comes to selecting candidates.
With that said, I maintain as always I'll vote for whoever the GOP nominee is, because I am a Republican. But in that case, do I define myself as Grassroots, Establishment, or something else?
Posted by: Nate at December 13, 2011 09:28 PM (BBlzg)
191
Nvm. Apparently you figured it out yourself.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at December 13, 2011 09:29 PM (JXaAZ)
192
>>>Newt is popular now because he fights. He doesn't just say he does, he does.
When was the last big fight? Dede Scozzafava? Medicare Part D? Fannie Mae? Individual mandates?
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:29 PM (nj1bB)
193
Nate,
I don't mean this as a slight but you do realize Erick Erickson is a nobody in the scheme of things, don't you?
Erick Erickson is the establishment? Come on.
This is like my observation about NRO, above. they appear big to us like Instapundit appears big.
But who the hell is instanpundit?
I have no doubt that your feeling is widely shared.
But this idea that you're going to Show People Who's Boss, especially when you're showing someone who is, in turn, a relative nobody...
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:32 PM (nj1bB)
194
Ace the last big fight is played out in the debates. Even Glenn Reynolds has noticed. All the rest is his bit of a mess. He's not my candidate and I don't want him to be the candidate, but I want to keep him on our side attacking the other guys.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:32 PM (Fw2Gg)
195
When was the last big fight? Dede Scozzafava? Medicare Part D? Fannie Mae? Individual mandates?
---
Heh. I really hate these generic reasons for supporting a candidate. "yeah, he believes in America or something. Jesus Christ.
Ace, you do have a point about all sides being emotional. And, sure, we all like to think we're being rational. All I'm looking for is specific reasons to support someone, and why such-and-such flaw is a big deal and another isn't, etc.
No one has explained to me why I should ignore Newt's support for a mandate and Mitt's signing one into law. I will whole-heartedly accept a serious, rational explanation why it's not a big deal.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:33 PM (zLeKL)
196
This comment is astute:
Newt is popular now because he fights. He doesn't just say he does, he does. This is something an out of power party likes and needs.
Newt is popular now because he fights. He doesn't just say he does, he does. This is something an out of power party likes and needs.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:34 PM (YiE0S)
197
Oh, he fought the heck out of the Dems in the 90s and won a huge victory.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:34 PM (Fw2Gg)
198
196 >>>Newt is popular now because he fights. He doesn't just say he does, he does.
If you look at Newt closely, you'll find that he's excellent at red meat snappy comebacks and giving off the attitude of a fighter. But when he actually gets into the octagon - not so much. And when he does get into a fight, it's often on the wrong side of an issue.
If you look at Newt closely, you'll find that he's excellent at red meat snappy comebacks and giving off the attitude of a fighter. But when he actually gets into the octagon - not so much. And when he does get into a fight, it's often on the wrong side of an issue.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 09:34 PM (/IES6)
200
>>>Ace the last big fight is played out in the debates.
Because Newt is the only one taking on Barack Obama? That's absurd. He's not. You're just not listening to other people's attacks.
I think you mean Newt is taking on THE MEDIA.
Look, I like that, but let's not prioritize such a thing, which is viscerally, emotionally appealing to us (and to me, I keep saying Perry should do it) as the be-all end-all.
The media will actually be calling in the airstrikes on our candidate, but at the end of the day, they're not on the ballot. Barack Obama is.
Taking on the media is always a nice thing but it's not Job One.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:36 PM (nj1bB)
201
Oh, he fought the heck out of the Dems in the 90s and won a huge victory.
Posted by: blaster at December 14, 2011 01:34 AM
And this is the main reason I'm looking at Newt now. Barely cogent of politics, he broke through at that time, and I remember him roundly kicking the Democrats' asses for a while. Not forever, sure, and I don't remember all his downsides.
But I remember him fighting and winning. Now, I see it again, focusing primarily on Obama, and winning in the primary.
It's hard not to -- intuitively and emotionally -- connect those two facts in my mind.
And this is the main reason I'm looking at Newt now. Barely cogent of politics, he broke through at that time, and I remember him roundly kicking the Democrats' asses for a while. Not forever, sure, and I don't remember all his downsides.
But I remember him fighting and winning. Now, I see it again, focusing primarily on Obama, and winning in the primary.
It's hard not to -- intuitively and emotionally -- connect those two facts in my mind.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:36 PM (YiE0S)
202
This primary election, if you haven't noticed.
---
What the hell does that even mean?
Seriously. Are people just trying to sound smart? It's not working. Not at all.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:37 PM (zLeKL)
203
Gah- The "but he/she is a fighter!!! thing.
On what planet is saying shit on TV interviews and in party primary debates "fighting" as opposed to shadow boxing?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 09:37 PM (gfrW9)
204
It seems obvious to me, a damned dirty liberal, that Perry was always the best choice for cons once he got in: best record, most folksy, not born rich, the right religion (in a "he's one of us" kind of way, not saying anyone's a bigot or anything), best outsider-yet-still-a-pro brand, good campaigner. I still fear him the most, and everyone knows where I stand in the general.
If there's one emotional thing I can point at, and pardon me if it's been mentioned upthread, it's the "W" hangover thing. From low info voters to the most ardent political junkie, I think it's the Occam's Razor explanation: Most folks just can't take another inarticulate Texan representing their interests. Too soon, too soon. I think that factor cuts across every conceivable segment of the non-Romney base to some degree and just gives everyone the willies.
I ran into a guy in Tampa at our show there - originally from Georgia. He blurted out to me, "Newt's my dog! He is just so damned smart, smarter than everyone up there." I know, anecdote doesn't equal data, but in terms of Perry not catching fire and Gingrich suddenly leading everywhere, the "not W again" thing seems like a pretty simple explanation to me. YMMV.
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 13, 2011 09:37 PM (r590z)
205
>>> Oh, he fought the heck out of the Dems in the 90s and won a huge victory
...and when he had power, and the blandishments of office...?
He did continue to do some fighting. He also did some selling out. Now, I'm actually of the opinion that some of that tactical surrender is necessary but if you're going to give newt a pass on surrendering on, say, the government shutdown (or the first Bush's tax hikes), then you have to explain why other people shouldn't also get a pass for the times they chose not to fight.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:38 PM (nj1bB)
206
>>>It seems obvious to me, a damned dirty liberal, that Perry was always the best choice for cons once he got in: best record, most folksy, not born rich, the right religion (in a "he's one of us" kind of way, not saying anyone's a bigot or anything), best outsider-yet-still-a-pro brand, good campaigner. I still fear him the most, and everyone knows where I stand in the general.
Interesting.
Would you be interested in a short guest-blog?
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:39 PM (nj1bB)
207
Well damn. Romney's going all-out attacking Newt.
No doubt Newt will take the bait. Damn, Mitt.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:40 PM (zLeKL)
208
why I should ignore Newt's support for a mandate
At the time, there was serious danger of Hillary Clinton's healthcare being passed.
The Republicans came up with an alternative, that included a mandate for higher earners ($50k and up), and many more market-based mechanisms than the Clintons' plan.
This defused their momentum, and ultimately helped no plan be passed (and our plan would have been better for the economy than theirs if it had been passed).
So it was largely strategic, to confront a greater threat.
That said, I don't support mandates. Regardless, you still have to consider it in context.
At the time, there was serious danger of Hillary Clinton's healthcare being passed.
The Republicans came up with an alternative, that included a mandate for higher earners ($50k and up), and many more market-based mechanisms than the Clintons' plan.
This defused their momentum, and ultimately helped no plan be passed (and our plan would have been better for the economy than theirs if it had been passed).
So it was largely strategic, to confront a greater threat.
That said, I don't support mandates. Regardless, you still have to consider it in context.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:41 PM (YiE0S)
209
It's better than McCains position of sucking up to the media. A lot of people are tired of it. That's why people are overlooking the messiness.
That's why a lot of people liked Palin and you never understood her appeal. Just because you don't understand the motivations of others doesn't make their motivations wrong.
That's why I say we can disagree without demonizing people on our own team. If we marginalize people who have strong followings we marginalize their followers and we also eliminate the margins they can bring.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:41 PM (Fw2Gg)
210
Random-
Yes maybe Perry has been a terrible candidate by the metrics the media tells you to measure them by...
Did you watch that video of Perry that Ben did?
Tell me that guy is a bullshit artist....
What the American public has become accustomed to is the perfectly coiffed talking head on the TV in their living took-
reading the teleprompter....
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 09:42 PM (r2PLg)
211
Posted by: ace at December 14, 2011 01:26 AM (nj1bB)
My job heavily involves understanding how people and nations think and I mostly agree with your post.
"So I agree, Joffen, Perry is a great guy with a great bio and only one damn wife and who actually WORE THIS COUNTRY'S UNIFORM but apparently the choice is between a guy with three wives who, um, had other priorities during Vietnam, and another guy who did missionary work during Vietnam."
To illustrate your point, even these are again, what you called "intuitive" qualifications that are mostly unrelated to the office of the Presidency - the position not being equivalent to being a good family man nor a Captain in the U.S. Air Force. Which you (probably unconsciously) realize on other occasions when you immediately dismiss another guy in the race who has a great family life and was also a Captain in the U.S. Air Force. Or the even more highly decorated J. F. Kerry and John McCain.
"But then some other people's intuitions start going crazy when they think of INNOCENT LITTLE GIRLS getting immunized against cancer, instead of having the threat of cancer remain with them to teach them not be whores, and oh god I give up. "
This narrative also ignores the more legitimate concerns over using Executive Orders to bypass opposition. A dictatorial practice that you correctly rail against in the case of Obama, but was also, unfortunately, widely abused in the previous Bush Administration. (In what was an unwise, often conscious attempt to restore the Imperial Presidency - which Obama is now a beneficiary of.)
My job heavily involves understanding how people and nations think and I mostly agree with your post.
"So I agree, Joffen, Perry is a great guy with a great bio and only one damn wife and who actually WORE THIS COUNTRY'S UNIFORM but apparently the choice is between a guy with three wives who, um, had other priorities during Vietnam, and another guy who did missionary work during Vietnam."
To illustrate your point, even these are again, what you called "intuitive" qualifications that are mostly unrelated to the office of the Presidency - the position not being equivalent to being a good family man nor a Captain in the U.S. Air Force. Which you (probably unconsciously) realize on other occasions when you immediately dismiss another guy in the race who has a great family life and was also a Captain in the U.S. Air Force. Or the even more highly decorated J. F. Kerry and John McCain.
"But then some other people's intuitions start going crazy when they think of INNOCENT LITTLE GIRLS getting immunized against cancer, instead of having the threat of cancer remain with them to teach them not be whores, and oh god I give up. "
This narrative also ignores the more legitimate concerns over using Executive Orders to bypass opposition. A dictatorial practice that you correctly rail against in the case of Obama, but was also, unfortunately, widely abused in the previous Bush Administration. (In what was an unwise, often conscious attempt to restore the Imperial Presidency - which Obama is now a beneficiary of.)
Posted by: MlR at December 13, 2011 09:43 PM (/v94V)
212
>>> It's better than McCains position of sucking up to the media. A lot of people are tired of it. That's why people are overlooking the messiness.
By the messiness you mean the lack of organizational discipline enough to get on the ballot in MO and OH, the three wives, two (???) affairs, vietnam era deferments, working as a lobbyist for *liberal government appendages* for 16 years, etc...?
I don't say that to be a dick. I say that because, say, Perry's faults are firmly in your mind, and I want to make sure newt's are too, and not just swept under the carpet as "The Messiness."
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:44 PM (nj1bB)
213
I think the prospect of a Newt-Obama debate is essentially where Newt's support comes from. People are deperate for someone to articulately challange Obama to his face on all the things we've been screaming about for 3 years while the media has been AWOL.
It's an odd reason to support a candidate, in my opinion.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 09:44 PM (nRTou)
214
I really hope that Liberal AoSHQ Reader takes up your offer to guest-blog.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:45 PM (zLeKL)
215
>>>At the time, there was serious danger of Hillary Clinton's healthcare being passed.
Oh you're buying that bullshit? Dude, he did not stop talking about mandates in 1994.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:45 PM (nj1bB)
216
Uh...sure. Or, you could just take my whole post and quote it (I'm assuming you were referring to all 3 paragraphs, not just the first?). I don't want to overthink it and try and act like The World's Smartest Liberal Who Reads Conservative Blogs, which I might unwittingly do on a rewrite.
Your call. Thanks for the offer, truly.
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 13, 2011 09:45 PM (r590z)
217
@197
Let me clarify:
I'm saying someone like Erick gets hoisted as being a "leader or expert" among that part of the party.
Maybe I am wrong but I feel like things have gotten really heated in most of the blogs I visit recently because conservatives are frustrated that we don't necessarily ideological strong conservative candidates that is electable. (I'll be happy to eat crow that Perry might be that guy.)
I hate that people feel like they have to choose between Romney and Newt if that ends up being the case, but we had other options (more than just Daniels or Christie), and I just fee like some people like him in the blog world have had some influence in pounding the drums that have kept people from welcoming and looking at all options.
We should have had a chance to see more candidates than we did. Heck, we should have had a chance to see a televised debate between Castle and O'donnell in Delaware. I think that would have forced some folks here to really hesitate before making the choice that we did in that race.
Posted by: Nate at December 13, 2011 09:45 PM (BBlzg)
218
Yes maybe Perry has been a terrible candidate by the metrics the media tells you to measure them by...
No, that I measure candidates by.
Did you watch that video of Perry that Ben did?
Yes.
Tell me that guy is a bullshit artist....
Upthread, watching the aforementioned video, I said Perry has his strong points, but is not my cup of tea. I never called him a "bullshit artist".
What the American public has become accustomed to is the perfectly coiffed talking head on the TV in their living took-
reading the teleprompter....
They haven't become that accustomed to him. They don't like him much anymore.
No, that I measure candidates by.
Did you watch that video of Perry that Ben did?
Yes.
Tell me that guy is a bullshit artist....
Upthread, watching the aforementioned video, I said Perry has his strong points, but is not my cup of tea. I never called him a "bullshit artist".
What the American public has become accustomed to is the perfectly coiffed talking head on the TV in their living took-
reading the teleprompter....
They haven't become that accustomed to him. They don't like him much anymore.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:46 PM (YiE0S)
219
The Republicans came up with an alternative, that included a mandate for higher earners ($50k and up), and many more market-based mechanisms than the Clintons' plan.
This defused their momentum, and ultimately helped no plan be passed (and our plan would have been better for the economy than theirs if it had been passed).
So it was largely strategic, to confront a greater threat.
******
Yep-and we could have lost the next election in 2004 possibly without that compromise-but that's a complicated argument to make-and it's one Gingrich is going to have to be brutally honest about.
Think the media is going to allow of much of that during the debates?
Do you think Gingrich can go to three minute commercials with that?
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 09:46 PM (r2PLg)
220
This defused their momentum, and ultimately helped no plan be passed (and our plan would have been better for the economy than theirs if it had been passed).
---
Wrong on both counts.
The mandate did not help to end Hillarycare.
There was a case to be made for the mandate written by the Heritage Foundation in the late-80's, long before Clinton was President.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:47 PM (zLeKL)
221
And, duh, 220 was @Ace.
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 13, 2011 09:47 PM (r590z)
222
>>>I hate that people feel like they have to choose between Romney and Newt if that ends up being the case, but we had other options (more than just Daniels or Christie), and I just fee like some people like him in the blog world have had some influence in pounding the drums that have kept people from welcoming and looking at all options.
This is mythology, I say baldly. Blogs and Erick Erickson did not keep other people out of the race. Lack of interest or skeletons in their closet or laziness or lack of grit did.
Dude, people were begging for Christie. (I wasn't begging but I was fanning flames.) People were rooting for Pence, and Daniels, and Thune.
They CHOSE not to get in. I would have strongly preferred they did get in, all of them, and Ryan and Jindal too. But they all took a pass.
Palin too.
That had nothing to do with some gatekeeper at a blog that doesn't get much more traffic than this one.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:48 PM (nj1bB)
223
@207 Yeah, that's a concern should he win the primary (which at this point is looking unlikely), but among Republican primary voters, the I don't think it's the superficial Bush similarities that are hurting him.
Not because Bush is any kind of conservative hero (he isn't), but I just don't think conservatives really think that way.
For whatever the reasons normal, pragmatic concerns aren't being given the consideration they should.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 09:49 PM (kQdUv)
224
Ace yes all that is the messiness. And, by the way, Perry *is* my candidate so a swing and a miss.
I stated that newt is not my candidate and I don't want him to be the candidate. But being the front runner means a lot of people do. And pissing on all the front runners including Cain and Bachmann may save us from them being the front runners but it means we lose some of those who supported them and we lose what made them attractive to others to begin with.
Addition by subtraction?
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:49 PM (Fw2Gg)
225
Bring back Hoist the Flag!
That was a damn funny show. I don't care if Goldstein is a difficult person. That shit was funny.
That was a damn funny show. I don't care if Goldstein is a difficult person. That shit was funny.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 13, 2011 09:49 PM (mIucK)
226
Random seems to buy a lot of bullshit.
However, this is the most civil discussion of the candidates so far, and that is truly sad. Three weeks until Iowa, folks!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:49 PM (zLeKL)
227
Oh you're buying that bullshit? Dude, he did not stop talking about mandates in 1994.
True. As you've pointed out on this blog, that was a respectable Republican position at the time. I mean, Nixon implemented price fixing, right? Republican has not always equaled extremely conservative. The party itself moved to the right in recent years, and GOP voters are now wondering why politicians did not have the same viewpoints 2 decades ago that conservatives find themselves having now.
True. As you've pointed out on this blog, that was a respectable Republican position at the time. I mean, Nixon implemented price fixing, right? Republican has not always equaled extremely conservative. The party itself moved to the right in recent years, and GOP voters are now wondering why politicians did not have the same viewpoints 2 decades ago that conservatives find themselves having now.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:49 PM (YiE0S)
228
And if Newt is you guy-and you watched the last debate-did you get PO'd when Perry talked about keeping your commitments and oaths to your wives and/ or business partners-?
Well to Democrats and Independents Newt was that guy during the ClintonImpeachment Trials-except later it was found-out that Newt had is own side "entertainment-or whatever you want to call it.
That will be almost 30% of the general election if Newt is the candidate-and you won't be able to do a thing about that.
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 09:50 PM (r2PLg)
229
There was a case to be made for the mandate written by the Heritage
Foundation in the late-80's, long before Clinton was President.
I stand corrected. See defense 2, up above. This is a defense that Ace has advanced, incidentally.
I stand corrected. See defense 2, up above. This is a defense that Ace has advanced, incidentally.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:51 PM (YiE0S)
230
oh nate you meant Palin?
Dude, the Palin heads never seem to get this. She quit the governorship. You have mythologized this as her "feeling the call to the nationals stage."
No, she got out of politics to take an easier job with a bigger paycheck. And see her family more, sure.
You keep blaming other people for a decision palin made herself in 2009.
People do not quit the one office that makes them worthy of presidential consideration if they're seriously thinking about running for president.
She's currently shopping around ANOTHER reality tv show.
This was not Palin being victimized. This is her own decision.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:52 PM (nj1bB)
231
Lack of interest or skeletons in their closet or laziness or lack of grit did. .
***
That might be the only good thing that comes out of nominating Newt-the social cons can never again say-
the guy's been divorced too many times..
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 09:52 PM (r2PLg)
234
She's currently shopping around ANOTHER reality tv show.
---
No shit? Wow.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:55 PM (zLeKL)
235
Ace,
Palin WAS HOUNDED OUT OF OFFICE. She wanted to stay and fight.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 09:55 PM (nRTou)
236
>>> And pissing on all the front runners including Cain and Bachmann may save us from them being the front runners but it means we lose some of those who supported them and we lose what made them attractive to others to begin with.
Bachmann went full retard on my guy. No one ever seems to worry about MY feelings.
And Cain called him a racist so fuck him.
I see a lot of sharp elbows being thrown by grassroots favorites here (and their proxies, and the blogs supporting them). Do you criticize those folks too?
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 09:55 PM (nj1bB)
238
As you've pointed out on this blog, that was a respectable Republican position at the time.
---
The individual mandate was a respectable Republican position in the 1990's? Well damn.
Still doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:56 PM (zLeKL)
239
And seriously, do you want a President that can be hounded out of office by rinky-dink ethics charges?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:56 PM (YiE0S)
240
Still doesn't mean it was a good idea.
As I said, I don't agree with it. I'm mostly a libertarian, after all.
As I said, I don't agree with it. I'm mostly a libertarian, after all.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:57 PM (YiE0S)
241
@240
Yes I do.
My point is that there are some real reasons each of our front runners were front runners. You may not agree with or understand those reasons, but the people who have those reasons are voters.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 09:58 PM (Fw2Gg)
242
I for one enjoy with evil glee being a member of the All Powerful Cabal that is solely responsible for keeping the likes of O'Donnell, Paul and Palin from what otherwise would be inevitable victory.
Or so I'm told by their fans anyways.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 09:59 PM (mJwez)
243
Bachmann went full retard on my guy. No one ever seems to worry about MY feelings.
And Cain called him a racist so fuck him.
----
Surely those weren't the only reasons you didn't support them, Ace.
They were just shitty icing on a shitty cake when it came to Bachmann and Cain.
Bachmann is too easily led astray by dumb ideas like "someone's mother told me about Gardisil" and how she was a "fighter"...that never won a damn thing.
Cain was folksy and I loved his background, but he didn't know shit about foreign policy and was just mindless.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 09:59 PM (zLeKL)
244
My point is that there are some real reasons each of our front runners
were front runners. You may not agree with or understand those reasons,
but the people who have those reasons are voters.
Well said.
I don't -- at all -- think Newt Gingrich is perfect. But I like how he's campaigned and I liked what he accomplished in Congress.
Well said.
I don't -- at all -- think Newt Gingrich is perfect. But I like how he's campaigned and I liked what he accomplished in Congress.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 09:59 PM (YiE0S)
245
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 01:57 AM (YiE0S)
--
So why is Newt your guy?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:00 PM (zLeKL)
246
And continued note that the Tardasil thing cost Bachmann the lead.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 10:00 PM (Fw2Gg)
247
This is like a Navy captain who captains a destroyer. Then he quits his assignment.
A few years later people start talking about making him an admiral, and arguing that he's merely taking an "unconventional" route to the admiralship.
Look: You can call me hidebound by convention or whatever it you're calling it -- "old thinking," "establishment thinking" -- but I say the guy you make admiral is the guy who works his way up from the small ship to the big ship and doesn't quit his job along the way due to adversity or professional hardship.
That's the admiral. The guy who took the convetional, "boring" path of helming one ship and then another and then another until people said, "Hey, he's had seasoning, he's captained all these ships, we can make him admiral."
The Palin supporters think the guy who quits for whatever reason -- to do tv shows -- for a couple of years is the obvious pick for admiral, and that the rest of us are CRAZY and HATE THE NAVY for not agreeing with this bizarre pathway to admiralty.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:00 PM (nj1bB)
248
@226 Ace
In the eyes of some people though the "wrong" people were begging for Christie (George Will/Ann Coulter types). They were working themselves into a froth over his flaws (legitimate flaws for sure), same with Mitt or Huckabee or even Perry.
I'm just saying we are in the position we are in not because the GOP is the "stupid party". We are in this position because...well I honestly don't know anymore, and that's the problem.
I get you point though about Erick ace. He isn't some gatekeeper, I just like it when the blogs give all the candidates a fair shake based on a consistent standard. To your credit you have done that while being a Perry supporter which is why I find your site more readable than Erick's.
Posted by: Nate at December 13, 2011 10:01 PM (BBlzg)
250
The Palin supporters think the guy who quits for whatever reason -- to do tv shows -- for a couple of years is the obvious pick for admiral, and that the rest of us are CRAZY and HATE THE NAVY for not agreeing with this bizarre pathway to admiralty.
----
Reminds me of hard-core Obama supporters.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:02 PM (zLeKL)
251
Well for awhile Newt was Captain of the Hindenburg and flew it right into Clinton "broad"-side...
And the "broad" is still there...
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 10:03 PM (r2PLg)
252
apparently nate didn't mean palin. He meant daniels.
Well, daniels stayed out because his wife didn't want her infidelity discussed.
We all know this. it's not a mystery. Not erick erickson's fault.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:05 PM (nj1bB)
253
I think Newt and Perry are going to bring up a lot of the other guy's record and it's gonna suck...but not for Perry supporters. I'm not trying to be a dick, Romney will bring up what was described as "old news" by Newt fans, and vice-versa.
Meanwhile, a steady record like Perry's will win the day. I hope.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:05 PM (zLeKL)
254
infidelity? I don't know if she was unfaithful or not. I know she left him, then divorced him.
He stayed out for her.
sucks but not anyone's fault.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:06 PM (nj1bB)
255
Whether you get her or not Palin is a real star. People do not camp out overnight to meet Mitt Romney. She's not running so no worries there. But all the anti Palin's labeled her stupid and now that weapon is left on the shelf.
This is as much a purity test as those purity tests the purity test decriers decry.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 10:06 PM (Fw2Gg)
256
"So why is Newt your guy?"
I'm sure I said a couple times on this thread. In no particular order, here goes:
* Newt fights. He fought for a GOP minority and achieved welfare reform in my youth, and I see him fighting against Barack Obama during this campaign, and less against the other candidates. As someone who loves history, I particularly think his following Lincoln's strategy to embarass Obama into debating (or just embarrass Obama) is brilliant.
* Newt's record of accomplishment. See above for 2 examples.
* Newt's intelligence and verbal fluidity. I actually like these qualities (and they didn't hurt Lincoln any).
* Newt's maturity. He seems to have grown and become more affable with age, while retaining an undercurrent of steal.
* Newt's knowledge of foreign policy is outstanding.
Those are a few reasons: YMMV.
I'm sure I said a couple times on this thread. In no particular order, here goes:
* Newt fights. He fought for a GOP minority and achieved welfare reform in my youth, and I see him fighting against Barack Obama during this campaign, and less against the other candidates. As someone who loves history, I particularly think his following Lincoln's strategy to embarass Obama into debating (or just embarrass Obama) is brilliant.
* Newt's record of accomplishment. See above for 2 examples.
* Newt's intelligence and verbal fluidity. I actually like these qualities (and they didn't hurt Lincoln any).
* Newt's maturity. He seems to have grown and become more affable with age, while retaining an undercurrent of steal.
* Newt's knowledge of foreign policy is outstanding.
Those are a few reasons: YMMV.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:06 PM (YiE0S)
257
This is as much a purity test as those purity tests the purity test decriers decry.
Truly the adult here.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:07 PM (zLeKL)
258
Look: You can call me hidebound by convention or whatever it you're
calling it -- "old thinking," "establishment thinking" -- but I say the
guy you make admiral is the guy who works his way up from the small ship
to the big ship and doesn't quit his job along the way due to adversity
or professional hardship.
Posted by: ace
Why do I have the feeling your analogy is about to be hosed off the pier in the next few hundred comments by Navy vets?
Palin was never my pick but her reasons for quitting are understandable given the vitriol the Left is capable and willing to apply. And her quitting is a huge negative for voters nationwide. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Further, WTF does she have to do with anything now? A few die-hard Palin supporters is not the problem facing the GOP and conservatives in general.
Why do I have the feeling your analogy is about to be hosed off the pier in the next few hundred comments by Navy vets?
Palin was never my pick but her reasons for quitting are understandable given the vitriol the Left is capable and willing to apply. And her quitting is a huge negative for voters nationwide. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Further, WTF does she have to do with anything now? A few die-hard Palin supporters is not the problem facing the GOP and conservatives in general.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 13, 2011 10:08 PM (mIucK)
259
The Palin supporters think the guy who quits for whatever reason -- to
do tv shows -- for a couple of years is the obvious pick for admiral,
and that the rest of us are CRAZY and HATE THE NAVY for not agreeing
with this bizarre pathway to admiralty.
Thanks for the belly-laugh.
Thanks for the belly-laugh.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:09 PM (YiE0S)
260
@234 Ace
No I didn't mean Palin. I was a person who spent much of 2010-2011 reading a site like HotAir observing SOME Palin supporters ripping into any potential opponents while looking past her own legitimate flaws. Of course now that site is now feeling the pain after their recent open registration has seemed to have opened the door to many Romney and Paul supporters who are now firing back in the same manner.
A field of Perry, Daniels, Jindal, Christie, Paul, and Ryan would have adequately covered all the bases in the Republican party and been a fantastic fight to watch right now.
Posted by: Nate at December 13, 2011 10:10 PM (BBlzg)
261
Palin was never my pick but her reasons for quitting are understandable
given the vitriol the Left is capable and willing to apply.
I understand them fine. I accept them.
They don't recommend her for the Presidency, though. Presidents must withstand vitriol.
I understand them fine. I accept them.
They don't recommend her for the Presidency, though. Presidents must withstand vitriol.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:10 PM (YiE0S)
262
A field of Perry, Daniels, Jindal, Christie, Paul, and Ryan would have
adequately covered all the bases in the Republican party and been a
fantastic fight to watch right now.
Then blame Daniels, Jindal, Christie, Paul, and Ryan.
Then blame Daniels, Jindal, Christie, Paul, and Ryan.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:11 PM (YiE0S)
263
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 02:06 AM (YiE0S)
---
Newt fights. He fought for a GOP minority and achieved welfare reform in my youth, and I see him fighting against Barack Obama during this campaign, and less against the other candidates.
----
Well, I believe Clinton has successfully taken credit for that, unfairly but it's true.
We'll see how well he keeps attacking Obama and not the other candidates now that he's the frontrunner. Even now, I see him cracking. In any case, that is not a qualification to be President.
------------
As someone who loves history, I particularly think his following Lincoln's strategy to embarass Obama into debating (or just embarrass Obama) is brilliant.
This qualifies to be President, how? Sure it might help him win election but how does it help him govern?
Newt's knowledge of foreign policy is outstanding.
I'll give you that one. Thank you for your response.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:13 PM (zLeKL)
264
Rich Galen says the time for the negative ads is coming. Newt has plenty of negatives and he will surely get savaged.
Mark Levin made an interesting point tonight. People on the right who would faint away dead if you were to suggest that Obama is a socialist are calling Newt a Marxist. Go figure.
Newt has been flayed by the press before. He did not really survive it. He may or may not this time.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 10:14 PM (Fw2Gg)
265
I understand them fine. I accept them.
They don't recommend her for the Presidency, though. Presidents must withstand vitriol.
Posted by: Random
Read on, trollish one.
"And her quitting is a huge negative for voters nationwide. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts."
And now I feel dirty standing in rhetorical space near you.
They don't recommend her for the Presidency, though. Presidents must withstand vitriol.
Posted by: Random
Read on, trollish one.
"And her quitting is a huge negative for voters nationwide. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts."
And now I feel dirty standing in rhetorical space near you.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 13, 2011 10:14 PM (mIucK)
266
>>>Whether you get her or not Palin is a real star. People do not camp out overnight to meet Mitt Romney.
You're not going to understand that this is serious, not snark, but people camp out to see Metallica, too.
You continue mistaking depth of appeal to one specific narrow cohort, whether its speed-metal fans or rural Christian married with children pro-life populists, with electoral viability.
I am in this party too, blaster. You are making the case to me why these other people's opinions should matter to me; do you ever make the case to them why my opinion should matter to them?
I hate this idea that their beliefs are OBVIOUSLY more important than mine because they're "real" and "authentic" and apparently I am some kind of garbage.
I get that Jesus is important to people. And that they like seeing people who seem to be vibrant, vital Christians.
But I am not Christian. A lot of people are not. Even in the Republican party, there are many nominal Christians to whom Christian identity, especially of the more charismatic type, is not a plus, but a bit of a minus.
And so I'd like to know what I was to be gaining from a Palin candidacy.
Since I do not believe in God, I do NOT believe God created some specail quit-your-govenorship-proceed-to-the-Oval-Office pathway for her. What I see is a flighty, grating-voice dilettante who starts well and finishes very poorly.
What's in it for me? Do I not get a say too?
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:15 PM (nj1bB)
267
This is quite a spectacle to behold. The same people who (correctly) said that Palin was unelectable because of the polls are now ignoring the polls and continuing to back Rick Perry, who's now even more unpopular than Palin, and has zero chance of becoming president. Zero. Let's just get this thing over with and move to the Romney camp. We all know that Gingrich can't win the general. Look at the RCP averages for God's sake. As for Perry, not only can't he win the general, he has almost no chance of winning a single state in the primaries.
Posted by: Mr. Estrada at December 13, 2011 10:16 PM (/+B2Y)
268
One last comment, for those claiming that Newts ability to fight/call out the media is unfounded reason for doing so ask yourself this question:
"Why did so many people jump on the Cristie bandwagon?" Because he fought. He told the Unions how it was going to be, he fought the media and wouldn't let a false premise stand when asked a question. People loved how he expressed how WE felt about those institutions and the policies that needed to be put in place.
So I don't think its fraudulent to like Newt for those same reasons.
Posted by: Tendstl at December 13, 2011 10:18 PM (kb15i)
269
Did Ace just compare Sarah Palin to Metallica?
I love this site.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:18 PM (zLeKL)
270
>>>Palin was never my pick but her reasons for quitting are understandable given the vitriol the Left is capable and willing to apply.
JOB OPENING
DESCRIPTION: Governor of small state
PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES: May be elevated to be vice presidential candidate
STARTING SALARY: $120,000 p.a.
REQUIREMENTS: People will probably say some mean things about you. If you feel this is a problem, this might not be the position for you.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:19 PM (nj1bB)
271
So I don't think its fraudulent to like Newt for those same reasons.
---
Yeah, but one I found out that he's liberal on a lot of subjects, that was it for me. And that's why I don't support Newt, I'm not gonna vote for someone that sounds good but doesn't share my values. Why would anyone?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:20 PM (zLeKL)
272
Random-
Your the commenter that is all upset with Perry because of his position on gays in the military, right?
Do you know Newt's position?
Try this on for size-
******
Newt Gingrich told a soldier who complained about the recent repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during a town hall in Ames, Iowa this afternoon that “you can certainly reverse the president’s position on social engineering in the military” and suggested that the Obama administration has “extraordinary anti-military prejudice”:
GINGRICH: I was underwhelmed when [Secretary of Defense] Leon Panetta proudly announced that 97 percent of the troops have now gone through sensitivity training. Somehow, thatÂ’s not why I thought we recruited people to be on active duty. [...] You have to start with the idea that this is an administration of extraordinary anti-military prejudice, that just hides it, okay? I mean, this president is not a commander in chief in any normal sense, he is a politician in chief.
http://tinyurl.com/83fjpuc
There's video for you at that link as well.
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 10:20 PM (r2PLg)
273
One of the things I've always appreciated about the Right is that traditionally we've been less prone than the left to falling prey to "style over substance". Were it otherwise, the likes of Nixon, Bush, etc would've never left the gate.
The Left adores style- JFK (and his wife), Clinton, Obama, etc.
Unfortunately in this election cycle, the pendulum has stuck on the 'style' end of the equation amongst the Right as well.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 10:20 PM (zktdJ)
275
@266 Random
I do blame them. But I wonder if they at all thought in our current environment that couldn't sell their conservative credentials if they were going to get pounded the way someone like Romney is.
That's what I'm arguing (and I could be wrong about it) but why run if you at all think people will choose another guy or gall for a reason that may not be consistently applied?
In the end I'm just an ABO voter though. We don't win in 2012 and we are looking at 20+ trillion in debt.
Posted by: Nate at December 13, 2011 10:21 PM (BBlzg)
276
"This is quite a spectacle to behold. The same people who (correctly)
said that Palin was unelectable because of the polls are now ignoring
the polls and continuing to back Rick Perry, who's now even more
unpopular than Palin"
I did mention above that -- while Perry has a more serious resume -- he doesn't seem notably a smarter person than her nor a better candidate (in fact, she gave rousing speeches). And politically, it can't be denied, that Palin has a more robust base of support than Perry.
Ace just said this:
"I get that Jesus is important to people. And that they like seeing people who seem to be vibrant, vital Christians.
"But I am not Christian. A lot of people are not. Even in the Republican party, there are many nominal Christians to whom Christian identity, especially of the more charismatic type, is not a plus, but a bit of a minus.
"And so I'd like to know what I was to be gaining from a Palin candidacy."
... and frankly, I ask the same thing about Perry, although I will acknowledge Perry has a better governing record for finishing what he starts.
I did mention above that -- while Perry has a more serious resume -- he doesn't seem notably a smarter person than her nor a better candidate (in fact, she gave rousing speeches). And politically, it can't be denied, that Palin has a more robust base of support than Perry.
Ace just said this:
"I get that Jesus is important to people. And that they like seeing people who seem to be vibrant, vital Christians.
"But I am not Christian. A lot of people are not. Even in the Republican party, there are many nominal Christians to whom Christian identity, especially of the more charismatic type, is not a plus, but a bit of a minus.
"And so I'd like to know what I was to be gaining from a Palin candidacy."
... and frankly, I ask the same thing about Perry, although I will acknowledge Perry has a better governing record for finishing what he starts.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:22 PM (YiE0S)
277
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 14, 2011 02:20 AM (zktdJ)
---
Yep. It's really perplexing.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:23 PM (zLeKL)
278
“you can certainly reverse the president’s position on social engineering in the military” and suggested that the Obama administration has “extraordinary anti-military prejudice”:
I made this political point about Rick Perry's strong ad in a prior thread. He could have attacked *Obama* for unrestrained social engineering in the military. Attacking openly gay serving military members per se was stupid.
I made this political point about Rick Perry's strong ad in a prior thread. He could have attacked *Obama* for unrestrained social engineering in the military. Attacking openly gay serving military members per se was stupid.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:24 PM (YiE0S)
279
By the way, I thought Palin's "conservatism" was VERY superficial.
People always said "Well you can't disagree with her on the issues."
Well, no, given that she she just endorses the mainline bumper-sticker orthodoxy on each issue without detail or texture, no, I can't disagree. I also can't really agree because there's no such thing as "Palinism" per se, apart from her biography and personality.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:24 PM (nj1bB)
280
Random, what did he say in the ad that attacked openly gay serving military members?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:26 PM (zLeKL)
281
RomneyÂ’s campaign plans to escalate the attack on Gingrich over his work with Pelosi on climate issues with a video that will be released Wednesday, a campaign official said.
Oh boy.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:28 PM (zLeKL)
282
Ace,
You're conceding that Palin was some sort of hardline conservative before 2008, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 10:28 PM (nRTou)
283
Re: 282
Or, if you want to be pedantically technical, he was verbally attacking America for having openly gay serving military members and not allowing children to openly practice their faith. The correct point of attack should have been on Obama; the Democrats, and/or socialism; with commentary on America being positive and optimistic.
See: Ronald Reagan's ads.
Or, if you want to be pedantically technical, he was verbally attacking America for having openly gay serving military members and not allowing children to openly practice their faith. The correct point of attack should have been on Obama; the Democrats, and/or socialism; with commentary on America being positive and optimistic.
See: Ronald Reagan's ads.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:28 PM (YiE0S)
284
Random-
Well get prepared to be just as upset by Newt in the future when he gets enough money to put the ads out.
Plus there is Callista's interview with The Christian Broadcasting Network that's coming out in bits and pieces...
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 10:28 PM (r2PLg)
285
well I didn't really concede that and have written a subsequent post calling her politics a sort of coloring-book conservatism.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:29 PM (nj1bB)
286
Ace you can stop beating that straw man now the stuffing is all out.
You are huffing and puffing asking me to justify something I am not saying.
Yes people camp out to see Metallica, and no one does to see Celine Dion (they don't, do they? If they do we don't deserve to survive. ). But Dion still makes a lot of money. I get it. But elections are not about rational people with multi attribute decision matrices filled out. There is a lot of emotion and intuition and all that. Hell, I am a high information voter and I go into the voting booth and there are some candidates for some offices I just pick because I have seen their sign.
I am not saying that you have to accept Palin in your heart as your candidate. Because, hello, she isn't running. Which if you were to go back and look I have been saying since, I dunno, last year? What I am saying is that in rejecting her by calling her stupid, and calling those who do like her stupid, you are throwing those people out of the game.
Surely there must be something you like about Palin? And it cannot just be that she's a Jesus freak because that isn't actually her politics. Really, you could look it up. But it isn't just Palin, it is all the people who do get people excited. You want to give up because people like it that Newt tangles with the newsies? Why not instead of saying that it is irrational to like someone for that reason, understand it as a motivation and bring those people to your side. I mean it isn't like AoSHQ doesn't point out media bias every once in a while.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 10:29 PM (Fw2Gg)
287
well I didn't really concede that and have written a subsequent post calling her politics a sort of coloring-book conservatism.
An fitting description if there ever was one.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:30 PM (zLeKL)
289
he was verbally attacking America for having openly gay serving military members
Dude! You gotta stay consistent-last time you said it was Perry's disapproving body language and the motion he made with his hand.
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 10:31 PM (r2PLg)
290
Random, what did he say in the ad that attacked openly gay serving military members?
As noted above, to be pedantically correct, he attacked America for having such. However (and it's hard to find the actual transcript via a google search because of all the parodies) :
there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military (palms-down, closed, disapproving body language and tone) but our kids (palms-up, open, approving body language) can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
I acknowledge another interpretation than mine is possible. As I said, I believe it was intended to have a double meaning.
As noted above, to be pedantically correct, he attacked America for having such. However (and it's hard to find the actual transcript via a google search because of all the parodies) :
there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military (palms-down, closed, disapproving body language and tone) but our kids (palms-up, open, approving body language) can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
I acknowledge another interpretation than mine is possible. As I said, I believe it was intended to have a double meaning.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:32 PM (YiE0S)
291
I am a high information voter and I go into the voting booth and there are some candidates for some offices I just pick because I have seen their sign.
Makes sense to me!
Surely there must be something you like about Palin? And it cannot just be that she's a Jesus freak because that isn't actually her politics.
Yes, Ace the atheist, surely you're not basing your obvious love of Palin just because she loves Jesus?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:33 PM (zLeKL)
292
Random,
I didn't see Perry's ad as the attack on homosexuality that others have. To me, he was drawing a contrast to how far we've got to include some rights while cracking down on others.
Don't believe me? Watch it again.
Not a direct quote, but he says "We allow gays in the miltary but don't allow children to pray in school"
Um, that's actually the truth. He wasn't advocating returning to DADT.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 10:34 PM (nRTou)
293
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 02:32 AM (YiE0S)
---
Down-twinkles on that Perry ad then.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:34 PM (zLeKL)
294
>>>I am not saying that you have to accept Palin in your heart as your candidate. Because, hello, she isn't running. Which if you were to go back and look I have been saying since, I dunno, last year? What I am saying is that in rejecting her by calling her stupid, and calling those who do like her stupid, you are throwing those people out of the game.
I didn't call her stupid all that much. Superficial, glib, unprepared, unwilling to do homework, flighty, diva-ish, constantly getting in queen bee spats iwth other women, dilettantish, and a quitter not a fighter.
>>>Surely there must be something you like about Palin?
Not any more. Frankly I've soured on her so much I find her physically unattractive. She looks like barbara streisand to me with those glasses and that nose.
>>> And it cannot just be that she's a Jesus freak because that isn't actually her politics.
Yes it is.
What I object isn't her faith but her attempting to parlay cheap coloring-book conservatism IDENTITY POLITICS into a movement.
I don't like identity politics. Neither do you, when the identity politics in question excludes you.
I suppose I would be more amenable to an ideinty politics pitched at my actual identity, but I don't get much of that in the republican party.
But when someone is playing that card hard, I get sick of it.
The donwside of identity politics is -- what do you do with people outside the identity politics group you're pandering to?
>>>Really, you could look it up. But it isn't just Palin, it is all the people who do get people excited. You want to give up because people like it that Newt tangles with the newsies?
No I don't want to give up because of that. I'm just saying that is not a particularly strong reason to nominate him.
>>> Why not instead of saying that it is irrational to like someone for that reason, understand it as a motivation and bring those people to your side. I mean it isn't like AoSHQ doesn't point out media bias every once in a while.
If you read up I have a comment about how we ALL use intuition/emotion as our primary guide, including the people in the thread at the moment, and myself, and to some extent this is just pot calling the kettle black for having different intuitions/emotions, rather than one person's intellect vs another person's emotionalism.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:35 PM (nj1bB)
295
@281 Joffen- Yeah, it's maddening to me.
Now that I've had another beer and a minute to think about it, I have to wonder- who is our William Buckley? Our Barry Goldwater? Our Milton Friedman?
Sure, there are conservative intellectuals out there, but none so influential that I can think of. Instead our discourse is dominated by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, and other entertainers who are little more than clowns in comparison.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 10:35 PM (Z0oH9)
296
Plus there is Callista's interview with The Christian Broadcasting Network that's coming out in bits and pieces...
I don't approve of Newt's Christian beliefs and politicking, but he is Christian and does politick, and that's the reality of the situation.
At least he did it smarter than Perry did - and Newt was speaking off the cuff vs. Perry's pre-planning.
NEWT: “you can certainly reverse the president’s position on social engineering in the military” and suggested that the Obama administration has “extraordinary anti-military prejudice”:
At the risk of quoting myself:
I made this political point about Rick Perry's strong ad in a prior thread. He could have attacked *Obama* for unrestrained social engineering in the military. Attacking openly gay serving military members per se was stupid.
I don't approve of Newt's Christian beliefs and politicking, but he is Christian and does politick, and that's the reality of the situation.
At least he did it smarter than Perry did - and Newt was speaking off the cuff vs. Perry's pre-planning.
NEWT: “you can certainly reverse the president’s position on social engineering in the military” and suggested that the Obama administration has “extraordinary anti-military prejudice”:
At the risk of quoting myself:
I made this political point about Rick Perry's strong ad in a prior thread. He could have attacked *Obama* for unrestrained social engineering in the military. Attacking openly gay serving military members per se was stupid.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:36 PM (YiE0S)
297
I didn't see Perry's ad as the attack on homosexuality that others have.
To me, he was drawing a contrast to how far we've got to include some
rights while cracking down on others.
Don't believe me? Watch it again.
I do believe you. I believe it was intended to have a double meaning.
Regardless, bad politics.
Don't believe me? Watch it again.
I do believe you. I believe it was intended to have a double meaning.
Regardless, bad politics.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:37 PM (YiE0S)
298
The disconnect from rational thought is the most frustrating thing.
Data point A says X
Data point B says X
Data point C, D, E, F, G and H all say X.
Irrational idiot screams X is wrong, so therefor all data points are biased by socialist leftist media sources.
SAME people btw who will grasp at the polling straw that shows their guy/girl ahead by perhaps one of the Data point firms a month later.
If A, B,C, D, E, F, all the way to Z tells you X is stronger than Y, its stronger. But some people are too damn wrapped in their own bubble of thought to accept it.
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 10:37 PM (JEVge)
299
By the way, this is an admission:
At this point, I do pretty much hate Palin.
I'm not saying that to brag about it. I'm saying it to concede the truth. People say I'm a Palin-hater. At some point I did become one.
So perhaps my own intuitions are not to be trusted here.
But whenever she squawks, I roll my eyes and sigh in exasperation.
I just don't want to hear from her anymore, or hear about her, or continue to be locked in this identity politics psychodrama with her and her devoted fans who seem to have way too much of their own self-worth tied up in her electoral fortunes.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:37 PM (nj1bB)
300
@294 Random
With the Perry ad, I don't think he intended that to come across (why would you when you have a staff member that is gay?), but it doesn't matter what you say as much as what people think you said.
The firm or staff people who wrote the script for that ad should have been given a pink slip.
Posted by: Nate at December 13, 2011 10:38 PM (BBlzg)
301
So Perry is saying what Newt said, just in a different way and Random sees a completely different meaning. Am I right?
Even though he bemoaned Obama's attack on religion, he didn't attack Obama. Right?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:38 PM (zLeKL)
302
Oh, I agree it was a dumb ad. I just don't think it was an attack on homosexuality.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 10:40 PM (nRTou)
303
You're conceding that Palin was some sort of hardline conservative before 2008, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 02:28 AM (nRTou)
Pro amnesty, for the decriminalization of marijuana, moderate (for an R) on gay rights. She was slightly to the right of John McCain. But her followers of 2009-2011 totally forgot all that yet hurled the same accusations against more conservative primary candidates this year up to the point where it was painfully obvious she wasn't jumping in (her plate was full with specials on A&E, Bravo, TLC, and a few guest spots on American Pickers).
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 10:41 PM (JEVge)
304
I wouldn't describe it as hate but I feel the exact same way about Palin. It just seemed so obvious to me that she was a pandering drama-queen that I often wondered why others weren't seeing it.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:41 PM (zLeKL)
305
If A, B,C, D, E, F, all the way to Z tells you X is stronger than Y, its stronger. But some people are too damn wrapped in their own bubble of thought to accept it.
Posted by: CAC at December 14, 2011 02:37 AM (JEVge)
Well that's just what the Establishment wants you to say.
Posted by: CAC at December 14, 2011 02:37 AM (JEVge)
Well that's just what the Establishment wants you to say.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 10:42 PM (/IES6)
306
I see Palin supporting Newt or Romney, but never Perry.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:42 PM (zLeKL)
307
With the Perry ad, I don't think he intended that to come across (why
would you when you have a staff member that is gay?), but it doesn't
matter what you say as much as what people think you said.
The firm or staff people who wrote the script for that ad should have been given a pink slip.
And there's my point. Even if I'm wrong, I'm right. It all goes to Perry being a bad candidate.
The firm or staff people who wrote the script for that ad should have been given a pink slip.
And there's my point. Even if I'm wrong, I'm right. It all goes to Perry being a bad candidate.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:42 PM (YiE0S)
308
OK but she does not have a nose the size of Streisand's LOL!
Posted by: tasker at December 13, 2011 10:43 PM (r2PLg)
309
You know what I guess I don't like about her? The smugness.
I like a little humility in people. Maybe that's why I like Rick Perry.
Sarah Palin always has this snarky certitude and smugness, and the thing is, I don't think it's EARNED.
I wouldn't mind some swagger of she was Queen Shit of Fuck Mountain, kicking ass and taking names.
But she isn't. She is a former governor, quit by her own choice to pursue a media career, and all I get beamed off her is this arrogant "I'm going to get you, you nasty media types, you'll see, you'll see."
It seems so PETTY. So trivial and small. Such a tiny ambition.
And I don't believe she's doing any of this for America. I think she's doing it for her own wounded ego and then telling people she's all about America.
She just does not appear to be self-sacrificing to me. She appears to be self-enriching.
And then I get this arrogant sanctimony from her, and unearned swagger.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:44 PM (nj1bB)
310
CAC,
Let's not forget she supported TARP.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 10:44 PM (nRTou)
311
"Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 02:38 AM (zLeKL)"
I'm saying American military members, serving lawfully during peacetime or wartime, should never be the butt of a political ad. Make the butt anything else save that.
I'm saying American military members, serving lawfully during peacetime or wartime, should never be the butt of a political ad. Make the butt anything else save that.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:44 PM (YiE0S)
312
Oh, Random with their 3-dimensional chess.
No, wait. You're just dumb. A counter-point actually proves your point? Get outta here!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:44 PM (zLeKL)
313
@302 CAC- But the MSM reported that X is stronger, and the MSM leans left, therefore if you believe the "evidence" that X is stronger, you're a RINO tool of the left.
Or something.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 10:45 PM (28cbk)
314
Ace is way off.
After passing on running for president, she's pitching a snowmoblle reality show about her husband FOR AMERICA.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 10:46 PM (nRTou)
315
"I like a little humility in people. Maybe that's why I like Rick Perry."
Gotta give Rick Perry that, but ... not on major issues, mostly on his mannerisms and verbal flaws. Still, George W. Bush has that same type of humility, so this is a plus.
Gotta give Rick Perry that, but ... not on major issues, mostly on his mannerisms and verbal flaws. Still, George W. Bush has that same type of humility, so this is a plus.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:47 PM (YiE0S)
316
Well, I don't see Palin as an identity politicker, but I don't want this to just go down the Palin rabbit hole because that treadmill is wearing thin.
None of us get a perfect candidate. I know some people who are genuinely excited about Huntsman. If you look at the checklist he would seem perfect. Yet he is less popular than even Perry. So there are other factors at play.
I don't think that fighting the press is a qualification for President. If it were President Brent Bozell would be on Mount Rushmore. But a lot of people on our side are attracted by it, and that attraction is a proxy for their politics. Hey, I don't accept the premise of that question either! He must be for concealed carry in churches just like me!
Sure that's faulty reasoning but its real. So use it.
Posted by: blaster at December 13, 2011 10:47 PM (Fw2Gg)
317
You know, this is where I'm coming from:
Newt Gingrich appears to me to be more humble than Sarah Palin.
Newt Gingrich -- I've heard him confess error, not once but several times. I just heard him address his marital failings and concede that his character flaws were of course part of the picture people would have to consider.
I have never heard sarah palin confess an error not even a single goddamned time.
That bothers me. That bothers me a lot.
Anyone who is too proud to confess error has a character flaw. Anyone who's too dumb to know that confessing an error often makes you look smart is not smart enough to be president.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:48 PM (nj1bB)
318
I for one, am glad that we're talking about Palin in the past tense.
A few days ago I was happily boxing up her dvd's to return them to our warehouse. There were a ton of them. No one fucking bought them. Not once did I hear someone ask, "do you have that Sarah Palin dvd? I can't find it anywhere!"
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:48 PM (zLeKL)
319
That's it, I just realized it.
I am sick of the Little Miss Perfect Thang act.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:48 PM (nj1bB)
320
A counter-point actually proves your point? Get outta here!
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 02:44 AM (zLeKL)
I objected to it personally, but the killer part to me was how incredibly bad politics it is. I made that point over and over and over again. Perhaps you missed it.Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:48 PM (YiE0S)
321
I didn't much like the Perry ad either, but he's making a play for Iowa.
Between Huckabee and Bachmann, going Full Retard seems to resonate well there.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 10:48 PM (qfeu+)
322
Palin started giving me nausea with her "grizzlie mama" ads. It reminded me of those idiot moms against guns ads or the union malcontents who go out to whip up a crowd. I had seen identical non-worship hero worship before on the left. It appealed to a specific bloc of mush-brained emotionally charged political amateurs pissed with the political situation that has befallen them but too irrational to DO something about it besides blindly rant and fawn.
We nominated AND GOT several strong tea party conservatives into the Congress who are really leading a fight. Johnson. Paul. Lee. Rubio. Toomey. All INTELLIGENT, strong conservatives ready to reset the future of the country away from the doom it seemed propelled toward in the months following President Obama's election.
The Palin mold of huff-n-puff was Bachmann's M.O. and why she was a non-starter as a serious candidate. Her Tardisil blubbering just cemented her worthlessness.
I am tired of false prophets who dazzle those all-too-eager to bite. Liberals are supposed to be the dimmer bulbs, but judging from the fanatical support of clowns like Palin and Bachmann looks like no ideological wing is free of morons.
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 10:50 PM (JEVge)
323
Oh, I agree it was a dumb ad. I just don't think it was an attack on homosexuality.
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 02:40 AM
I was also by that point having major issues with Rick Perry as a candidate and campaigner, so that was the last straw for me.
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 02:40 AM
I was also by that point having major issues with Rick Perry as a candidate and campaigner, so that was the last straw for me.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:51 PM (YiE0S)
324
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 02:48 AM (YiE0S)
---
No, I didn't miss it. Is there a chance that YOU MISREAD the whole ad? How can it be bad politics if the ad was spot on and YOU misinterpreted it? Is there a chance that this is the case?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:51 PM (zLeKL)
325
If Newt Gingrich -- a near egomaniac, by almost universal report -- seems more humble and willing to concede error and fault than Sarah Palin...
That's a problem for me.
First, know yourself. Someone smart said that. I forget who. Probably Shakespeare.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:51 PM (nj1bB)
326
It appealed to a specific bloc of mush-brained emotionally charged political amateurs pissed with the political situation that has befallen them but too irrational to DO something about it besides blindly rant and fawn.
Yes!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:53 PM (zLeKL)
327
Random,
Truth be told, that was the second-to-last straw for me. I thought it was monumentally stupid, but also wildly misinterpreted.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 10:54 PM (nRTou)
328
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 02:54 AM (nRTou)
---
If it was misinterpreted, how was it stupid?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:55 PM (zLeKL)
329
329 If Newt Gingrich -- a near egomaniac, by almost universal report -- seems more humble and willing to concede error and fault than Sarah Palin...
I'm not quite sure I accept his concessions of error at face value - but at least he is smart enough to know that sometimes admitting you screwed up and acting humble is good strategy.
I'm not quite sure I accept his concessions of error at face value - but at least he is smart enough to know that sometimes admitting you screwed up and acting humble is good strategy.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 10:55 PM (/IES6)
330
I don't understand how the mainline conservative position of five months ago-- pro-DADT -- has become not only not the mainline position, but anti-gay HATRED, virtually overnight.
If you now believe this is the correct position, that's fine.
How did it go from being acceptable to HATRED in five months?
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:55 PM (nj1bB)
331
CAC- But the MSM reported that X is stronger, and the MSM leans left, therefore if you believe the "evidence" that X is stronger, you're a RINO tool of the left.
Or something.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 14, 2011 02:45 AM (28cbk)
All the while totally forgetting that A, B, C, D, E, F are in the business of actually GETTING IT RIGHT, with the bankruptcy of VNS following inaccurate 2000/2004 projection numbers hanging over the heads of every firm from Public Policy Polling to Rasmussen.
Again, an intentional ignorance of reality. It is pathetic. EVERY FIRM IN AMERICA that runs polling data is not in George Soros/Mitt Romney/insert boogeymanhere's pocket. Yet if their point is being proven wrong consistently, it isn't the assertion that is wrong, but the hard data.
It is why I quit responding to the "yeah but Romney will probably lose the south" retards who question the projections. It requires a sense of reasoning that accepts alternate answers for 2+2.
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 10:56 PM (JEVge)
332
>>>I'm not quite sure I accept his concessions of error at face value - but at least he is smart enough to know that sometimes you screwed up and acting humble is good strategy.
Yes. At least he knows that much.
Have you ever known someone like Palin in real life, someone who, by her own account, has never, ever erred?
Ever?
I don't want anyone like that as president.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:57 PM (nj1bB)
333
Is there a chance that YOU MISREAD the whole ad?
If I and millions of other people misread the ad, then it's a bad ad.
If I and millions of other people misread the ad, then it's a bad ad.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 10:57 PM (YiE0S)
334
sometimes conservatives talk about certitude as it is an unambiguously good thing, no matter what the context, and doubt and skepticism are unambiguoulsy bad, or at least "weak."
Obama's got certitude.
Certitude is only good when you're certain of the right damn things.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 10:58 PM (nj1bB)
335
How did it go from being acceptable to HATRED in five months?
----
Might have something to do with:
a specific bloc of mush-brained emotionally charged political amateurs pissed with the political situation that has befallen them but too irrational to DO something about it besides blindly rant and fawn.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 10:59 PM (zLeKL)
336
It was stupid because it could be misinterpreted. Don't bring up DADT. It's over. He was using it as a comparison of how far tolerance has come on one side while showing how it's being suffocated on the other.
The problem was using DADT. Don't go there.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 10:59 PM (nRTou)
337
If it was misinterpreted, how was it stupid?
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 02:55 AM
You're kidding, right?
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 02:55 AM
You're kidding, right?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:00 PM (YiE0S)
338
a specific bloc of mush-brained emotionally charged political amateurs pissed with the political situation that has befallen them but too irrational to DO something about it besides blindly rant and fawn.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 02:59 AM (zLeKL)
Or
ASBOMBECPAPWTPSTHBTBTITDSAIBBRAF, for short.
Not nearly as catchy as SCOAMF, I am sure.
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 11:00 PM (JEVge)
339
If I and millions of other people misread the ad, then it's a bad ad.
Wrong as usual. It means you've thrown your lot in with liberals and perpetual victims. That and the fact that you can't think for yourself.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:00 PM (zLeKL)
340
Have you ever known someone like Palin in real life, someone who, by her own account, has never, ever erred?
Ever?
Well I assume that she knows that she's erred but just can't ever admit it publicly since so much of her persona is built around having perfect instincts. And being a perfect victim.
I think for a lot of her followers her admitting any error would be letting THEM win somehow.
Ever?
Well I assume that she knows that she's erred but just can't ever admit it publicly since so much of her persona is built around having perfect instincts. And being a perfect victim.
I think for a lot of her followers her admitting any error would be letting THEM win somehow.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 11:01 PM (/IES6)
341
Bonus for the fappier crowd, I just noticed a "TIT" in my acronym.
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 11:01 PM (JEVge)
342
The problem was using DADT. Don't go there.
Why not?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:02 PM (zLeKL)
343
Bonus for the fappier crowd, I just noticed a "TIT" in my acronym.
----
Also a bonus for the terrorist crowd, there's a BOMB in there, too!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:03 PM (zLeKL)
345
334 I don't understand how the mainline conservative position of five months ago-- pro-DADT -- has become not only not the mainline position, but anti-gay HATRED, virtually overnight.
If you now believe this is the correct position, that's fine.
How did it go from being acceptable to HATRED in five months?
-------
Because the military said it's ridiculous. That's honestly all that I care about and I bet a lot of other people feel the same.
If military commanders say it isn't an issue, then why would anyone else care?
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:03 PM (nRTou)
346
This is the most interesting / thought provoking thread I've read lately. I wish there were more (often) late night discussions like this one.
Posted by: Carolyn at December 13, 2011 11:03 PM (CQId4)
347
Military commanders never give the C-I-C and Congressional paymasters the answer they're looking for, not ever, ever ever.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:04 PM (nj1bB)
348
I don't understand how the mainline conservative position of five months
ago-- pro-DADT -- has become not only not the mainline position, but
anti-gay HATRED, virtually overnight.
Well, to start with, a plurality of the GOP supported reppealing DADT, but be that as it may. It wasn't so much that Rick Perry doesn't approve of homosexuality that bothered me the most (I wouldn't expect a Christian to although it would be nice), it was the fact that -- as the man vying for CIC -- he appeared to publicly disapprove of a group of Americans serving their nation under arms during wartime, and to use this as an example of what is wrong with America.
They are now serving lawfully by serving openly.
If Perry has a problem with it, he should take it up with Obama or Congress.
Well, to start with, a plurality of the GOP supported reppealing DADT, but be that as it may. It wasn't so much that Rick Perry doesn't approve of homosexuality that bothered me the most (I wouldn't expect a Christian to although it would be nice), it was the fact that -- as the man vying for CIC -- he appeared to publicly disapprove of a group of Americans serving their nation under arms during wartime, and to use this as an example of what is wrong with America.
They are now serving lawfully by serving openly.
If Perry has a problem with it, he should take it up with Obama or Congress.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:05 PM (YiE0S)
349
Posted by: Carolyn at December 14, 2011 03:03 AM (CQId4)
----
Me too. I work nights at Walmart so I am wide awake around 1-2 am, my usual lunch break.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:05 PM (zLeKL)
350
There was a poll that said something like 40% of marines had a problem with it.
This doesn't make the commanders wrong, and it doesn't make the marines right. But a report filed by Pentagon staffers hardly settles everything.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:05 PM (nj1bB)
351
After all, Vandenbergh killed that report that said that UFOs were likely extraterestrial spacecraft and suppressed it and ordered a new one with the opposite conclusion.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:06 PM (nj1bB)
352
Rick Perry doesn't approve of homosexuality
...which is why he had a gay man to help run his campaign. But I guess he shouldn't have run that ad then! Double-stupid!
Hey, if you hate gays but have gay people helping you run for office, don't run an anti-gay ad!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:07 PM (zLeKL)
353
I honestly will never understand DADT.
Can gays serve in the military or not? DADT was an absurd punt on the issue (while allowing gays in the fucking military). Military commanders have finally said it isn't an issue..... so it isn't an issue. Gays can serve in the military just like before DADT.
I don't get it.
Can gays serve in the military or not? DADT was an absurd punt on the issue (while allowing gays in the fucking military). Military commanders have finally said it isn't an issue..... so it isn't an issue. Gays can serve in the military just like before DADT.
I don't get it.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:08 PM (nRTou)
354
After all, Vandenbergh killed that report that said that UFOs were likely extraterestrial spacecraft and suppressed it and ordered a new one with the opposite conclusion.
Heh. That ace, such a kidder.
*nervous laughter*
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:08 PM (zLeKL)
355
"If I and millions of other people misread the ad, then it's a bad ad."
Wrong as usual. It means you've thrown your lot in with liberals and perpetual victims. That and the fact that you can't think for yourself.
Wrong as usual. It means you've thrown your lot in with liberals and perpetual victims. That and the fact that you can't think for yourself.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 03:00 AM (zLeKL)
That was my instantaneous, instant reaction to the ad. And so it was of many others, including Republicans.Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:09 PM (YiE0S)
356
I dropped that deliberately, just so people could wonder "Hey, wait, has this guy been a UFO dude all along?"
No. I am anti-conspiracy. I don't believe in UFOs.
But, that said, it's always neat to learn something unexpected.
Like that report I mentioned? It's real. That really happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimate_of_the_Situation
Now I think those guys were themselves just Willing to Believe and vandenberg was right to dismiss their report as being too credulous. And order up Project GRUDGE to discredit UFO sightings as having mundane explanations.
Great name for the followup project, huh? GRUDGE?
But anyway, this is true! Kooky as it is, it's true.
And no, I don't believe in UFOs.
But sometimes reports aren't what the higher-ups want, and get rewritten.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:10 PM (nj1bB)
357
Can gays serve in the military or not? DADT was an absurd punt on the issue (while allowing gays in the fucking military). Military commanders have finally said it isn't an issue..... so it isn't an issue. Gays can serve in the military just like before DADT.
I don't get it.
----
It was serving openly that was the issue. If you were gay you couldn't be open about it, otherwise you would be discharged. Commanders were not allowed to ask about it either, to avoid gay soldiers lying about their sexual preference. "Don't ask, don't tell."
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:11 PM (zLeKL)
358
Posted by: Carolyn at December 14, 2011 03:03 AM (CQId4)
----
Me too. I work nights at Walmart so I am wide awake around 1-2 am, my usual lunch break.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 03:05 AM (zLeKL)
This is a nice distraction from the now very loud footsteps and knockings that emanate from my empty kitchen. Seriously, if the afterlife consists of wandering around your previous residence aimlessly, I hope my house is converted into a "group home for women enduring mammary gigantism", or its going to be a very, very boring eternity.
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 11:11 PM (JEVge)
359
Actually reading that again, I see the "Estimate of the Situation" is *reported* to have claimed that, but I see it's not actually proven to have claimed that, as I thought.
Ah well.
I do see that i did cause someone to shudder nervously. Mission accomplished.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:12 PM (nj1bB)
360
Posted by: CAC at December 14, 2011 03:11 AM (JEVge)
---
Hahaha
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:12 PM (zLeKL)
361
I've got a sweet new policy I'm going to float to the military. Everyone is allowed to wear bright red undershirts, but no one is allowed to talk about anyone wearing bright red undershirts.
Don't repeal the rule because chaos or something.
Don't repeal the rule because chaos or something.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:12 PM (nRTou)
362
@ John E.
The Israelis -- you may have heard they have an effective military -- take the position that undeclared homosexuals are subject to blackmail and can't receive high security clearances, but openly declared homosexuals can get them.
And that's perfectly logical, too.
The Israelis -- you may have heard they have an effective military -- take the position that undeclared homosexuals are subject to blackmail and can't receive high security clearances, but openly declared homosexuals can get them.
And that's perfectly logical, too.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:13 PM (YiE0S)
363
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 03:12 AM (nRTou)
----
Riiiiight. Because if someone is gay everyone can tell instantly, right?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:14 PM (zLeKL)
364
JohnE. the fact of the matter a lot of recruits don't want to serve with gays.
Whether or not you think that's a good social attitude or not, it's a legitimate question whether deference ought to be paid to the people actually volunteering to die on foreign soil for us.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:14 PM (nj1bB)
365
It was serving openly that was the issue. If you were gay you
couldn't be open about it, otherwise you would be discharged. Commanders
were not allowed to ask about it either, to avoid gay soldiers lying
about their sexual preference. "Don't ask, don't tell."
-------
No, I get that. But it doesn't change the fact that there were gays in the military and everyone knew there were gays in the military. And most likely, everyone knew who was gay.
It's an absurd policy. It really is.
-------
No, I get that. But it doesn't change the fact that there were gays in the military and everyone knew there were gays in the military. And most likely, everyone knew who was gay.
It's an absurd policy. It really is.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:14 PM (nRTou)
366
Joffen, I worked nights for many years ( nurse's aide) and still enjoy being a night owl. I like the quiet around me.
When I saw the Perry ad, my impression was that he was making a comparison, not that he was stating that his plan was to reinstate DADT.
When I saw the Perry ad, my impression was that he was making a comparison, not that he was stating that his plan was to reinstate DADT.
Posted by: Carolyn at December 13, 2011 11:15 PM (CQId4)
367
"JohnE. the fact of the matter a lot of recruits don't want to serve with gays."
They didn't want to serve with blacks or women either.
They didn't want to serve with blacks or women either.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:16 PM (YiE0S)
368
JohnE. the fact of the matter a lot of recruits don't want to serve with gays.
And?
Wait, that's the argument?
And?
Wait, that's the argument?
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:16 PM (nRTou)
369
>>>, my impression was that he was making a comparison, not that he was stating that his plan was to reinstate DADT.
of course, it was purely gestural.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:16 PM (nj1bB)
370
they being "a lot of recruits" ; not the individual recruits today
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:16 PM (YiE0S)
371
>>>Wait, that's the argument?
yes.
I thought it was a rather good one, given that we have an all-volunteer army and all.
Posted by: ace at December 13, 2011 11:17 PM (nj1bB)
372
When I saw the Perry ad, my impression was that he was making a comparison, not that he was stating that his plan was to reinstate DADT.
Well that's just too bad. Random and millions like him disagree with that assessment so it's obvious that we're the ones that are wrong.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:17 PM (zLeKL)
373
They didn't want to serve with blacks or women either.
Watch it now.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:18 PM (zLeKL)
374
I thought it was a rather good one, given that we have an all-volunteer army and all.
A volunteer army that is currently turning people away.
A volunteer army that is currently turning people away.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:19 PM (nRTou)
375
@357 John E- At the time, DADT was actually a fairly decent compromise. Attitudes were different then. Gays could serve as long as they kept it to themselves.
I was only in the Reserves (never activated), but I had enough contact with the regular Army guys to know that the prospect of gays serving in the military was not at all a welcome prospect.
Hell, when I went through Basic in 1988, I had a drill sergeant who bragged (truthfully or not I don't know) about how he used to roll gays for money every weekend. If anyone took offense, they didn't let on.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 11:20 PM (7xwXb)
376
"And most likely, everyone knew who was gay."
If commanders can be ordered not to talk about sex successfully, good luck trying that with the junior ranks. I'm pretty sure they talk about sex and relationships.
If commanders can be ordered not to talk about sex successfully, good luck trying that with the junior ranks. I'm pretty sure they talk about sex and relationships.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:20 PM (YiE0S)
377
I mean that in the sense that there are more people trying to join the military than they need.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:20 PM (nRTou)
378
I was only in the Reserves (never activated), but I had enough contact with the regular Army guys to know that the prospect of gays serving in the military was not at all a welcome prospect.
----
Well they're just bigots, obviously.
I was arguing with a friend about this issue. I made the case that it is more accepted to be gay than it is to be Christian, which is what Perry was saying.
My gay, Christian friend disagreed with me. But it's true. In fact, another friend got in on the argument (it was on Facebook) and my gay friend didn't object one bit to attacks on his faith.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:22 PM (zLeKL)
379
No, I get that. But it doesn't change the fact that there were gays in the military and everyone knew there were gays in the military. And most likely, everyone knew who was gay.
It's an absurd policy. It really is.
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 03:14 AM (nRTou)
DADT may have been a figleaf of a squishy compromise but I wouldn't call it absurd. It let gays serve in the military without being hunted down and kicked out and it kept gays from being so open that they disturbed those who would be uncomfortable serving with them.
When my BIL was stationed in Iraq there were two guys in his unit who were almost certainly gay. But they didn't tell or make an issue of it and since they were good soldiers and good at their jobs the comanding officer had no interest in finding out for sure. So in this case DADT gave everyone an out.
It's an absurd policy. It really is.
Posted by: John E. at December 14, 2011 03:14 AM (nRTou)
DADT may have been a figleaf of a squishy compromise but I wouldn't call it absurd. It let gays serve in the military without being hunted down and kicked out and it kept gays from being so open that they disturbed those who would be uncomfortable serving with them.
When my BIL was stationed in Iraq there were two guys in his unit who were almost certainly gay. But they didn't tell or make an issue of it and since they were good soldiers and good at their jobs the comanding officer had no interest in finding out for sure. So in this case DADT gave everyone an out.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 13, 2011 11:22 PM (/IES6)
380
They didn't want to serve with blacks or women either.
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 03:16 AM (YiE0S)
Eh, I call bull. Perhaps in the ass-backwards south, where it was legal to have sex with an animal in many states but until 1968 illegal to, God forbid, stick your pecker in something darker than a pork rind; but much of the military didn't have the attitude towards blacks they (allegedly) do towards gays today.
Women bleed and that attracts bears though. They can smell the menstruation and that puts soldiers lives at risk.
Posted by: CAC at December 13, 2011 11:23 PM (JEVge)
381
Perhaps some of the people who believed that the ad was homophobic, were actually stereotyping Rick Perry? Texas,redneck,bubba,etc....
Posted by: Carolyn at December 13, 2011 11:23 PM (CQId4)
382
And what's worse about DADT being repealed is that now we can have gay soldiers join the victim group. If they're a slow, lazy soldier and don't make the cut they can claim victim status if they happen to be gay.
It's ridiculous.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:24 PM (zLeKL)
383
By "they", Joffen and CAC, as I said above, I'm referring to "a lot of recruits" during the relevant time periods. Not all recruits or even most recruits, just a lot of them.
The military adapted and benefited.
The military adapted and benefited.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:25 PM (YiE0S)
384
Perhaps some of the people who believed that the ad was homophobic, were actually stereotyping Rick Perry? Texas,redneck,bubba,etc....
Impossible!
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:25 PM (zLeKL)
385
And what's worse about DADT being repealed is that now we can have gay
soldiers join the victim group. If they're a slow, lazy soldier and
don't make the cut they can claim victim status if they happen to be
gay.
THAT is the only justification I can see for DADT. Everything else seems absurd to me.
THAT is the only justification I can see for DADT. Everything else seems absurd to me.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:26 PM (nRTou)
386
"And what's worse about DADT being repealed is that now we can have gay
soldiers join the victim group. If they're a slow, lazy soldier and
don't make the cut they can claim victim status if they happen to be
gay."
"It's ridiculous."
What you said is ridiculous.
The standard is the standard -- besides -- do you have any evidence gays give less attention to physical fitness than do heterosexuals?
"It's ridiculous."
What you said is ridiculous.
The standard is the standard -- besides -- do you have any evidence gays give less attention to physical fitness than do heterosexuals?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:27 PM (YiE0S)
387
Random: do me a favor and re-read what I wrote. Take your time.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:29 PM (zLeKL)
388
With regards to DADT, it must be remembered that we're not just talking about a 9 to 5 job. The people you serve with aren't just coworkers but compulsory roommates.
One doesn't need be a member of the Fred Phelps clan to be a bit uncomfortable bunking with an openly gay dude.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 11:30 PM (xXXbP)
389
One doesn't need be a member of the Fred Phelps clan to be a bit uncomfortable bunking with an openly gay dude.
Is bunking with a secretly gay dude better?
Is bunking with a secretly gay dude better?
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:31 PM (YiE0S)
390
One doesn't need be a member of the Fred Phelps clan to be a bit uncomfortable bunking with an openly gay dude.
And what if I don't like blacks and God forbid my bunkmate is black?
And what if I don't like blacks and God forbid my bunkmate is black?
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:32 PM (nRTou)
391
Joffen, people can always use race as a victim status, or whatever, but the military seems to deal with such instances alright for the most part.
What about Israel's military, or whatever? Are gays particularly likely to shirk duty or be inadequate?
It's a volunteer force and I can think of no reason why this would be so.
What about Israel's military, or whatever? Are gays particularly likely to shirk duty or be inadequate?
It's a volunteer force and I can think of no reason why this would be so.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:33 PM (YiE0S)
392
John E. and Random: if you want a serious debate, stop acting like children. You are both getting very difficult to talk to.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:34 PM (zLeKL)
393
@393 Random- Yes. Plausible denyability.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 11:34 PM (soLLl)
394
How am I acting like a child, Joffen? Please explain.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:35 PM (nRTou)
395
Yeah, this ought to be good. Give it a shot, Joffen.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:36 PM (YiE0S)
396
So Random and John E are saying the reason for DADT was because soldiers were dumb bigots.
It couldn't be the understandable discomfort of bunking with an openly gay roommate? Nah.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:36 PM (zLeKL)
397
As far as I can tell, I'm advocating equal treatment regardless of race, creed, color or orientation.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:37 PM (nRTou)
398
You both are trying to score needless points, and are having trouble seeing reasonable arguments.
You are both trying to sound smart but are sounding like assholes.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:37 PM (zLeKL)
399
I don't think I ever said dumb bigots.
You're arguing on the side of "those who might be offended". I'm advocating for equal protection.
Apply that to any other cultural argument and which side are you on?
You're arguing on the side of "those who might be offended". I'm advocating for equal protection.
Apply that to any other cultural argument and which side are you on?
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:38 PM (nRTou)
400
As far as I can tell, I'm advocating equal treatment regardless of race, creed, color or orientation.
---
Yes, because that's how people act in real life.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:38 PM (zLeKL)
401
Joffen, I'm saying most people in the military are mature enough to handle working with a gay dude or lady. That society has changed and that bigotry is fading.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:39 PM (YiE0S)
402
You're arguing on the side of "those who might be offended". I'm advocating for equal protection.
Apply that to any other cultural argument and which side are you on?
So childish of you, John.
Apply that to any other cultural argument and which side are you on?
So childish of you, John.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:41 PM (YiE0S)
403
You're arguing on the side of "those who might be offended". I'm advocating for equal protection.
Apply that to any other cultural argument and which side are you on?
This was the real reason for the implementation of DADT. Just because you think it was dumb doesn't mean there wasn't a valid reason to put it into place.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:41 PM (zLeKL)
404
@394- Apples and oranges. Black people serve in great numbers; someone who couldn't abide by the idea of sharing facilities with a black person would have to get over it very quickly. In fact, they'd probably be reluctant to enlist at all if they felt strongly about it. Also, racial predjudice has become taboo decades ago.
More importantly, no white guy comes out of the shower and worries about his roommate getting a stiffy because of his race.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 11:44 PM (2ViZI)
405
This was the real reason for the implementation of DADT. Just because
you think it was dumb doesn't mean there wasn't a valid reason to put it
into place.
So the reason is to protect those delicate heterosexuals who think every gay guy wants a piece of them?
Here's some reality for you. Young people, regardless of political affiliation, support gay marriage. Openly gay people are going to be part of our military. It is unavoidable.
So the reason is to protect those delicate heterosexuals who think every gay guy wants a piece of them?
Here's some reality for you. Young people, regardless of political affiliation, support gay marriage. Openly gay people are going to be part of our military. It is unavoidable.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:44 PM (nRTou)
406
I'm sure there were real reasons for slavery, Joffen, and allowing blacks to serve only in segregated units; but I'm glad to be done with it.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:44 PM (YiE0S)
407
Young people, regardless of political affiliation, support gay
marriage. Openly gay people are going to be part of our military. It
is unavoidable.
This.
This.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:45 PM (YiE0S)
408
DADT Worked. Knew several gay dudes on my boat. Was all cool with them.
Gays being a new protected class is a bad idea.
I know this really wasn't about the dudes, it was about the dikes getting harassed and blackmailed, but it's a bad idea.
Why did the chicks get all the office gigs? It's because they weren't good at their jobs, and a dude that was incompetent would get drummed out. The Chick? Not so much. Hide her in division office, and make sure she doesn't break anything.
Posted by: Zakn at December 13, 2011 11:45 PM (q/891)
409
Just because they may use their ass more than I do, doesn't mean they should have less of an opportunity have it blown off for a great cause than me.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:46 PM (YiE0S)
410
Ok, well whatever. It's a non-issue.
Perry never advocated for DADT to be reinstated.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:48 PM (zLeKL)
411
Whoa- just noticed that posting from my Kindle, my hash changes quicker than Newt's political positions.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 13, 2011 11:48 PM (3mr+I)
412
Ok, well whatever. It's a non-issue.
Perry never advocated for DADT to be reinstated.
Fair enough. I'm going to bed. With a woman.
Perry never advocated for DADT to be reinstated.
Fair enough. I'm going to bed. With a woman.
Posted by: John E. at December 13, 2011 11:49 PM (nRTou)
414
Whoa- just noticed that posting from my Kindle, my hash changes quicker than Newt's political positions.
---
Heh. How's the browser on that thing?
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 11:51 PM (zLeKL)
415
"However, this is the most civil discussion of the candidates so far...."
The person throwing (by far) the most ad hominem bombs and name-calling was you.
The person throwing (by far) the most ad hominem bombs and name-calling was you.
Posted by: Random at December 13, 2011 11:53 PM (YiE0S)
416
I best say good night before I comment on the advocating for equal protection ... that I'll regret.
Night all. Thank you. I thoroughly enjoyed your discussions.
Night all. Thank you. I thoroughly enjoyed your discussions.
Posted by: Carolyn at December 13, 2011 11:56 PM (CQId4)
418
@418 Joffen- Not bad; I've read complaints about it being slow, and while its not as fast as my PC I think it's fine for what it is. I didn't have excessive expectations.
I do run into compatibility issues here and there (have trouble on AoS using copy paste), but I have the same problems on my Android phone too.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 14, 2011 12:05 AM (AgJnM)
419
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 14, 2011 04:05 AM (AgJnM)
---
I have an Android phone myself, and the Fire seems like a larger version. I bought one for my wife for Christmas.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 12:07 AM (zLeKL)
420
"However, this is the most civil discussion of the candidates so far...."
The person throwing (by far) the most ad hominem bombs and name-calling was you.
sigh.
annnnnd, I had to refresh one more time.
I don't know who that was referring to, however, imo, not necessary.
Night,Joffen.
The person throwing (by far) the most ad hominem bombs and name-calling was you.
sigh.
annnnnd, I had to refresh one more time.
I don't know who that was referring to, however, imo, not necessary.
Night,Joffen.
Posted by: Carolyn at December 14, 2011 12:07 AM (CQId4)
421
I don't know who that was referring to, however, imo, not necessary.
Night,Joffen.
Your opinion being what it may, the fact is the guy uses childish insults and slurs and ad hominems and swear words frequently ... then talks about how nice it is to have a civil conversation ... and continues with the swearing and ad hominem attacks.
Well, Carolyn, doll ... I don't really care if you found my comment necessary.
Night,Joffen.
Your opinion being what it may, the fact is the guy uses childish insults and slurs and ad hominems and swear words frequently ... then talks about how nice it is to have a civil conversation ... and continues with the swearing and ad hominem attacks.
Well, Carolyn, doll ... I don't really care if you found my comment necessary.
Posted by: Random at December 14, 2011 12:09 AM (YiE0S)
422
I couldn't figure out how to listen. Someone post a link or something. I got the chat window, but is there a time stamp to go to?
Posted by: Zakn at December 14, 2011 12:10 AM (q/891)
423
Zakn, yeah it's over. I think Ace said he will try to get a download link tomorrow. Right now, though...no dice.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 12:13 AM (zLeKL)
424
Yep- the Kindle Fire uses Android, which I generally like. It's a somewhat modified version, but very similar to my phone. It's going to take time for the OS and websites work in perfect harmony, but again I expected that.
Mostly I'm too lazy to websurf from my PC instead of from the comfort of my couch.
And yes, I fully know how pathetic that sounds. My PC is all of 20 feet away, but out of view of the TV. It's nice for reading books though.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 14, 2011 12:15 AM (AXzb7)
425
lol...you "advocate" for equal protection, then slur? or were you complimenting me, by referring to me as doll?
Posted by: Carolyn at December 14, 2011 12:17 AM (CQId4)
426
@428: I was worried I might want one for myself but since it seems to do everything my phone does, I'll pass. My phone is way more portable. Besides, its got a great looking Kindle app as well.
Posted by: Joffen at December 14, 2011 12:21 AM (zLeKL)
428
Yeah- the only real reason to get a Fire if you have an Android phone is the larger screen. Which is what I wanted, because I got annoyed turning pages so frequently on the four inch screen of my Droid 3 phone.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 14, 2011 12:26 AM (jsAVE)
429
I am interested in a Fire to hack the shit out of it. Just kinda waiting for the homebrew community to get going in full gear.
Or a Nook. There's already a great hombrew community for it.
Posted by: Zakn at December 14, 2011 12:41 AM (q/891)
430
All of you delicate bigots who want the heterosexual recruits to turn their weapons (and I don't mean those weapons, you homophobic little flowers) on teh gheys are in for a rude, rude surprise. We're here, we're queer, get used to it. I'm used to it, which is why I can simultaneously display my next-generation sensitivity about ghey issues at the same time I flaunt my epic case of the not-gheys by going to bed with my hot, hot wife.
I have an Infographic that I've spent the last 73 hours cobbling together that demonstrates with fabulously colorful graphs and pie-charts exactly which precincts you Neanderthals are going to lose if we don't allow our military men to start wearing tiaras on top of their berets while off-duty. And they'll post it, too. I mean, hell, I brown-nosed my way this far on this site; think they want to risk losing my talents to hotter venues when I obviously have better fish to fry? Think about it, losers. 'Night --
I have an Infographic that I've spent the last 73 hours cobbling together that demonstrates with fabulously colorful graphs and pie-charts exactly which precincts you Neanderthals are going to lose if we don't allow our military men to start wearing tiaras on top of their berets while off-duty. And they'll post it, too. I mean, hell, I brown-nosed my way this far on this site; think they want to risk losing my talents to hotter venues when I obviously have better fish to fry? Think about it, losers. 'Night --
Posted by: Johnny G. at December 14, 2011 12:57 AM (8azcC)
432
butt welding? really? Don't tell Mrs. North. She'll get it for me.
Posted by: Truman North at December 14, 2011 02:53 AM (I2LwF)
433
Wow, another long Palin bashing thread. She's not even fucking running, yet ace can't stop bashing her.
Posted by: mike at December 14, 2011 03:01 AM (0hdwM)
434
Careful with the "darn this stupid electorate" talk.
Very hard to spin that you simultaneously love Democracy, and that you can't stand that stupid people get to vote.
Just sayin
Posted by: palancik at December 14, 2011 05:29 AM (iu0/e)
436
Regarding the Palin stuff...my observation after reading this thread is that there's still a big difference between:
"Quit her governorship to become a reality star."
and
"Quit her governorship to avoid personal bankruptcy due to an extraordinary amount of fraudulent ethics charges that needed to be defended."
The reality is probably somewhere in between, but it does no one any favors to continue to insist that one or the other was the True Reason.
In any case, whether she was forced out or quit because it was the path of least resistance for her, it ended her political career. In general, I think those that consistently stick to the first explanation to at least acknowledge that the frivolous complaints put her in an extraordinarily bad position that was completely undeserved. Yes, she had a hand in the law that was used against her, but that doesn't justify the predatory use of that law by Dem operatives to ruin her financially.
Thankfully, she disarmed that by resigning. Despite some of her negatives, I think she's a very decent person that doesn't deserve what she got. I don't think the person that agreed to run with McCain is the same Palin that is out there now. I think that despite her attempts to look tough that it scarred her very badly.
The fact that some of it made her embittered, defensive, and obsessive in some areas is an unfortunate, understandable, and completely disqualifying aspect to all of this.
"Quit her governorship to become a reality star."
and
"Quit her governorship to avoid personal bankruptcy due to an extraordinary amount of fraudulent ethics charges that needed to be defended."
The reality is probably somewhere in between, but it does no one any favors to continue to insist that one or the other was the True Reason.
In any case, whether she was forced out or quit because it was the path of least resistance for her, it ended her political career. In general, I think those that consistently stick to the first explanation to at least acknowledge that the frivolous complaints put her in an extraordinarily bad position that was completely undeserved. Yes, she had a hand in the law that was used against her, but that doesn't justify the predatory use of that law by Dem operatives to ruin her financially.
Thankfully, she disarmed that by resigning. Despite some of her negatives, I think she's a very decent person that doesn't deserve what she got. I don't think the person that agreed to run with McCain is the same Palin that is out there now. I think that despite her attempts to look tough that it scarred her very badly.
The fact that some of it made her embittered, defensive, and obsessive in some areas is an unfortunate, understandable, and completely disqualifying aspect to all of this.
Posted by: grognard at December 14, 2011 07:42 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Alexander Girard ebook at December 14, 2011 05:01 PM (JLm0C)
438
Excellent blog, thanks for the share. I'll be a regular viewer.
Excellent blog, thanks for the share. I'll be a regular viewer.
Posted by: The Circle Maker on iBookstore at December 14, 2011 05:25 PM (CGsu7)
439
Wow this is soo helpful I have been trying to figure this out on my own for a long time now. Hopefully making this change will help encourage discussion on my blog.
Posted by: James Madison AudioBook at December 14, 2011 06:00 PM (kmRvS)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
328kb generated in CPU 0.2368, elapsed 0.3953 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3426 seconds, 567 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
64 queries taking 0.3426 seconds, 567 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Joffen at December 13, 2011 07:11 PM (zLeKL)