October 13, 2011
— Ace Of course.
Here's the question asked:
Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENTÂ’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DONÂ’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?
As Philip Klein notes, that is a push-poll type question making the best possible case for Occupy -- the three planks they claim are #OWS's platform are all popular, aren't they?
But #OWS has a lot of ideas that aren't so popular that Time Magazine forgot to poll -- like their idea that taxpayers should pay for all these layabouts' student loans. Time kindly omits that agenda item.
Two thoughts:
Obama is a failure. And not just any kind of failure. A spectacular failure that's bringing down the whole of the left.
Portnoy observes: "What I believe is happening is that the left is reading the handwriting on the wall and resigning itself to the harsh reality [that] the man they trusted to 'fundamentally transform America' is on the verge of being unelected."We'd go a step further. Not only does Obama's re-election look to be in serious jeopardy, but his presidency has been an almost unmitigated disaster for progressive liberalism, nearly every tenet of which has been revealed to be untenable either practically, politically or both.
Taranto says that given such a full-spectrum failure, the left is now turning to nihilism.
That is one way to understand why so much of the liberal establishment is rallying behind Krugman's Army, as the "Occupy Wall Street" protests are known. Everything they believe in has failed, so they are turning nihilistic.Sometimes the nihilism is good-naturedly goofy. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson: "Occupy Wall Street and its kindred protests around the country are inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic. God, I love 'em. I love every little thing about these gloriously amateurish sit-ins." Vaginal monologist Eve Ensler, at the Puffington Host: "What is happening cannot be defined. It is happening. It is a happening."
But there are menacing themes and tactics too. "We may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people," wrote former Enron adviser Paul Krugman last week. Krugman's New York Times colleague David Brooks notes that Adbusters, the magazine credited with the idea of the protests, was "previously best known for the 2004 essay, 'Why Won't Anyone Say They Are Jewish?'--an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy." The demonization of "bankers," "plutocrats" and "the 1%" echoes age-old anti-Semitic tropes.
I don't think that's quite right.
Let us begin with the assumption that the Democratic Party has long been a stealth socialist party. Whereas in Europe socialists are forthright about identifying themselves as such, socialists (and communists) have long posed in America as simply favoring additional "fairness" in the system.
They pursued an incrementalist agenda, one new "fairness" fix built on the last. Over the course of 60 years, it sure would look like a fundamental transformation of the nation into full-blown socialism, but (apart from FDR's massive changes to the capitalist system during the Depression) it was done bit-by-bit.
They adhered to the lesson of the old wives' tale: A frog will leap out of a pot if tossed into boiling water, but if the temperature is raised little by little, he won't notice, and won't leap out. He'll wind up just as cooked as in the first scenario, but he won't fight his fate. (I'm told this is perfect bullshit but this isn't about the science of frog-cooking.)
But for this model to work, the incremental changes must be successful or, rather, perceived as successful, or at least not harmful.
To enact a revolution in this slow-motion way, you need to be able to point back at recent "successes" in the expansion of government and say, "Well, that didn't kill the economy, so we can be reasonably confident this next innovation won't, either."
Obama's spectacular, can't-bear-to-watch failure has scotched that model. Socialism-by-incrementalist-steps is largely dead at the moment. Even Republicans -- long derided as scaredy-cats who would, when offered a Democratic plan to increase spending on a program by $50 billion, counter-offer the "conservative" sum of $30 billion -- are no longer all that afraid to simply say "No."
So with the incrementalist model no longer viable, I think the left is panicking, and beginning to agitate for revolution in one big gulp. The equivalent of turning the water up to boiling immediately, and hoping that if the water is hot enough the frog will be cooked too fast to save itself.
What else do they have? Consider this is pretty standard behavior. A team that's behind by 21 points begins throwing a lot of low-probability bombs to the endzone, doesn't it? A weary and punched-up boxer begins throwing wild haymakers praying that one good punch will land. A company on the brink of bankruptcy begins doing things they never considered previously, like falsifying records, stiffing vendors, and other bad behaviors.
All this is evidence of desperation, of course. When all seems lost, one can either succumb to depression, or begin lashing out in last-gasp spasms. The #OWS movement -- the addled footsoldiers of the deranged general Paul Krugman -- are now in Hail Mary mode.
There is good that come from this -- they are outing themselves as socialists. Doris Kearns Goodwin "wet herself," as JWF said, over #OWS, saying they were doing exactly what her husband advised in a book long ago, and that book sounds, from her description, like a plan for enacting a socialist revolution.
Does that overstate it? Well, I looked up this book that Doris Kearns Goodwin kept praising, and found out the full title is:
Promises to keep : a call for a new American revolution
... and this description would seem to confirm its basic Marxist orientation:
Goodwin, an adviser to presidents Kennedy and Johnson and an architect of the latter's Great Society programs, here joins the chorus of voices demanding fundamental reform of our democratic capitalist system. His agenda for renewal calls for converting military industries to production of civilian commodities, revamping the tax code to eliminate maldistribution of income, granting workers greater participation in management decisions, overhauling lax regulatory agencies, and enacting new laws to prohibit unproductive mergers and leveraged buyouts. Goodwin sees both Democrats and Republicans as mired in corruption and beholden to vested interests. He advocates an enormous reduction in campaign spending and demands free, equal TV time for all office-seekers. He would dismantle the ghettos, rebuild devastated urban areas and establish residential work and training programs for young people in inner cities. All of this, he forewarns, would mean higher taxes. A populist manifesto geared to an intellectual audience, this succinct essay sets forth a visionary, if seemingly impractical, plan to revitalize our ailing economy. Author tour.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.
This tends to happen after a political repudiation. The party that gets clobbered begins rejecting the old ways of doing things -- which in this case would be stealth socialism -- and begins insisting on something new, something that might work, because, at least, it hasn't failed before, as it hasn't really been given a chance.
On the right, the Tea Party (and then parts of the establishment) began agitating for a full-throated unapologetic conservatism, filled with laissez-faire impulses that have been political heresies since FDR destroyed the old libertarian vanguard in the 30's.
But on the left, it's also a move to a more purist, more honest politics.
What do they want? Socialism.
When do they want it? Now.
As Election Day 2012 approaches, I expect to see this tendency towards confessions -- "Yes, I'm a socialist, what of it?" -- accelerate.
Because what's left?
This brings me back to the Time poll. The Tea Party is supposedly less popular than #OWS. But that's because the Tea Party has concrete policy goals, many of which are controversial -- the American public likes spending money it doesn't have -- and has fought tooth-and-nail for these agenda items for two years.
What has #OWS fought for, so far? Time Magazine presents their agenda as a gauzy populist reform movement which -- incidentally -- could also be used to describe the Tea Party. The Tea Party, of course, despises the crony not-capitalist system, too. (Where OWS and the Tea Party differ, of course, is on which alternative model to pursue. For the Tea Party, it's genuine capitalism; for OWS, it's socialism.)
But in fighting -- and sometimes winning -- for a controversial agenda, the Tea Party has of course lost popularity with the public, which likes spending money it doesn't have, doesn't like being bothered with starkly binary policy choices, and hates being involved in political squabbling.
So far OWS is, according to the media, pretty much just against bank bailouts (to which the Tea Party says, "Welcome to the party, pal!").
But what happens when OWS starts pushing for its actual agenda? Will that actual agenda be greeted, as Doris Kearns Goodwin seems to think, with a warm embrace?
Or will their actual goal of massive redistribution of wealth from the productive winners in the economy to the nonproductive losers be a bit controversial, too?
I think the latter.
So I think OWS can keep it's ten-points-better-than-the-Tea-Party level of support as long as they don't actually try to influence the political system.
The moment they do -- and Joe Taxpayer gets wind of the plan that he should pay for Peter Permanent-Student's seven years at Bennington College -- I think they're going to be a bit unpopular themselves.
Posted by: Ace at
09:43 AM
| Comments (226)
Post contains 1675 words, total size 11 kb.
Posted by: Have Blue at October 13, 2011 09:45 AM (IKTC8)
Posted by: © Sponge at October 13, 2011 09:47 AM (UK9cE)
BOTH FUCKING PARTIES ARE CORPORATIST!
WHERE THE FUCK THE MONEY FOR CAMPAIGNS COMES FROM?
FUCKING MORON!
Posted by: Wise at October 13, 2011 09:48 AM (G6kli)
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 09:49 AM (yAor6)
The left is trying to blame Obama for the failure of liberalism, when the truth is, liberalism is to blame for the failure of Obama.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at October 13, 2011 09:50 AM (PLvLS)
That's all you need to know. This isn't Truman's party anymore. They're 100% socialist, nanny state, 'smarter than you' racist elitist pieces of shit. Every one of them.
I will never vote democrat and if any of my family does, I will seriously consider disowning them.
Posted by: © Sponge at October 13, 2011 09:50 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: ace at October 13, 2011 09:50 AM (nj1bB)
I think the difference between the Tea Party and the OWS can be summed up like this:
When the Tea Party has a protest, the area where the protest is held is generally left cleaner than when they got there.
Nanny Bloomberg just had to tell the hippies to get out of the park so the city can clean it before they will let them back in.
Posted by: alexthechick at October 13, 2011 09:51 AM (VtjlW)
too bad other, more reputable, polls says this is BS.
OWS is unpopular
fixed it to not cause confusion
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 09:51 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at October 13, 2011 09:51 AM (pdRb1)
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 09:51 AM (AtOcq)
Michael Yon however,
Brings the effin badass to the war front, like him...hate him.
Posted by: Richard at October 13, 2011 01:48 PM (Kfvui)
That vid of the guy getting mined was brutal.......Them bastards over there are some brave sonsabitches.......
Posted by: © Sponge at October 13, 2011 09:52 AM (UK9cE)
Can't it be both?
Posted by: pep at October 13, 2011 09:52 AM (YXmuI)
Tom Hintze, 24, was volunteering in Zuccotti Park last week. ‘Just now there was a big UPS delivery,’ he said. ‘We don’t know where it comes from. It just appears, and we eat it.’
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 09:53 AM (Y+DPZ)
#7 - back away slowly.
I dunno about the unpopularity of the student loan thing. You could buy an awful lot of votes promising to basically hand out $10-70K to a whole bunch of people who have probably never voted before. Yeah, you'll lose some of the folks who acted responsibly and don't have student loans as a result, but they were probably already against Obama anyway.
Posted by: chazmartel at October 13, 2011 09:53 AM (wlSqE)
Posted by: alexthechick at October 13, 2011 01:51 PM (VtjlW)
my self-loathing conservative brother went on one of his lectures that we should respect them as patriots. the more I learn about these folks the more i'm willing to call them anti-american. these guys are NOTHING like the Tea Party. yes the Tea Party recently took some hits in the polls but when they first came out Rasmussen found 51% support for them. OWS? 36% support
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 09:53 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 13, 2011 09:53 AM (8y9MW)
It started in the early 1900s and hit a huge leap in the 30s with FDR. That wasn't an incremental step, that was a 1000 league boots jump.
After that, it was more incremental in the 50s but in the fascism mode as regulations started blooming in every area.
The came the 60s and LBJ. We got another 1000 league boot jump in socialism and a huge jump in fascism with regulations exploding.
Then came the environmental movement with a 1000 league boot jump in regulation and the start of communism with the taking of property.
With Obama we got healthcare socialism jump and another explosion in regulations until the House election.
So what we have is incrementalism when the government is split because the Republicans have always gone along with the creeping socialism et al and then when the Dems controlled it all we got the 1000 league boot jump.
BUT nowhere, even during the rein of RR, have we ever been able to turn it back in the damn slightest.
Posted by: Vic at October 13, 2011 09:54 AM (M9Ie6)
I know two people, both ghey boys, or ghey men, whatever, both ghey. One graduated from Vassar, the other from Bennington.
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at October 13, 2011 09:54 AM (4sQwu)
There's our Ace...so many words that we'll never read.
Posted by: garrett at October 13, 2011 09:54 AM (4/2xW)
Ace, now that's just disappointing. You had a perfect chance to put "Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure" or at least "Obama is a SCOAMF" right there in your post and you didn't take it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 13, 2011 09:54 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Vic at October 13, 2011 09:55 AM (M9Ie6)
The results, as someone else said, of outsourcing education of our young to the libtards.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at October 13, 2011 09:55 AM (VKRmb)
Posted by: chazmartel at October 13, 2011 01:53 PM (wlSqE)
a recent poll by Ras found that most would oppose the Govt paying for student loans but would favor them giving away loans to be paid back
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 09:55 AM (yAor6)
I would like to take this opportunity to mention, or reiterate, for informational purposes only, that Mitt Romney sucks. He really, really sucks. He really does.
Thank you and take care...
Posted by: Unblinking tree rat of personal destruction at October 13, 2011 09:56 AM (OlN4e)
The apparatchik sat in the Obama War Room one day and said, "You know what we need? A villain! Let's demonize a group of people and deflect our failure onto them."
Posted by: Soothsayer Wiseau at October 13, 2011 09:56 AM (sqkOB)
‘I’ve been here for 12 days, and I’ve put on 5 pounds,’ he said, sitting on the ground in front of a handmade sign that said ‘Class War Ahead.’ ‘I’m eating better than I do at home.’
Tom Hintze, 24, was volunteering in Zuccotti Park last week. ‘Just now there was a big UPS delivery,’ he said. ‘We don’t know where it comes from. It just appears, and we eat it.’
Posted by: Tami-Cardinals! at October 13, 2011 09:56 AM (X6akg)
Parks Official: Mr. Bloomberg, the hippies are gone, we can start cleaning the park now.
Bloomberg: I though I just did.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at October 13, 2011 09:56 AM (pdRb1)
Posted by: Richard at October 13, 2011 09:56 AM (Kfvui)
I would like to take this opportunity to mention, or reiterate, for informational purposes only, that Mitt Romney sucks. He really, really sucks. He really does.
Thank you and take care...
Posted by: Unblinking tree rat of personal destruction at October 13, 2011 01:56 PM (OlN4e)
No Thank You And Take Care Sir! God Bless America!
- Mitt Romney
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 09:57 AM (yAor6)
These same demonstrators will be demonizing the R-nominee next year....if we nominate a 'corporatist'.
If its Romney, we will hear....."Evil millionaire corporatist" "Buying the election" until we are sick of it.
If its Cain, we will hear......"Evil millionaire corporatist" "Taxing the Poor" until we are sick of it.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 09:57 AM (AtOcq)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a President Gingrich can probably cure what ails us. Unlike everyone else who's just talking shit, he's actually done it before.
Is he really so unelectable to social cons that we shouldn't take a serious second look at the man (and I mean that for real, not as a joke) in order to avoid either a Romney or Cain nomination?
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 09:57 AM (8/DeP)
Posted by: MrObvious at October 13, 2011 09:57 AM (2uovW)
Corporatism is not truly socialism or a route to it. It is closer to fascism than anything but it is really neither. It is good old fashioned government corruption and that is what we should call it.
Or we could call it by its long time name, The American System, but most people would not know what you are talking about.
Posted by: Vic at October 13, 2011 09:57 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 01:57 PM (8/DeP)
I came to that conclusion about Perry weeks ago, Gingrich could be the next flavor of the month if the attacks on Cain's 9-9-9 plan hurt him
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 09:58 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 13, 2011 09:58 AM (i6RpT)
At least one of each would be my advice.
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 09:58 AM (8/DeP)
Posted by: Alte Schule at October 13, 2011 09:59 AM (MLJu8)
In other words, when did you stop beating your wife?
Posted by: © Sponge at October 13, 2011 09:59 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Soothsayer Wiseau at October 13, 2011 01:59 PM (sqkOB)
therapy b/w him and Bachmann is a good start
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 10:00 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: sifty at October 13, 2011 10:00 AM (4CSeG)
"It's not a lot of reading if you don't do it."
--Air Command & Staff College Unofficial Student Motto
Posted by: Arms Merchant at October 13, 2011 10:00 AM (VKRmb)
Indeed. The popular sentiment is that this OWS crap is going to have the same effect on the Democrats that it did in the 60s, which is to say it will lead them to getting crushed at the ballot box.
Middle America doesn't like this kind of stuff. It killed Hubert Humphries chances in 68 and led to when of the largest landslides in history in 1972 when McGovern essentially embraced it.
The people who will hate it the most are the suburanites who live right outside major cities. The people in Bucks County and places like that. People who voted for Obama in 2008 and were undecided about 2012. This will push them into the Republicans arms in 2012.
Posted by: Ben at October 13, 2011 10:00 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 13, 2011 10:00 AM (i9cTu)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 13, 2011 10:01 AM (i6RpT)
‘We don’t know where it comes from. It just appears, and we eat it.’
This gives me an idea...
Posted by: garrett at October 13, 2011 01:57 PM (4/2xW)
Me too!!!
Posted by: Guy who puts semen in yogurt at October 13, 2011 10:01 AM (GQ8sn)
I have very Liberal friends in Boston who are not buying into this at all. There is zero sympathy of any kind for people who can afford to do nothing but sit around, whining and sh*tting in public for months at a time, spouting off about not being able to find work, yet capturing it all on their macs and iPhones.
Posted by: MissTammy at October 13, 2011 10:01 AM (SsG4J)
Speaking of Polls, Rassmussen has gone full leftard. They have Obama at 47% approval. Gallup has him at 40%.
Rassmussen even has him higher than Obama's own network NBC by 3 points who does their own push polling.
We're fucked as far as any establishment media or polling services are concerned.
Posted by: robtr at October 13, 2011 10:01 AM (MtwBb)
Weather - it's been unusually mild in NYC for October, but those 35 degree rains will come. If they endure that, there's the dread of wind chill in the part of Manhattan that gets it the worst. Those rich kids who come for the party from their comfy homes won't show up when the weather is rough, and the celebrities won't come around so much for their "power to the poopers" photo-ops
Boredom - there's really nothing new in this unless it turns violent, and violence burns out in a few days. Your friends will get bored with you before your enemies do, and when your enemies get bored with you you're finished
Stock Market Crash - while I don't think pissed off traders who just lost their asses would clean out a park, there would be a rather panicked push by the MBM to keep the protestors from getting blamed for it. Or it least keep their sympathizers in the MBM from getting blamed for it
Dissension in the ranks - how long can a bunch of self-indulgent brats, losers, and nutjobs put up with each other in close quarters?
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 10:03 AM (Y+DPZ)
Mebbe Gingrich can take his couch pal Botox Nan on the campaign trail with him. Tell us all what he's going to do 'bout global warmin'. Just when you think Newt is smart, he goes and does something too stupid for the English to describe.
PS; fuck Newt.
Posted by: Unblinking tree rat of personal destruction at October 13, 2011 10:03 AM (OlN4e)
Rassmussen trying to help build the case for Romney, perhaps? 'Tis the season, apparently ....
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 10:03 AM (8/DeP)
But the whole Geller-Spencer thing was a bit much. Should've picked up a Kindle for that.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at October 13, 2011 10:03 AM (VKRmb)
Posted by: The Slippery Slope at October 13, 2011 10:04 AM (qwK3S)
Dissension in the ranks - how long can a bunch of self-indulgent brats, losers, and nutjobs put up with each other in close quarters?
:::: cue the theme to "The Odd Couple" ::::
Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 13, 2011 10:04 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: robtr at October 13, 2011 02:01 PM (MtwBb)
Rasmussen has a near 100% accurate record and sees things before others do, if you want a more accurate picture go to RealClearPolitics.com where they average the Polls and give you a better, clearer picture.
according to them Obama's at 44% approval
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 10:04 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 13, 2011 10:04 AM (GvYeG)
Assumption? That shit is carved in granite.
Posted by: Berserker at October 13, 2011 10:04 AM (FMbng)
Posted by: sifty at October 13, 2011 10:05 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Heartless Janitors_4_Jesus at October 13, 2011 10:05 AM (tazG1)
That gave us that quagmire known as the "War on Poverty"
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at October 13, 2011 02:02 PM
By the same president who gave us the "War on Vietnam"
Curious isn't it? The president who put the welfare state was hated by the same lefties who wanted it. Maybe because well off white kids were getting drafted too
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 10:05 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Alte Schule at October 13, 2011 10:05 AM (MLJu8)
Posted by: mrp at October 13, 2011 10:05 AM (HjPtV)
Would be worth it just to see them smile when you take their flintlock from them and hand them something a tad more current.
Posted by: Berserker at October 13, 2011 10:06 AM (FMbng)
John McCain has just endorsed Cain's 999 plan....."I love it...it's the way to go".
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 10:06 AM (AtOcq)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 13, 2011 10:06 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 02:03 PM (8/DeP)
he's doing a bad job if he is cause Cain ties him in their last GOP nom vote and Cain is the only guy other then Romney who has a shot at beating Obama in Rasmussen polling
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 10:06 AM (yAor6)
Some people around here are a little too smug about the possible outcome of all this for my taste.
When the other side flouts the law and is encouraged to do so by supposedly reputable figures (like shitweasel Bloomberg and the stuttering clusterf*** of a miserable failure), when elected officials start raving publicly about ignoring parts of the Constitution that frustrate their totalitarian desires and the MBM cheerleads for them, there is something to worry about.
When does "we'll get 'em in '12" become "we'll get 'em in '14 and '16?" At what point do we call what looks more and more like an orchestrated -- *cough* Osama Obama *cough* Valerie Jarret -- move to advance the treasonous aims of America-hating domestic terrorists what it is and stop viewing through the prism of politics-as-a-game?
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 13, 2011 10:07 AM (YjjrR)
I say good, run with it, media/Democrats!
now put up some Occupy candidates and run them in '12
we'll see then if the people want to buy the shit they're selling
Posted by: Soothsayer Wiseau at October 13, 2011 10:07 AM (sqkOB)
When elections are stark contrasts on policy points, see 2004, 1994, 1984, 1980 - we conservatives win.
When elections are blurry choices between two "moderate" positions we lose, see 2008, 2006, 1996, 1992, etc.
The left is making a *big* mistake in making people choose between explicit socialism and conservativism.
And this is also why we have to nominate a conservative standard bearer - no more McCain/Bush wafflers...
Posted by: 18-1 at October 13, 2011 10:07 AM (FBr/C)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 13, 2011 10:07 AM (UlUS4)
Those OWS losers should put that in their bong and smoke it.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at October 13, 2011 10:08 AM (QKKT0)
John McCain has just endorsed Cain's 999 plan....."I love it...it's the way to go".
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 02:06 PM (AtOcq)
*skid marks*
whoa!
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 10:08 AM (yAor6)
I would Time read however:
A: I'm usually in the express lane.
B: I don't have a doctor's appointment.
C: I'm using my smart phone to play games, check out porn or find out what you morons are up to.
Posted by: YIKES! at October 13, 2011 10:08 AM (70TBD)
Vaginal monologist Eve Ensler, at the Puffington Host: "What is happening cannot be defined. It is happening. It is a happening."
Man, I have never seen a talking pussy. And a wordy one at that. Just sayin.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 13, 2011 10:08 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 13, 2011 10:10 AM (i6RpT)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a President Gingrich can probably cure what ails us. Unlike everyone else who's just talking shit, he's actually done it before.
Is he really so unelectable to social cons that we shouldn't take a serious second look at the man (and I mean that for real, not as a joke) in order to avoid either a Romney or Cain nomination?
I actually LIKE Newt. He's articulate and has a historical knowledge that nobody else can present. Plus the left hates him which works for me. I can easily see him as anyone else's #2, at which point the left will give him the Dan Quayle treatement and leave our #1 alone.....another plus!1!!1!!!
Posted by: MrObvious at October 13, 2011 10:10 AM (2uovW)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 13, 2011 10:10 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Heartless Janitors_4_Jesus at October 13, 2011 10:10 AM (tazG1)
Keep in mind he is primarily a Republican pollster. He owes his allegiance to the party. So yes, he is probably working some kind of system.
You can not trust ANY of the polls completely right now until after the primaries are over. Once that is done Ras becomes the most accurate until the final weeks in the election, then the others start zeroing in so that they can maintain at the end that they were good. And so stay in buisness.
Posted by: Vic at October 13, 2011 10:10 AM (M9Ie6)
When elections are stark contrasts on policy points, see 2004, 1994, 1984, 1980 - we conservatives win.
When elections are blurry choices between two "moderate" positions we lose, see 2008, 2006, 1996, 1992, etc.
The left is making a *big* mistake in making people choose between explicit socialism and conservativism.
And this is also why we have to nominate a conservative standard bearer - no more McCain/Bush wafflers...
This is the most insightful post I have read today. Except for all my own insightful posts. Thankyou 18-1.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 13, 2011 10:11 AM (0M3AQ)
Yes, yes, I know. But Romney or Cain are better how? Romney is an outright liberal, so you don't even get the Newtey economic conservatism that comes with Gingrich. Presumably our current campaign realities could get him (and us) past these past transgressions?
After all, if it's Romney we nominate he'll probably win, but he'll also probably be a traitor to the cause and preside over a disaster; on the other hand if it's Cain we'll lose the general and it's four more years of Obama.
So I hear you, I'm just asking that we open our minds a little here. Can we not somehow get back to potential electability with a candidate who might actually fix the economy if elected?
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 10:11 AM (8/DeP)
90 Yup. Megyn Kelly was beaming from ear to ear when she was reporting it.
Megyn....being a fukin lawyer and all....prolly doesn't want that evil Perry guy to come to Washington and do the same thing he's done in Texas with Tort Reform.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 10:11 AM (AtOcq)
When elections are stark contrasts on policy points, see 2004, 1994, 1984, 1980 - we conservatives win.
When elections are blurry choices between two "moderate" positions we lose, see 2008, 2006, 1996, 1992, etc.
The left is making a *big* mistake in making people choose between explicit socialism and conservativism.
And this is also why we have to nominate a conservative standard bearer - no more McCain/Bush wafflers...
huh? and what about 2000 and 1988?
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 10:11 AM (yAor6)
John McCain has just endorsed Cain's 999 plan....."I love it...it's the way to go".
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 02:06 PM (AtOcq)
*skid marks*
whoa!
Cain is not as conservative as people who have hopes for him think he is. He probably has more integrity than Romney, which you could say about probably anyone.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at October 13, 2011 10:12 AM (VKRmb)
I have, his name is Mitt. I stand corrected. Thank you sir, may I have another?
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 13, 2011 10:12 AM (0M3AQ)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Newt Gingrich is guilty of far, far more RINO "heresies" than Mitt Romney could ever even dream up, including shooting a commercial sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and calling for cap & trade, for fuck's sake. Oh, and leaving two wives in a row when they each came down with cancer. Oh, and having pretty much every single GOP congressman who served with him willing to testify how atrocious a leader of men he was.
Oh, and remember his recent denunciation of the Ryan Plan as "right wing social engineering?" Yeah, this is not the droid you're looking for.
It's Romney or bust.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:12 AM (bbxN5)
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 01:53 PM (Y+DPZ)
It's people! Soylent Green is people!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 13, 2011 10:12 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 13, 2011 10:12 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 10:13 AM (AtOcq)
My two cents:
Get a Remington 870 pump 12-gauge with all wood stock and pump. 18" barrel.
It needs to look as benign and hunting-specific as possible. Like the furthest thing from your mind when you bought it was the thought of some scumbag coming in your window and receiving a blast of buckshot in his sternum.
Too much can go wrong for a non-expert with pistols. A shotgun with some wood attached is useful for beating someone down if something goes wrong or they grab it.
I recommend not buying any kind of mall-ninja gear for home defense. Cops just LOVE to fuck with mall-ninjas and take their stuff.
Posted by: sifty at October 13, 2011 10:13 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Cricket at October 13, 2011 10:13 AM (DrC22)
In most wars, the highest casualty counts come just before the war ends, when the losing side throws in all it has left
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 10:15 AM (Y+DPZ)
Oh? They hate him too? I thought he was unelectable to fiscal cons as a result of his very Boehner like performance as speaker.
Posted by: Bob Saget at October 13, 2011 10:15 AM (SDkq3)
Listening to Rush as he plays clips of these idiots at the various Occupy movements make the most distasteful, vicious, despicable comments. But they're the voice of America.
*rolling eyes*
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 13, 2011 10:15 AM (4df7R)
This almost strikes me as a move as devious as Carter "endorsing" Romney in order to piss off the base. Because anything McCain supports is inherently going to be greeted with suspicion by the TrueCons.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:15 AM (bbxN5)
In the end, all leftist ideas are a form of slavery. Think about it. With the possible exception of your children, they actually claim to own everything you produce -- that is, they own it all, and they will say how much of it you get to keep, not -- you own what you produce, and you particpate in society through your contributions to maintain our society.
If they own your production, they must own the hours, minutes, and seconds you spent producing. Other than the love you share and your memories, your life is comprised of hours, minutes, and seconds. So, they claim to own your non-sleep life -- they just won't say so in so many words.
The slavers used to just be honest about it until the wars came. Since then, they have used a constant flow of name changes to hide their desire to enslave you. At one time all of the following political names were still popular (before people figured out that it is just a new way for slavers to hide): totalaitarism, marxism, communism, facism, NAZI-ism, socialism, etc.
So, I no longer care which Subspecies of Slaver a particular leftist might be. "Obama is a socialist" means no more to me than "Obama is a facist," because the actual technical argument between the two is not worth my time. He still thinks he owns what I produce, so he still thinks he owns me.
Yes, I can also see all the lines between serfs, peasants, fellas, peons, vassals, and slaves. I just don't think splitting hairs about this stuff is worth the effort. Either I own my own life or I don't.
Posted by: jc at October 13, 2011 10:16 AM (i8c5b)
We planned to be but, We're on the inside now suckers.
Posted by: Allen West & Co. at October 13, 2011 10:16 AM (EL+OC)
Even those mythical 'Independents' and 'Moderates' (you know the ones who won't take a side unless forced.) have seen the lengths the MFM will go to to get their candidate and his agenda presented in the best light possible all the while ignoring pertinent stories because they will hurt same. AND on top of that, flagrantly lie about Conservatives, expend excessive amounts of time, money and manpower to find ANY dirt or stories that can be FRAMED as dirt against conservatives all the while.
Thank you Barack. Like only Nixon could recognize China and Clinton restructure Welfare, YOU'VE slain the dragon of the "Objective" Media talking point. Well done sir.
Meanwhile Jesse Jackson Jr. tries to push Obama as Diktator for Life.
Where's Monty on this?
Posted by: Valar Morghulis at October 13, 2011 10:16 AM (cA6/i)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 13, 2011 10:17 AM (UlUS4)
Based on the OWS reports I'm thinking they're a little pink.....
Posted by: MrObvious at October 13, 2011 10:17 AM (2uovW)
here's how I'd pose the question:
Q1: Groups across the country are gathered in public areas demanding money for nothing. Is your opinion of these protests favorable or unfavorable?
Posted by: Soothsayer Polling Co. at October 13, 2011 10:17 AM (sqkOB)
It's people! Soylent Green is people!
Just re-watched that movie the other night. Was thinking the scoopers they used to clear up after the "no more Soylent Green today" riot would be really useful for these OWS protesters. I think they will need a lot of processing though to make them palatable for human consumption.
Posted by: ParanoidStillAGirlInSeattle at October 13, 2011 10:17 AM (RZ8pf)
109 It's Romney or bust.
I'd take Newt over Romney in a NY minute. Newt would actually achieve something with a victory (i.e., decentralization of the welfare state). Romney is merely padding his resume, much like Clinton. Shit Romney reminds me of Nixon in too many ways. Been there, done that and all I have to show for it is a nasty Watergate T-shirt. Never trust Mormons bearing gifts. They just want your women and vast amounts of Hawaiian Punch.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 13, 2011 10:17 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: Spike at October 13, 2011 10:17 AM (pAR1m)
The fuckers want us to know what they think, they can write it down and hand it to any of a million bloggers or MFM journalice.
Posted by: sifty at October 13, 2011 10:18 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Bawney Fwank at October 13, 2011 10:18 AM (CE2wR)
Tidal Bowl Basin. Good times. Good times.
Posted by: Wilbur Means at October 13, 2011 10:18 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 13, 2011 10:19 AM (i6RpT)
First and last warning.
I will not stand by while the excellent character and reputation of pussy is defamed by association with Shitstain Romney. I happen to love and respect pussy, and will defend the house of pussy against all foes.
*You have been warned*
Posted by: Unblinking tree rat of personal destruction at October 13, 2011 10:19 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 13, 2011 10:20 AM (i9cTu)
In most wars, the highest casualty counts come just before the war ends, when the losing side throws in all it has left
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 02:15 PM (Y+DPZ)
--We're not quite at the Battle of the Bulge or Okinawa, but we're close. . . .
Posted by: logprof at October 13, 2011 10:20 AM (CE2wR)
118 >>>John McCain has just endorsed Cain's 999 plan....."I love it...it's the way to go".
This almost strikes me as a move as devious as Carter "endorsing" Romney in order to piss off the base. Because anything McCain supports is inherently going to be greeted with suspicion by the TrueCons.
----------
Maybe McCain is doing a little payback to Cain, for endorsing Mitt back in 2008. .....But then Palin has said nothing but good things about Cain too. ...So, who knows at this point.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 10:20 AM (AtOcq)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 13, 2011 10:20 AM (i6RpT)
remember, Obama often talks of everyone having 'skin in the game.'
These protestors have no skin in the game. They're parasites...and they're demanding even more from their benefactors.
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 13, 2011 10:21 AM (sqkOB)
This is OT, but WTF?
FBI Monitoring News Talk Radio for Investigations
Mark Weaver, WMAL.com
WASHINGTON -- If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.
The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.
"This doesn't give us any enhanced capability, prying into or any 'big brother' concerns because this is information that's being put out on the airwaves," FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told WMAL.com. "Its very important to our investigators to know what's being reported."
Bresson cites as an example of the case of the Times Square bomber.
"It's ideal for cases like that because we can extract information that's already been reported and help our investigators make better decisions."
(Copyright 2011 by WMAL.com. All rights reserved.)
What the hell does that last statement even mean?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 13, 2011 10:22 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 13, 2011 10:22 AM (4df7R)
That's right, buster! 'Cause the science of AAW (Anthropogenic Amphibian Warming) is settled!
Posted by: zealots of the Church of AAW at October 13, 2011 10:22 AM (7GfKM)
Now they will cast Obama aside, and blame the people for not being evolved enough to understand his genius. But plan B is through the MSM to "help" us select a "reasonable" Republican, one who will shift gears and slow down perhaps, but will also resign himself to the inevitability of big government and insist that we cannot fundamentally reform or reduce the size of government. Incrementalism, a long successful strategy will be reimplemented. And God help us, their plan is working.
Posted by: Alamo at October 13, 2011 10:23 AM (m/tN9)
It means they want to "find" evidence to shut down Conservative radio.Next comes Conservative blog sites..
Posted by: The terrorist Hobbit formerly known as Donna at October 13, 2011 10:24 AM (5Wl/f)
It means the government is preparing a case for locking people up for their thoughts before they can commit a crime.
Posted by: sifty at October 13, 2011 10:24 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Wilbur Means at October 13, 2011 10:24 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 13, 2011 10:24 AM (i6RpT)
Did you just SKIP over the stuff I mentioned merely because it caused too much cognitive dissonance with your desperate search for a non-Romney? Newt didn't just endorse cap & trade, he filmed a commercial with Nancy Pelosi in support of it. Newt didn't just oppose the Ryan Plan, he denounced it on Fox News as "right-wing social engineering." Newt Gingrich was one of the leading "conservative thinkers" pushing the idea of a health care mandate from the right as a 'big idea' to fix the system in the late '90s and '00s. And that's BEFORE we've started discussing his thoroughly reprehensible personal life -- this is a guy who would lose the female vote in America by staggering margins, and rightfully so given his scumbag treatment of his MULTIPLE ex-wives.
Seriously, Newt Gingrich's hallmark is intellectual flightiness and inconstancy. He only even got welfare reform passed because Clinton signed onto it and pushed it forward out of his own sense of self-preservation (thank Dick Morris, actually). He'll come up with a hundred ideas, 95 of them will be atrocious, five of them will be worth pursuing, and he's never been able to either separate the wheat from the chaff or even follow through on the good ideas.
Newt does great at these debates -- we've all seen it, I've even joked several times about 'going gay' for him when he pulls out another great line or hammers the moderators -- but there's a reason we all know he's unelectable. He's as toxic as they come, and if you're even flirting with voting for him you've simply checked out of your mental faculties. There's no intellectually cognizable argument that could be made for rejecting Romney as "too much of a RINO" while embracing Gingrich's massive RINO-isms, on top of his horrifying personal failings. It just doesn't make sense. It's an atavistic yawp of hatred against Romney, I think, nothing more.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:25 AM (bbxN5)
"It's ideal for cases like that because we can extract information that's already been reported and help our investigators make better decisions."
(Copyright 2011 by WMAL.com. All rights reserved.)
What the hell does that last statement even mean?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 13, 2011 02:22 PM (4df7R)
--Start with the Jim Rome show and record that commie Trapper in Dana Point's ramblings.
Posted by: logprof at October 13, 2011 10:25 AM (CE2wR)
BOSTON (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - If the Occupy Boston protests last through October, it could end up costing taxpayers $2 million in Police overtime costs.
That figure coming from City Council President Steve Murphy.
FOX 25 has filed a Freedom of Information Act with the City of Boston to find out the exact number of overtime costs. We've been told that number is still being tallied.
The $2 million figure represents 8% of the yearly budget for police overtime. The thought of the steep bill has many, including Murphy, worried. "While we're all sympathetic with our protesters down there, Wall Street isn't picking up the tab on this thing. It's the Boston taxpayers."
Organizers behind the protest say the 24 hour police protection is unnecessary. "They don't need this many police observing us. They don't need to have helicopters up every night. It's just burning through money," said Occupy Boston spokesman Phil Anderson.
Phil Anderson needs to be sent a bill.
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at October 13, 2011 10:26 AM (ijjAe)
huh? and what about 2000 and 1988?
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 02:11 PM (yAor6)
In 2000 Bush ran on "compassionate conservativism" (and sadly meant it) and Gore ran on a schizophrenic combination of Clinton policies and hard left policies.
Bush won, barely, and we sort of kept Congress...for the moment.
1988 is also another interesting election. Bush 41 ran as Reagan's third term, but didn't mean it, and Dukakis slightly toned down the hard left line the Democrats has ran on in 1984. We won the presidency easily and had small losses in Congress.
So I'd consider both those elections somewhere between the more policy driven elections like 1984 and the gauzy "what's the difference" elections like 2008.
Posted by: 18-1 at October 13, 2011 10:27 AM (FBr/C)
Posted by: sifty at October 13, 2011 10:27 AM (4CSeG)
WASHINGTON -- If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to
record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the
Internet.
Unintended Consequences - Agents listening to Rush and Co. start realizing they agree with most of what he says, hear viewpoints not allowed in the MBM or NPR.
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 10:27 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 02:25 PM (bbxN5)
Great stuff, kid. But, the position has...um....yes....the position has been filled.
Posted by: Reader's Digest Human Resources Dept. at October 13, 2011 10:28 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: befuddled at October 13, 2011 10:28 AM (xJU23)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at October 13, 2011 02:26 PM (ijjAe)
Take that figure and multiply it times N (where "N" is the number of cities with their own Occupy demonstrations), then tack on another two million per city, and you have the amount that the American taxpayer should bill every one of these pantywaist protesters when they tuck their tails between their legs and head home.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 13, 2011 10:29 AM (4df7R)
i don't know, there just isn't enough detail here, i need more...
(wink, wink, just joshing ya Ace)
Posted by: shoey at October 13, 2011 10:29 AM (jdOk/)
That is, I think honestly the most objective way to put it...
Posted by: 18-1 at October 13, 2011 10:29 AM (FBr/C)
Speaking to all the accomplishments a President Salamander would bring about:
Rember Newt's Contract with America? Once Newt and Co. got into power, they shit that out like a double jalapino pizza. Newt is much like Romney. What he says today translates into jack shit tomorrow.
Posted by: Unblinking tree rat of personal destruction at October 13, 2011 10:29 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: befuddled at October 13, 2011 02:28 PM (xJU23)
PLEASE tell me that's a true story.
And...if it is, can I buy you a beer?
Posted by: Reader's Digest Human Resources Dept. at October 13, 2011 10:30 AM (sbV1u)
Until the hardcore career criminals along with the crazy hobo population commit robberies, rapes, assaults, and even murders in their little Obamaville
Then it's "wahhhh, where are the police? Why aren't they protecting US instead of rich people!"
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 10:31 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Wilbur Means at October 13, 2011 10:32 AM (0M3AQ)
Have you seen Three Days of the Condor? The setup is sort of accurate. Except for the part where the readers actually find—or really even seek—any signal in the noise.
There are thousands of people whose surprisingly lucrative make-work/nepotistic "intelligence" job is to listen to the news (and blogs! and the comments!), summarize their uh findings, and have reports filed in a landfill/warehouse no one ever looks inside.
That might be what Obama's mystery job at Business International was.
Posted by: oblig. can neither confirm nor deny at October 13, 2011 10:32 AM (cePv8)
Rasmussen has a near 100% accurate record and sees things before others do, if you want a more accurate picture go to RealClearPolitics.com where they average the Polls and give you a better, clearer picture.
according to them Obama's at 44% approval
Posted by: Team Mitt's AuthorLMendez (Ban k1rwm) at October 13, 2011 02:04 PM (yAor6)
BS rassmussen blew the 2010 elections and immediately made a left turn after that. The only thing giving Obama a 43.6 RCP Average are two outlier polls. Rassmussen and Bloomberg. Rassmussen doen't publish their internals but Bloomberg does. They have an 8 point dem advantage and Rassmussen ties their findings.
Posted by: robtr at October 13, 2011 10:32 AM (MtwBb)
Ok so when I go out looking to buy a gun this weekend for self defense should I start with pistols or just go straight to the shotgun bench?
If you are new to guns, go for the shotgun. The 870 is an excellent choice...just the sound of putting it into battery generally makes people piss their pants. It can be tricked out to a fair-thee-well also, if you have the mind to.
Those of us vets who have been shooting for over 50 years, and who own dozens of guns, might get a bit more exotic, but given the choice of one gun, I'd choose a shotgun - it's amazing what you can do with the current choices in barrels and ammo.
Posted by: trainer at October 13, 2011 10:34 AM (Rojyk)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at October 13, 2011 10:35 AM (j8B6L)
Could it be because the Air Farce didn't realize they had a drone virus until they read it on the interwebz?
Posted by: Barbarian at October 13, 2011 10:37 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Vic at October 13, 2011 10:39 AM (M9Ie6)
The fools probably wouldn't even try to defend themselves out of some misplaced sense of guilt or "brotherhood".
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at October 13, 2011 10:41 AM (ijjAe)
But since you went there ... RomneyCare ring a bell? Romney's advisors now working for Obama cause you any heartburn? In July of this year, that motherfucker defended the NLRB decision (and the union whores they work for) to prevent Boeing from moving to South Carolina. He's flip-flopped on abortion, gay rights, the auto bailouts, and the payroll tax cut, all while he's been unsuccessfully running for President non-stop for the past six years.
The DNC has a fucking website called Which Mitt that lets you select which opinion Mitt Romney holds on various issues, the punch line being that he's held them all over the years.
And maybe he hasn't fucked over his wife, but he's a Mormon that believes a dude in the 1800s read gold plates out of a hat that they found buried in the sand claiming to prove that Americans Indians were a lost tribe of Israel living in North America.
And this is the guy you think will get us over the top?
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 10:43 AM (8/DeP)
170 Romney: “More taxing less bite with Obama Lite”.
Heh. I likes it. ....Romney will be reasonable. ....The left likes 'reasonable'.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 13, 2011 10:44 AM (AtOcq)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 13, 2011 10:45 AM (i9cTu)
Name a better candidate, who can actually win an election and do the damn job. There isn't one. If Rick Perry didn't look like he was going to stroke out every time he's forced to answer even an easy softball question at the debates, it might've been him (yes, even notwithstanding his Texas DREAM Act heresy). But he looks like he's practically given up trying at this point.
Cain is literally nothing more than his 9-9-9 plan (no foreign or domestic policy I can discern), and that's one of the more atrocious ideas I've seen come out of the Right in recent years. (Oh yeah, and good luck repealing the 16th Amendment, folks.)
Gingrich is Gingrich -- see above.
Santorum honestly seems like a fairly smart guy, but...backpfeifengesicht. And his creepy ultra-socon emphasis is violently out of step with even the GOP electorate right now in a way that none of the other candidates are.
Michele Bachmann has been injecting herself with Tardasil since before she took office in Congress, by all impressions.
And Jon Huntsman isn't even human.
As I said, there's exactly one choice. Unless Rick Perry somehow turns everything around, that is.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:46 AM (bbxN5)
O RLY? Link to this, please? I simply refuse to believe it's true unless you provide me with some confirmation. And it better not be along the lines of "I heard it on Mark Levin!" Because Romney's been running up and down the country denouncing that NLRB decision since the day it broke, from what I've seen.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:48 AM (bbxN5)
Posted by: Fritz at October 13, 2011 10:48 AM (FabC8)
Hmm...I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're either a liar or you're hilariously misinformed. Let me guess: you got that claim from a radio show or from some anti-Romney blog.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:50 AM (bbxN5)
From the L.A. Times, 6/28/11:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney didnÂ’t even wait for President Obama to arrive in Iowa on Tuesday before he launched his latest attack on the presidentÂ’s job policies.
In an interview with the Associated Press that the Romney campaign sent out to reporters, Romney attacked Obama for a National Labor Relations Board move against Boeing, which has built a new plant in South Carolina. If the plant is shuttered, it might threaten jobs at the Alcoa plant in Bettendorf, Iowa, which Obama is scheduled to visit Tuesday, according to Romney.
“This Boeing decision in South Carolina sent shock waves across the nation and, if allowed to stand, will result in American job losses and I think you can be sure there will be some losses in Iowa as well as other states,” Romney said.Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:51 AM (bbxN5)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 13, 2011 10:52 AM (i9cTu)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 13, 2011 10:52 AM (qvify)
Romney wins. The debt continues to climb (albeit at a slower pace) and we don't hit the inevitable wall and the resulting revolution for another 20 years. I'm dead of old age, and I hope my kids make it through.
Obama wins a second term. The debt continues to rise out of control and Obamageddon goes down within 5 years. I'm still here to participate (yeah I'm old but I can still pull a trigger) and help my kids and other family pull through.
Posted by: Alamo at October 13, 2011 10:52 AM (m/tN9)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 10:53 AM (bbxN5)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 13, 2011 10:53 AM (UlUS4)
Link Politico
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 10:55 AM (8/DeP)
Ok so when I go out looking to buy a gun this weekend for self defense should I start with pistols or just go straight to the shotgun bench?
If you are new to guns, go for the shotgun. The 870 is an excellent choice...just the sound of putting it into battery generally makes people piss their pants. It can be tricked out to a fair-thee-well also, if you have the mind to.
Those of us vets who have been shooting for over 50 years, and who own dozens of guns, might get a bit more exotic, but given the choice of one gun, I'd choose a shotgun - it's amazing what you can do with the current choices in barrels and ammo.
For pistols, keep it simple. Hammerless snub nose .38 loaded with subloaded wad cutters. Best part, you can safely shoot from the pocket with no snags.
Posted by: Wilbur Means at October 13, 2011 10:56 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: hughie at October 13, 2011 10:57 AM (+56Bh)
She could define it if she wandered out of her elite co-op in Manhattan and spent a few days with the hippies
Posted by: kbdabear at October 13, 2011 10:57 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 13, 2011 10:58 AM (qvify)
It is not perfect bullshit. Shit that perfect could only come from a waterproof asshole. It is quite clearly frog shit.
Posted by: Frog-Cooking Scientist at October 13, 2011 11:00 AM (k34Gz)
Nothing else to say in defense of your phony-assed boi toy? That's what I thought.
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 11:01 AM (8/DeP)
Holy crap, did you actually read the article in the link you provided? It was completely inoffensive, good politics stuff! Literally EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE would sign on 100% with those remarks.
For those who won't click through to see the supposed RINO heresies that this fool is accusing Romney of, here it is, in full:
>>>“There are some unions that continue to train their workers effectively, their members effectively,” Romney said. “But in some cases, if you will the union bosses — the union CEOs that are running the unions — perhaps put the interests of themselves ahead of the interests of their workers. And that may have been what happened in South Carolina.”
Yeah, I want to see a single GOP candidate -- or voter -- who would argue with this.
Also, from the same article, here's more of Romney SHAMELESSLY PANDERING to auto unions:
>>>Romney has also been an aggressive critic of the United Auto Workers union in Michigan, a group he says unfairly benefited from the Obama administration’s bailout of General Motors. “I think the union folks basically bought and paid for [Obama’s] last campaign,” Romney told a Michigan radio station in June, “so he’s taking care of them and they’re taking care of him.”
Man, that Romney is SUCH a whore.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 11:03 AM (bbxN5)
Jon Huntsman with better hair.....
Posted by: Alamo at October 13, 2011 11:04 AM (m/tN9)
Posted by: Regrettably, I think Perry might be done at October 13, 2011 11:07 AM (8/DeP)
Ooh, hey --- can I do a poll?
Q: Which people do you support more --
a) The protesters at Occupy Philadelphia, who say that bankers who commit illegal acts should be brought to justice, or
b) People who are not taking part in the Occupy Philadelphia protest, who instead attend hockey games and boo at people who fight cancer?
Posted by: FireHorse at October 13, 2011 11:09 AM (gyHyY)
Lets talk record not rhetoric folks.
Posted by: Vic at October 13, 2011 11:09 AM (M9Ie6)
Okay, your fixation on Romney's supposed "bizarre religious beliefs" reveals quite a bit more about where I think you're really coming from than you intend to. I don't give a flying fuck about Mormonism and I won't even lie: I hold it against anyone who does, particularly anyone who cites it as a reason to oppose a candidate in a GOP primary.
As for gay rights, what on earth are you talking about? Romney always opposed gay marriage -- his hammering on the MA Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling is what turned Andrew Sullivan into a flamingly fervid Mormon/Romney-hater, incidentally -- so I don't even know what grounds you have for accusing him of flip-flopping there. Romney supported TARP, in theory...along with Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Ace of Spades as well. But he was violently opposed to the auto bailouts from day one (despite the thought of many that it would/will hurt him in Michigan...funny, you would have expected such a shameless flip-flopper to support that, since people like Paul Ryan did).
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 11:10 AM (bbxN5)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 13, 2011 11:12 AM (bbxN5)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 13, 2011 11:13 AM (i9cTu)
Posted by: FireHorse at October 13, 2011 11:13 AM (gyHyY)
Oh yeah, Newt Gingrich? Big supporter of TARP. Just pointing it out.
Reminds me of this blogger who supported it, too.
Posted by: FireHorse at October 13, 2011 11:15 AM (gyHyY)
Remember, according to NewsBusters & MRCC both The Newspaper Guild of America (most newspaper reporters belong to this organization especially at the major dailies) and The Writers Guild, East are listed prominently as official supporters of OWS.
Do you think their support might affect the way newspapers and other MSM outlets cover OWS and the Tea Party
Posted by: airedale at October 13, 2011 11:17 AM (XnZZF)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at October 13, 2011 11:42 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: MostlyRight at October 13, 2011 11:45 AM (ZG8Ti)
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
Posted by: toby928© at October 13, 2011 11:46 AM (IfkGz)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at October 13, 2011 11:51 AM (i0App)
Posted by: NfromNC at October 13, 2011 12:09 PM (MbeEN)
Posted by: Brown Line at October 13, 2011 12:27 PM (VrNoa)
Not for the nomination, but for the intertoobs powered AOS tear him a new one system. Maybe some of the leftover pudding will be soothing.
Posted by: DaveA at October 13, 2011 12:33 PM (0gVY6)
I'm guessing the above question would get a more accurate gauge of public opinion.
Posted by: Vercingetorix at October 13, 2011 12:41 PM (hfWKa)
Posted by: teh Wind at October 13, 2011 12:48 PM (/f+da)
Posted by: steevy at October 13, 2011 12:53 PM (fyOgS)
In actuality, he's only the biggest failure SINCE Carter. Carter still gets my vote for the worst President since Reconstruction (not counting Andrew Johnson).
Posted by: bigpale at October 13, 2011 01:04 PM (s68N/)
Posted by: Instant Manifestation ePub at October 13, 2011 04:19 PM (Oai0c)
Posted by: The Girl Project iBooks at October 13, 2011 04:49 PM (3xMOs)
Posted by: Ten Letters AudioBook at October 13, 2011 05:07 PM (SpVD8)
Posted by: Memoir of a Milk Carton Kid ePub at October 13, 2011 05:33 PM (e/4hM)
It is WONDERFUL to have you back!!
Loved the guest bloggers, but... Nobody does political analysis like yours!
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at October 13, 2011 10:57 PM (F0o5k)
Posted by: Ampontan at October 16, 2011 03:54 AM (jtFII)
Posted by: I will NOT submit! at October 16, 2011 06:23 AM (CwP2R)
Surface treatment
Polishing
zinc plating
nickel plating
chrome plating
powder coating
e-coating
dip coating
phosphate coating
anodize
PVC powder coating
dichromate plating
decrement plating
Posted by: bsdbsn at October 16, 2011 06:52 PM (YQzU7)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2305 seconds, 354 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at October 13, 2011 09:44 AM (4sQwu)