Patterico's Pontifications

3/25/2009

Fred Thompson: I Want Obama(‘s Policies That Will Harm America) to Fail (And The Ones That Would Help America to Succeed)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:22 pm



Now this is how it’s done:

“I want his policies that I believe take us in the wrong direction to fail,” Thompson told Roberts on CNN’s American Morning.

Beautiful. What a difference those extra words make.

“If he takes us down the road of tripling our national debt in ten years and making us vulnerable to higher interest rates and higher inflation, and things of that nature, I want all those policies not to succeed,” he said.

Well said.

Thompson, who made the rising cost of entitlement spending a focus of his 2008 presidential run, said he’d be happy to help Obama overhaul those programs.

“If he wants to do that, I will join with him. I’ll do everything I can to make him succeed with regard to that because that’s the whole ball game in terms of our fiscal future in this country,” said the former Tennessee senator.

Thompson criticized Obama’s ambitious health care agenda, telling Roberts the president’s plans would cost the government more than they would save.

Bravo, Fred. Bravo!

A touch wordier than some similar sentiments from He Who Will Not Be Named — but fifty times more effective.

Fred Thompson’s words will no doubt be twisted by the cynical left and the press (but I repeat myself), but that’s not his fault. No reasonable listener could come away with any conclusion from the quote above other than this: Fred Thompson stands ready to help Obama on policies that will help the country, and to fight him on policies that will hurt the country.

If someone tries to distort that, I will be the first one to man the barricades and defend him. And I’m grateful to him for making that job easy for me.

172 Responses to “Fred Thompson: I Want Obama(‘s Policies That Will Harm America) to Fail (And The Ones That Would Help America to Succeed)”

  1. P.S. Other than closing comments, which I don’t want to do, I can’t prevent an influx of people screaming that THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND [That Guy Whose Name Will Not Appear in This Post]. There’s just no way to stop it — any more than there is any way to prevent gibbering morons and dishonest demagogues from distorting my “good man” comments about Obama. But I ask those people to kindly observe the following requests: 1) can you limit your argument to something we haven’t already heard 500 times? 2) Can you link and quote what I’ve written to prove you read it? If people have the courtesy to follow these rules — especially the first one — we can have a pleasant and productive thread.

    (And since nobody expects that to happen, either gird yourself, or just skip to the next thread.)

    Sorry to bring this up again, but events overtook me; I didn’t tell Fred to make this good point in this excellent way. And I won’t pass up a great point to clarify my own words, simply because I know that people stand ready to distort them.

    If that makes sense to you, you must be a regular reader. If you find that ironic, you’re part of the problem.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  2. Well, any easy (and short) list would be those policies that will be good for the country – are there any?

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  3. “any” NO;
    “an” Yes!

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  4. Beautiful. What a difference those extra words make.

    A touch wordier than some similar sentiments from He Who Will Not Be Named — but fifty times more effective.

    FWIW, completely agree.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  5. I’m sorry that Mr. Thompson didn’t want the Presidency enough. He is a genuine communicator. But then, maybe he has a better relationship with his Teleprompter.

    Oh, wait. I have seen him interviewed without a Teleprompter. He just communicates well.

    But he isn’t elegant, to borrow from Jeff Spicoli.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  6. Hey, I didn’t have any problem understanding Fred’s intent. It seems perfectly clear even for people who haven’t heard Fred speak before.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  7. But why would anybody want The Unicorn Dream to fail? A car in every garage, a missionary (oops, sorry) chicken in every pot, the lion lying down with the lamb (could we televise that, I wonder, and what would be the offspring). Why is it the wrong direction not to worry about having to make your mortgage or car payment? And, really, do we need to be at war with the rest of the world? Can we not just use our military budget for our One’s worldwide campaign to enlighten all the peoples just as he enlightened the morons (oops, sorry) the visionaries who elected him?

    nk (8b95c5)

  8. What a difference those extra words make.

    Not really, the libs would go after Fred just as hard if his profile were as high as you know who. It is not what is said (everyone knows what you know who meant anyway), they are going to crap on us no matter what we do.

    Ken (67885e)

  9. […] update 2: Really, dude. Cut your losses. You’re embarrassing yourself. Posted by Jeff G. @ 7:28 pm | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ […]

    “Fred Thompson tells CNN he wants Obama’s policies to fail” (7a2640)

  10. Libs and some “conservative” sites are already excoriating Thompson and his remarks.

    Cara (6a1aa6)

  11. Do you have a link for any of the “conservative” ones? Except not Meghan McCain if she’s one cause she bothers me.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  12. Is number 9 for real? Embarrassing yourself? Really? Coming from someone whi has meen referencing something from this blog in virtually every post since the weekend? Embarrassing? Cutting losses?

    Mirror Jeff?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  13. Libs and some “conservative” sites are already excoriating Thompson and his remarks.

    Exactly. Just read the comments at the CNN post. In other words, it won’t matter. Dems will lambaste Thompson non-stop over this, just as they have Rush.

    Beautiful. What a difference those extra words make.

    An honest review of Rush’s statement would have found those extra words as well, had they bothered to read the whole thing.

    TV (Harry)

    I Callahan (b93957)

  14. Those who disagree with Patterico are “gibbering morons and dishonest demagogues”. Got it.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  15. The ONLY reason what Fred is saying is more palatable is that Rush said it first. The listener’s mental palate is amenable to a bitter cup of coffee made sweater by adding an extra spoon of sugar. Same cup of coffee however.

    RL began a NECESSARY dialogue at a time when weak kneed Conservative let BHO take their cojones away. Conservatives who got swept away in collective guilt over past deeds most of us have no reason to apologize for, not benefited from..

    Even the most wonderful steak dinner with the most wonderfully erudite company who looks down their noses at all the restaurant help STARTS WITH a bloodied butcher.

    I think this an important concept for Cocktail Party Conservatives to understand.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  16. “Those who disagree with Patterico are “gibbering morons and dishonest demagogues”.”

    RTO – Did he say that in that context or are you usurping his intent as they would say over at hive mind central?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  17. Um. No, I suspect Patterico means the people I have been reading over on PW who have been acting like the freshmen I teach, showing how grown up and tough they are with trash talk (while waiting for their academic probation notices to arrive). Very mature.

    Because talking that way apparently means your politics is more pure and genuine than anyone else’s.

    And I think, before you criticize Patterico for those five words above, you might want to ask why the juvenile nonsense over at PW is preferable.

    Oh, that’s right. It’s OUTLAW. And immature.

    It also loses elections.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  18. I never see Cocktail Party Liberals apologizing for the foot soldiers in their party. Why then must Cocktail Conservatives constantly look for excuses?

    Stop apologizing and start a persistent, relentless, civil war of words with these liberal lunatics.

    Truth, passion and logic go a long way to stopping this madness.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  19. usurping his intent

    An interesting turn of phrase. I’ve never seen it before.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  20. It also loses elections.

    The most important point, of course.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  21. #17, so being juvenile loses elections?

    How do you explain the 100% controlled Democratic Congress and White House.

    I think you forget how important passion is to mobilizing an army of voters — even if it is distasteful to the Cocktail set.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  22. Because talking that way apparently means your politics is more pure and genuine than anyone else’s.

    No.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  23. Quelle coincidence! I just wrote my own post about appreciating Limbaugh, and thanking our esteemed host for inducing me to study the matter more closely.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  24. Jimminy: I think passion in politics is great. The stuff I read over at PW just a few minutes ago was not particularly passionate about politics. It was crude and had nothing to do with politics, but with personal insults. And not from nineteen year olds, but grown men.

    THAT is what loses the center. And whether you like it or not, you need the center to win.

    Reagan did it. Remember his Eleventh Commandment.

    It’s not all OUTLAW, but it does win elections.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  25. What I think is that the hope he fails thing is sort of disastrous if it were part of an effort to reach out to African Americans, but other than that it’s lost its novelty. African Americans hate Republicans so disastrous might be overstating it. Unhelpful, let’s say.

    I think we should all just skip ahead to the being scared of what the socialists have done and are doing and are contemplating. I mean frightened not apprehensive. Pure unreasoning fear. That part.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  26. I agree, RTO, that swaggering talk, full of personal insult and needless vulgarity, doesn’t have a thing to do with politics. In fact, I think that the strategy in question is counterproductive.

    Funny that some people appear to believe otherwise.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  27. Eric,

    If your premise is that being crude and vulgar and dishonest loses elections then I suspect you have lost touch with what our country has become.

    All I need to point to is the current Congress, its leaders and the POTUS. More vulgar, rude and incoherent they could not have been and they swept through 2006 and 2008.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  28. Eric,

    I think the point is you need foot soldiers (and their sins) in order to win elections.

    Demonizing and slandering Democrats is an absolute MUST in today’s world.

    What was it, 33% think 9/1 was an inside job. You think these folks really think?

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  29. “An interesting turn of phrase. I’ve never seen it before.”

    RTO – Interesting. Jeff used it in one of his posts today:

    “A firm insistence to refuse to allow the usurpation of our meaning is the most effective way to negate the force of a tactic that the left and the media will continue using so long as it yields results…..”

    Seems like there’s a lot of that going around, particularly over there at Protein Wisdom when the clown noses come off the intentionalism/interpretation posturing. It’s not that hard to see really if you’re willing to look rationally. Unfortunately “some people” are not and it’s become a game of winning and losing and embarrassing others rather than talking.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  30. I agree, RTO, that swaggering talk, full of personal insult and needless vulgarity, doesn’t have a thing to do with politics.

    Is that what I said? I wouldn’t think so as I find it clearly false.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  31. usurpation of meaning =/ usurpation of intent

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  32. I can’t understand why I would want a deceitful socialist demagogue to succeed. And what would his success mean? More socialism? More covernment control? Higher taxes? More picketing individual’s homes that was paid for by government money and perpetrated by the successful prez’s favorite little group? Acorn becoming a “mighty oak”? The Fairness Doctrine? The government controlling the content of the news?

    I don’t want any of this to succeed in being installed.

    Cara (6a1aa6)

  33. I have a question for the Cocktail Conservatives amongst this board on this issues ….

    1) Do you believe the personal attacks on GBII’s intelligence and integrity where not vulgar and slanderous?

    2) If so, then do you agree these characterizations played an important role in the turnover of power to Democrats in 2006 and 2008?

    While I believe there are many factors, I do think the slander perpetrated by the Left had a profound impact on many voters and played (on th margin) a huge role in these last two Federal elections.

    So, given I believe this, I do not think a correct hypothesis to say “vulgar name calling” loses elections.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  34. All great organizations dedicated to war have effective propaganda machinery. While small in context to the grander effort and resources — it is important to securing victory.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  35. Politics is vulgar. Inherently. It’s an exercise in rediscovering the lowest common denominator. It never ends. This time it was insipid hopeychange. You’ll see, in retrospect. There were plenty of pictures taken you can look at in a few years.

    But what I really think is that our media has earned vastly more personal insult and vulgarity than they’ve received, and that making a distinction between our media and the ruling socialist telepromptocracy is sort of silly and arbitrary.

    Look at what they’ve done. These people sleep much much much more soundly than they should I think. For hurtful words they should be grateful.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  36. I agree with you Jimminy. The dems’ name calling did not cost them a bit, but did make plenty of people embarassed to say they supported Bush or that they voted for him. The lies against Palin worked like a charm. Now conservatives are the hypocrites for not praising and suporting Obama, not the dems fro demanding the support they loudly withheld for eight years?

    And we accept that premise and insist on conservatives making nice? Phooey.

    Cara (6a1aa6)

  37. It doesn’t matter what any conservative says. Libs edit and distort to their benefit. RL was just as clear; enough for anyone willing to hear truth, but his words rang too true so he had to be targeted by the annointed ones’ blind cohorts.

    Conservative Thinker (006d97)

  38. usurpation of meaning =/ usurpation of intent

    RTO – The mystery gets deeper. How are they different and do we care? Are we splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  39. Dems are successfully using a divide and conquer strategy against conservatives who are too happy to oblige. Splitting over Fred and Rush or eviscerating Jindal is what loses elections, not tripping over yourself trying to avoid being a meanie to the donks.

    Cara (6a1aa6)

  40. Cara,

    Winning nowadays requires a cold heart, a keen mind and a Machiavellian streak. I see not ONE Liberal apologize for the outright slander and lies perpetrated on Sarah Palin and her family. So frankly, fuck them.

    I outright call POTUS a lunatic in public. I do not hold back in my vitriol. Funny enough, people are reacting and positively.

    It is hard to argue that POTUS is Freddy Free Loader and hoisting upon this great country a series of lunatic proposals with nary a concern over the unintended consequences.

    I already told one of my Obama Loving Employees with BDS that if Obama gets his way on Health Care they are all being dumped into the public medicaid system by hook or crook. She was not amused but at least now she is thinking — maybe they ain’t no Free Lunch.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  41. …do we care?

    Probably not.

    Are we splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs?

    No. But we probably don’t care.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  42. #39, Amen

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  43. […] update 2: Really, dude. Cut your losses. You’re embarrassing yourself. Posted by Jeff G. @ 7:28 pm | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ […]

    Pingback by “Fred Thompson tells CNN he wants Obama’s policies to fail” — 3/25/2009 @ 8:04 pm

    You’re not good if somebody else is not bad. The high-kicking, Jasmine-scented, armadillo-loving clown has set himself a high bar by going after Patterico, though.

    And, seriously, I told you he will never let this go, Patterico. What the ____ is his problem? Did you help the armadillo steal his Cheetos and Thunderbird sometime?

    nk (8b95c5)

  44. The good news Cara with Conservatives savaging themselves is it makes their teeth much sharper in 2010 and 2012.

    What does not kill you, makes you stronger.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  45. BTW, this debate is not unlike 1976 and 1980 with Reagan and Ford vis-a-vis the Immoral, Hate-America Flea Jimmy Carter.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  46. Beautiful. What a difference those extra words make.

    A touch wordier than some similar sentiments from He Who Will Not Be Named — but fifty times more effective.

    I agree and would add that it is possible that because Thompson’s public presence and demeanor is one of gravitas and experience, what he says will be given far more consideration. Because he has not been such a polarizing figure as He Who Shall Not Be Named, he may take less heat. This is not to say that Thompson wasn’t far more specific and clear in his statement but I suspect even if that Other Guy had been as succinct, he still would have provoked the firestorm. It’s the nature of the beast.

    To the audience, the listeners rarely separate the words from the whole package.

    Dana (137151)

  47. That’s not really fair nk, about the not letting it go, just cause this post sort of inescapably a lot resonates with the recent unpleasantness I think.

    Also if you want to set a particular tone and you think that setting a particular tone is of importance then this might could be good practice. If you don’t think that then I’m confuzzled.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  48. “To the audience, the listeners rarely separate the words from the whole package.”

    Which explains LOTUS’s success.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  49. “No. But we probably don’t care.”

    RTO – Good, ’cause I was hoping not to have to read some pretzel knot explanation of the differences between the two concepts just as you were probably hoping not to have to come up with one.

    I see a great example of that usurpation principal at work when Darleen unfortunately misinterpreted Patterico’s comment about Jeff as a slam against single parents and stay at home parents. Patterico mentioned nothing in his comment about single parenting or stay at home parents yet she went off based on her own resentments, experience, demons. She’s not a regular at this place and the regulars cautioned her she that was misinterpreting Patterico’s comment. She could not point to a history of the author making similar comments or clues as to why her interpretation specifically of Patterico was correct, only things that Patterico MUST have known about Jeff which influenced his comment and things about her experience which colored her interpretation. The views of those in a much better place to interpret Patterico’s comment were ignored because Darleen just KNEW what he meant based on the prejudice she experienced and her psychic powers.

    clown nose off.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  50. principle

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  51. Patterico (and others), if you want to minimize interactions with the folks from that other site you alluded to:

    Don’t let them goad you into argument. If you must say something about them, make it as brief as possible, without anger or fear. Despite their pretenses to intellectualism, they’re driven by negative emotions.

    Don’t anticipate what they might say; it gives them an opening.

    If they want to insult you and have the last word: let them enjoy their petty little pleasure. After all, it’s just random Internet noise.

    We have plenty of other stuff to discuss, and don’t need to gnaw over imagined wrongs. But those people require an enemy. And if they don’t have a real one to fight with, they’ll try to force someone to play the role of the Evil Apostate.

    If you won’t be provoked into anger or defensiveness, if you refuse to be drawn into their quarrels, they’re left with nothing.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  52. Which explains LOTUS’s success.

    I’m sorry, I’m slow on the uptake tonight. LOTUS?…………of the U.S……

    Dana (137151)

  53. Lunatic of the United States (LOTUS) = POTUS

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  54. Bradley – I’m on a roll. It’s like exposing the hypocrisy of the left by using their own words!

    BURN!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  55. Also if you want to set a particular tone and you think that setting a particular tone is of importance then this might could be good practice. If you don’t think that then I’m confuzzled.

    Comment by happyfeet — 3/25/2009 @ 9:13 pm

    Why is it a one-way street? Just how did this post provoke that post?

    This is absolutely true. I had to go to the dentist, today. A weak crown fell off. Honestly. It’s the absolute truth. Jeff Goldstein did not knock it off. Jeff had nothing to do with it. He did not kick me in the face and threaten to knock off all the rest of my teeth if I snitched him out. It’s the truth, I tell you. Won’t you please believe me?

    nk (afbdcf)

  56. Here is the latest take from noted squishy liberal blogger Charles Johnson at littlegreenfootballs.com.

    The GOP’s Major Fail

    Politics | Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:49:39 pm PDT

    The bizarre GOP talking point of the day is that there’s nothing wrong with wanting Barack Obama to fail.

    This is so wrong-headed I don’t even know where to start.

    Criticize him, show where he’s wrong, point out the flaws in his policies, even mock the guy for his reliance on a teleprompter. I’m no fan of Barack Obama, as a look through our archives will clearly demonstrate. I didn’t vote for him and I don’t like what he’s done so far.

    But when you say you want him to FAIL, even if you try to qualify it by saying “if his policies hurt America I want him to fail,” you are alienating and losing the support of the vast middle, who do NOT want any American president to fail. When you insist on it, they hear you saying you want America to fail.

    The FAIL here is on the GOP side, and they’re doubling down on it. Creationist governor Bobby Jindal came out last night defending this crap, and now Fred Thompson is doing it too.

    I didn’t spend the last eight years denouncing the Democrats for wanting President Bush to fail, just to turn around and do the same thing to Barack Obama.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  57. “I have a question for the Cocktail Conservatives amongst this board on this issues ….”

    Jimminy – Have you found any yet?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  58. daleyrocks,
    Do what thou wilt, bro. But if you really want to chap their hides, just ignore them. That is the worst possible insult to their fragile egos. It means they are unimportant, and they hate being unimportant.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  59. Bradley – Thanks. I will take it under advisement.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  60. Sen. Thompson’s genius was that he approached this as a post-partisan. He is effectively out of electoral politics now – he is done running for anything. The best part was offering to join BHO’s cause, assuming it’s righteous. This puts the onus on BHO to be reasonable. By definition, Fred was quite reasonable.

    Ed from SFV (61ceee)

  61. Because we wouldn’t have gotten where we are with this if there weren’t a genuinely debatable proposition underlying all of it I think. That discussion continues in this thread. Kind of unevenly but it’s still there if you look. Me I think a good start would be to ask just how did this post provoke that post?

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  62. By wishing for Obama’s policies to fail, you are wishing for our country to fail.

    Back to Thompson’s comment, this was representative of some of the 300 comments at CNN’s post. It struck me as a reflexive emotional response rather than a response that was based in thoughtful consideration. Emotionalism seems to be very much in fashion and thoughtful listening, a dying art form.

    Dana (137151)

  63. Object lesson! Teachable moment!

    What I said:

    There’s just no way to stop it — any more than there is any way to prevent gibbering morons and dishonest demagogues from distorting my “good man” comments about Obama.

    RTO Trainer’s interpretation:

    “Those who disagree with Patterico are “gibbering morons and dishonest demagogues”.”

    We call that: intentionalism nose off.

    For more details on the “intentionalism nose on, intentionalism nose off” distinction, see this comment.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  64. Darleen unfortunately misinterpreted Patterico’s comment

    Darleen will have to speak for herself. I don’t know anything about it.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  65. Guys, I’m discussing ideas here, and I will not be deterred by anyone, anywhere, when it comes to discussing ideas.

    Also, I can choose with whom I have the discussion and whom I don’t, and I’ve made that part clear as well.

    I hope that’s clear. I think it will be.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  66. Darleen will have to speak for herself. I don’t know anything about it.

    Intentionalism nose on.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  67. But when you say you want him to FAIL, even if you try to qualify it by saying “if his policies hurt America I want him to fail,” you are alienating and losing the support of the vast middle, who do NOT want any American president to fail. When you insist on it, they hear you saying you want America to fail.

    The FAIL here is on the GOP side, and they’re doubling down on it. Creationist governor Bobby Jindal came out last night defending this crap, and now Fred Thompson is doing it too.

    I have great respect for Charles Johnson on a number of levels, but he’s wrong about this, in my view.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  68. Good, ’cause I was hoping not to have to read some pretzel knot explanation of the differences between the two concepts just as you were probably hoping not to have to come up with one.

    That’s an awful lot of response just from me anwering the question as it was asked.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  69. #56. Yes.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  70. “Me I think a good start would be to ask just how did this post provoke that post?”

    feets – Some of us need to be pointed in the right direction because we don’t understand anything. What this and that posts do you mean?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  71. Patterico, you have me confused. Are you saying he’s wrong about ‘wanting Obama to fail = (folks hear) you want America to fail?’ I had taken this to be your position – wishing the president to ‘fail’ is a way to alienate most Americans. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    Or, is it something to do with Jindal?

    carlitos (efdd90)

  72. We call that: intentionalism nose off.

    If you say so.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  73. Intentionalism nose on.

    But reasonable minds may differ.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  74. Patterico, you have me confused. Are you saying he’s wrong about ‘wanting Obama to fail = (folks hear) you want America to fail?’ I had taken this to be your position – wishing the president to ‘fail’ is a way to alienate most Americans. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    carlitos:

    It comes down to this: what would a reasonable person believe the speaker meant?

    I ask you to look at Fred’s actual words and give me a reasonable interpretation of them that results in Americans being out of work.

    You can’t do it.

    With all his throat-clearing and overly-low-key attitude, Fred! proves the better communicator than [That Other Guy].

    And he’s articulating an important principle. I don’t want Obama to succeed in tripling our national debt either. Does anyone here?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  75. “That’s an awful lot of response just from me anwering the question as it was asked.”

    RTO – I was expressing my thanks and suggesting you were probably thankful as well. Are you complaining about that? What is your point?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  76. #56. Daley, curious, why does it matter in context to the issues being discussed?

    Whether they be here, there or everywhere, the idea is what interests from a discussion perspective.

    Cocktail or not, POD should be expected in conservative fora so long as basic belief in conservative principles exists.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  77. Patterico, your point is well taken on what a reasonable person would think. However, a reasonable person who isn’t paying much attention likely heard today: “In other news, noted actor and GOP hatchet-man Fred Thompson says that he hopes President Obama fails.”

    carlitos (efdd90)

  78. I don’t want Obama to succeed in tripling our national debt either. Does anyone here?

    I don’t care. What did posterity ever do for me?

    nk (afbdcf)

  79. “But reasonable minds may differ.”

    RTO – May I humbly suggest you read some of the posts and comments because by some of your responses here it seems, as you acknowledged in one case, that you have missed some of the things going on. It’s a suggestion, not a slam.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  80. “#56. Daley, curious, why does it matter in context to the issues being discussed?”

    Jimminy – You are the one who framed the question originally so I thought it mattered to you. Why turn it back on me?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  81. I really wanted to vote for Fred, he kinda reminded me of Reagan, except Fred’s movies I have seen.

    I have great respect for Charles Johnson on a number of levels, but he’s wrong about this, in my view.

    Sorry to hear that Patterico, that guy is nothing but a character assassin of those who don’t tow his line, like Robert Spencer, who is actually a reasonable person.

    But to each his own.

    ML (14488c)

  82. What is your point?

    That you missed both the intent and the meaning.

    The answer I gave, “probably not,” was only to the question asked, as it was asked, “do we care,” and was no comment on the subject at hand.

    I’ll admit that perhaps the fault is that I improperly interpreted the intended meaning in your question first.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  83. Patterico, your point is well taken on what a reasonable person would think. However, a reasonable person who isn’t paying much attention likely heard today: “In other news, noted actor and GOP hatchet-man Fred Thompson says that he hopes President Obama fails.”

    carlitos:

    This is a very interesting point you make. I used to think like you, but I was persuaded on that point several days ago by someone. You can’t worry about your words being twisted out of context in an unreasonable and bad faith manner.

    I understand the political impulse behind the concern; I really do. And at first I articulated exactly what you’re saying.

    But then I encountered an argument that persuaded me.

    I now feel that you are responsible only for REASONABLE misinterpretations of your statements. I have felt that way since almost the beginning of the [He Who Will Not Be Named] debate. I acknowledged early on that my mind was changed on that point. If you have been reading what I have been saying you know that.

    For example, let me quote from a post called Points of Agreement on Interpretation:

    Speakers have no responsibility to self-censor to prevent unreasonable and bad faith misinterpretations of their words.

    I could go dig up the places where I acknowledged this evolution in my position, but it’s not about personal stuff — it’s about ideas. This is a position I have maintained for days. I understand the contrary view, but it ultimately holds a lot of peril and makes people reluctant to speak their mind.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  84. oh. Daley. I was referencing nk at 54 from where he commented at 42 and then I said hey that’s not fair at 46. This post and Jeff’s post about this post. Mostly I just wanted to say hey stop being so mean but I thought that would sound goofy so I went with this thing about tone. It wasn’t very effective.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  85. You can’t do it.

    Sure you can. You just don’t want it badly enough. It’s still relatively easy for me as I once thought in this mode, many years ago. This one isn’t even nearly so tortured as some I’ve seen and formulated.

    The only way to rescue the economy and initiate a recovery is to engage in massive governmetn spending. It may require trippling the national debt. But Fred wants that to fail. He’s opposed to the only means of recovery, so he wants Depression Era unemployment.

    Then you goon about how he may jus tbe stupid and not necessarilly evil–depends on if he’s actively running for or holding office.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  86. No no no, please don’t go dig it up! I had a hard time following the debate in the abstract, and I don’t entirely disagree with you.

    In the days of ‘managing the message’ however, I think that, by allowing statements like these to rule the news cycle, the GOP look like fools. The high ground agrees with you in theory, while the real world has middle america thinking that the Law and Order guy is rooting for America to fail.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  87. I think it’s interesting that Charles is sort of gratuitously offensive about Governor Jindal while calling for opprobrium. I’m not a Jindal fan either but he’s definitely smarter than your average elected R that’s for sure.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  88. may I humbly suggest you read some of the posts and comments

    Of course you may. What would prevent you?

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  89. Why did I say opprobrium? My pills what help me sleep are kicking in I think. I meant while decrying the I hope he fails opprobrium.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  90. In the days of ‘managing the message’ however, I think that, by allowing statements like these to rule the news cycle, the GOP look like fools. The high ground agrees with you in theory, while the real world has middle america thinking that the Law and Order guy is rooting for America to fail.

    I realize that, to those unable to make distinctions, this seems highly ironic, but:

    I really really understand what you mean. But I just think that, once you realize that the media and the left (but I repeat myself) can and will twist anything, you can’t guard against unreasonable and bad faith misinterpretations of your words.

    If [That Guy] had been clearer about exactly what he meant, as Fred! was, then I would have gone to the barricades for [That Guy]. But [That Guy] fucked up his own message, probably because he was aiming at the choir. Fred! understands he’s speaking to the nation, and his words cannot POSSIBLY be REASONABLY read as hoping for people to be out of work.

    So we HAVE to defend him. We just HAVE to.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  91. Happyfeet plays both sides of the street

    Badly – I think

    EricPWJohnson (6c6058)

  92. #80, the question I framed was in #33.

    I disputed the hypothesis that vulgar name calling loses elections. I used the very example of Democrats in 2006 and 2008 as proof it not being true.

    I then implied that this premise of “Not being vulgar wins elections” as being a false premise accepted by Cocktail Conservatives.

    I further implied that Conservatives need both types of “personalities” to win elections and should not make apologies to Liberals since Liberals don’t apologize for their hard core supporters or their crazy things.

    So, when you asked “Have you found any yet?” the answer should be very obvious from my posts. Yes, there seem to be Cocktail Conservatives here who have a contempt for the dirty laundry that some Conservatives wash on their behalf. No such contempt exists with Liberals at their cocktail parties.

    So now, I ask you, why does being labeled a Cocktail Conservative matter in a discussion about the desperate need (or lack of) for Lunch Pale Conservatives do do their “propaganda” job?

    I just think you need both elements to win and neither side is “more important,” or for that matter “smarter,” to the Conservative cause.

    When I read Patterico comments I see a value judgment about RL v FT which I think is bunk in the battle to win elections.

    Or refer to #39.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  93. Fair enough, and I appreciate the distinction.

    In the world of interpretation, I’m more concerned with bad-faith commenters calling good folks sociopaths.

    Off to bed.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  94. Fred realized that his continuing the campaign might – in the end – get Huckabee nominated – and I don’t know – (Not a Huckabee fan!) it would be real hard for Obama to beat a preacher man.

    Real hard.

    Huckabee, however, would be just as bad a disaster has Obama

    EricPWJohnson (6c6058)

  95. I may have to give up posting after this, but internecine war is tiresome.

    Why argue over semantics when the principle is the most important thing?

    Ag80 (d205da)

  96. Ag80

    There is NO war, one guy lost his blog job, one guy has a job and blogs

    EricPWJohnson (6c6058)

  97. When I read Patterico comments I see a value judgment about RL v FT which I think is bunk in the battle to win elections.

    Intentionalism nose off.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  98. RTO – Now you’re losing me. If “we” don’t care about it, aren’t you glad not to be writing more about it? This is not rocket science or trickery and you’re not Jeff, or at least I don’t think you are.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  99. Ag80.

    Without an understanding of semantics,is it possible to articulate a principle?

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  100. I may have to give up posting after this, but internecine war is tiresome.

    Why argue over semantics when the principle is the most important thing?

    We’re actually discussing (not arguing over) principles. If you don’t see that, we should talk more.

    I’m happy to discuss it with you. I don’t want to get all high and mighty. That’s not the way to win adherents to the right principles.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  101. “oh. Daley. I was referencing nk at 54 from where he commented at 42 and then I said hey that’s not fair at 46.”

    feets – Thanks for explaining.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  102. In the world of interpretation, I’m more concerned with bad-faith commenters calling good folks sociopaths.

    Off to bed.

    I’m concerned with it too, but in terms of approach, we should all a) encourage the correct approach; and b) come down on people who use the wrong approach.

    Seems pretty simple to me. It’s why the principles matter. That’s what I think Charles is missing. But I’d talk to him about it before I wrote him off. Writing off a guy with his track record would be stupid and short-sighted, dontcha think?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  103. For “we” to care, we’d have to agree to care.

    We’d have to both be caring.

    In asking the question it seemed to me to indicate that you did not care, but I wasn’t certain.

    So the answer was “probably not.”

    But you continue to ask about it, which indicates, again, probably, that I interpreted wrongly.

    So, perhaps , we do care.

    The meanings were clear, but I flubbed the intent.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  104. #98, “but fifty times more effective”

    Is it not reasonable to say that little phrase you wrote represents a value judgment?

    Maybe a better choice of words is needed since the “effectiveness” of what Fred is saying is only so because RL said it first and started the ball rolling.

    RL carries the water but Fred gets the first sip of praise?

    It is fine to feel that way Patterico. There are many merits to it but clearly a “side was taken” by you when you started the thread (or kept adding on from previous threads).

    But heck, maybe I don’t understand what “Intentionalism nose off” means.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  105. Um. No. I do not play both sides of the street. Mostly I agree with Jeff and I’ve been a lot open about that. I don’t like it when it gets personal on either side though cause it ain’t like that. I don’t have to articulate it cause that part of the conversation is over except to say I don’t think there’s anything in all the attacky parts of this what’s worth savoring. This is important you dolt because there’s an uncommonly large number of commenters what are common to both sites. Insert comment about pyrrhic victories here but then downplay the sort of implied melodrama. I don’t for real think this is really all that fraught.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  106. “So now, I ask you, why does being labeled a Cocktail Conservative matter in a discussion about the desperate need (or lack of) for Lunch Pale Conservatives do do their “propaganda” job?”

    Jimminy – Again, I point back at your words. I did not say Cocktail Conservatives matter or did not matter I merely asked you a question. Your defensiveness about it betrayed your purpose. People on conservative blogs tend to use the phrase a a pejorative and your deliberate use of it here is offensive and a deliberate attempt to distort the positions taken by the posters on this blog.

    Good day Mr. Cricket!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  107. RTO said:

    Without an understanding of semantics,is it possible to articulate a principle?

    You are right. But, what I was saying is why argue over the semantics when we should be postulating why the principle is correct.

    As I said, I may have to stop posting after this because I don’t want to argue with people I agree with over a disagreement on how it should be stated.

    And I can’t argue with Eric because I don’t have the information necessary to understand his point, although I suspect it has to do with Jeff’s disagreements with Pajamas Media.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  108. RTO – Let’s call NASA or get a room. Do you think maggie would mind?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  109. Jimminy’

    I don’t blame you for not following every last teensy tiny step of this, but in very early discussions of the “[He Shall Not Be Named] Was Wrong” concept, a guy named Jacksonian argued to me that “He was being provocative!” was the justification — and I said I understood and respected that argument. I ultimately don’t think it quite justified it, because I think Fred’s statement could have come first, aroused as much unfair criticism, and PROVOKED!!! in a non-stupid way.

    But I get the provocation argument. I really do.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  110. “We’d have to both be caring.”

    RTO – People tell me I’m a very caring person. Chicks dig that.

    How about you?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  111. Let’s call NASA or get a room. Do you think maggie would mind?

    Now your intent is completly indecipherable.

    So’s the meaning. There appear to be semantic assumptions at work here that I’m not familiar with.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  112. Patterico said:

    We’re actually discussing (not arguing over) principles. If you don’t see that, we should talk more.

    I’m happy to discuss it with you. I don’t want to get all high and mighty. That’s not the way to win adherents to the right principles.

    I think we cross-posted, but I won’t dispute what you’re saying. Believe me, I like this blog and I believe that my posts here will attest to my honesty.

    I was simply trying to express how I’ve seen this controversy unfold. If I’m wrong, I apologize. I’m not here to make enemies.

    And I do agree that Thompson made the point much better than America’s #1 radio host.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  113. Inasmuch as the meme was born of provocation I think there’s a corollary that it will stale upon repetition.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  114. You are right. But, what I was saying is why argue over the semantics when we should be postulating why the principle is correct.

    As I said, I may have to stop posting after this because I don’t want to argue with people I agree with over a disagreement on how it should be stated.

    We need to agree on the principle though. And sometimes the way it’s stated is important.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  115. #103. Patterico

    And what track record is that?
    A fake picture here and there or that his readers found and disparaged Dan Rather, to which he took the credit, when he did nothing at all.

    Charles Johnson is an admitted 9/11 conservative, he was a liberal before 9/11 and he is looking to get people like me, a believer in God out of the GOP.

    He wants Dhimmicrat-lite for the Republican party so more liberal people will find it palatable.
    I have been a GOP’er from the first time I could vote back in the early 80’s.

    I don’t take kindly to liberals hiding behind real conservatives just because of 9/11 frightened them and new comers like him trying to change the deep held values of my party to suite his moonbat liberal ways.

    He is a 9/11 pseudo-conservative who never left his true values. As proof by the way he acts.

    ML (14488c)

  116. #107, “I merely asked you a question.”

    I answered, but fact is, no you weren’t asking a question because you admitted you drew a conclusion the minute I used a “pejorative.” To you, I guess, I insulted Patterico, et al.

    So you weren’t asking anything. Don’t know what you want to call it but it was certainly not a question asked in good faith.

    #107. “People on conservative blogs tend to use the phrase as a pejorative and your deliberate use of it here is offensive and a deliberate attempt to distort the positions taken by the posters on this blog.”

    OK, if you say so. Go run as far as you like with it but if it is “pejorative” to call someone a Cocktail Republican then it is a “pejorative” to associate “losing elections” with behaviors associated with those less “civil” than you.

    Not only that, we have election data to conclude this hypothesis is incorrect. Being civil is not important to winning elections.

    Good try wing man.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  117. I suspect it has to do with Jeff’s disagreements with Pajamas Media.

    Yes. As well as being phrased in a needlessly provocative way which suffers for being inaccurate as well.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  118. #110, Well you certainly know lots more about what is posted here than I do.

    I appreciate your response on said matter and in principle I think election officials must behave as such and as act a foil to the Rush’s of the world.

    For every Bradley you need a Patton if you want to win — that is how I look at this. I think (hope?) we can all agree on that.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  119. RTO said:

    I suspect it has to do with Jeff’s disagreements with Pajamas Media.

    Yes. As well as being phrased in a needlessly provocative way which suffers for being inaccurate as well.

    I really, really have no dog in this hunt. I’m already regretting posting about this.

    I’ve been reading PW and Patterico for years and have only recently started posting on any kind of regular basis.

    I’m sorry about their disagreement and I will have nothing more to say about it. I was not trying, in any way, to be provocative about this.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  120. You are right. But, what I was saying is why argue over the semantics when we should be postulating why the principle is correct.

    As I said, I may have to stop posting after this because I don’t want to argue with people I agree with over a disagreement on how it should be stated.

    I don’t even know where to start.

    First, you unreasonably minimize his track record, in my view. I’m not a regular reader of his, as I don’t have the time, but a tremendous number of valuable posts have come to my attention can be traced to his site.

    Second, while much of my family is religious and I respect religious people, I am not, and I respect people who are not as well. I don’t want you to be thrown out of my party, but I might disagree with you on some issues. That ought to be OK.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  121. I really, really have no dog in this hunt. I’m already regretting posting about this.

    I’ve been reading PW and Patterico for years and have only recently started posting on any kind of regular basis.

    I’m sorry about their disagreement and I will have nothing more to say about it. I was not trying, in any way, to be provocative about this.

    Ag80,

    Ignore RTO. We’re talking ideas and principles here. I want to know what you have to say about that.

    You can’t allow yourself to be intimidated into avoiding a discussion of the ideas and principles you want to discuss.

    UPDATE: OK, that came out wrong. What I mean is: don’t worry about offending people. Just say what you want to say.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  122. Also Daley, we all have roles in advancing Conservatism….

    Cocktail conservatives who might fancy themselves modern day renaissance men as well as …..

    Lunch Pale/Dinner Table conservatives who might fancy themselves marines.

    To quote my alternative lifestyle frems justifying their philandering … IT’S ALL GOOD.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  123. Jimminy – No need to get snippy just because your purpose here was exposed.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  124. I was not trying, in any way, to be provocative about this.

    You weren’t. That was Eric’s doing.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  125. Daley, you have an active imagination, you are a bit paranoid, you are offended over very little and worse yet you are engaging in circular reasoning.

    As an act of civility, once you respond, please cease speaking to me directly and I will do the same.

    Thank you and good evening.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  126. Indimidating? I’m just a harmless little fuzzball.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  127. Well, first, thanks for this comment:

    Ignore RTO. We’re talking ideas and principles here. I want to know what you have to say about that.

    You can’t allow yourself to be intimidated into avoiding a discussion of the ideas and principles you want to discuss.

    UPDATE: OK, that came out wrong. What I mean is: don’t worry about offending people. Just say what you want to say.

    But previously, Patterico posted my comment:

    You are right. But, what I was saying is why argue over the semantics when we should be postulating why the principle is correct.

    As I said, I may have to stop posting after this because I don’t want to argue with people I agree with over a disagreement on how it should be stated.

    And responded:

    I don’t even know where to start.

    First, you unreasonably minimize his track record, in my view. I’m not a regular reader of his, as I don’t have the time, but a tremendous number of valuable posts have come to my attention can be traced to his site.

    Second, while much of my family is religious and I respect religious people, I am not, and I respect people who are not as well. I don’t want you to be thrown out of my party, but I might disagree with you on some issues. That ought to be OK.

    I’m going to assume that was a mistake. I really am trying to be reasonable here and I don’t understand what you’re saying. I never said anything about religion or religious people.

    So, to get back on track. Reasonable people can disagree on a myriad of issues. And I believe that honesty and decorum should prevail.

    I don’t want the President to fail, but I don’t want big government policies to ruin the future of my children.

    That’s it.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  128. It is a mistake. That was meant to be directed at ML. Sorry about the confusion.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  129. I don’t want the President to fail, but I don’t want big government policies to ruin the future of my children.

    It’s really simple: reasonable conservatives will have no problem with you if you say you want him to fail — if you’re clear about what you mean, e.g. I want him to fail at his efforts to triple our debt.

    If — ah hell. I said myself we shouldn’t repeat things that have been said 500 times before. It’s just that self-righteousness replaces comprehension wayyyy too often.

    If Fred’s comment had come before the comment made by the Less Articulate Guy With the Big Radio Audience, we never would have had this discussion.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  130. Patterico:

    Thanks, that’s what I thought. Also, thanks RTO.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  131. Patterico said:

    It’s really simple: reasonable conservatives will have no problem with you if you say you want him to fail — if you’re clear about what you mean, e.g. I want him to fail at his efforts to triple our debt.

    If — ah hell. I said myself we shouldn’t repeat things that have been said 500 times before. It’s just that self-righteousness replaces comprehension wayyyy too often.

    If Fred’s comment had come before the comment made by the Less Articulate Guy With the Big Radio Audience, we never would have had this discussion.

    Exactly. And, why is that so hard to understand?

    Also, I know I can be irritating by always copying the post I’m commenting on, but I do it to assure there is no misunderstanding about what I’m trying to comment upon.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  132. Exactly. And, why is that so hard to understand?

    I have no idea. I can see you understand it. But why it has been so confusing to so many others, I have no idea.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  133. Patterico

    Sure we can disagree, I have no problem with that.
    I have a great deal of respect for you Patterico whether you are religious or not.
    You and your website struck me as being very reasonable, something to which I feel LGF was not or is no longer. I found your site after being kicked out of the that one and I was thankful for it. Now as I said, I see Charles as anti-conservative now, he has a real hard-on for the religious types, he openly want nuts like me out of the GOP.

    And I am a regular reader attacker of his site, but don’t take my word for this, decide for your self.

    ML (14488c)

  134. I forgot to add, that maybe I am dismissing he track record a bit to much.

    But then his attacks against my values and deeply held beliefs both on religion and conservative values makes it a bit to easy for me to outright dismiss him as the liberal he really is.

    ML (14488c)

  135. Rush Qualified his famous four words just as well as Thompson did, minus the offer to “help” him.

    This immediately before the famous four:

    . The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this.[…] I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.[…]Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.

    This is what Rush said immediately after the famous four:

    . Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?

    I don’t realy understand why Thompsons remarks are any more clear than what Rush said.

    lee (76d7c1)

  136. I don’t realy understand why Thompsons remarks are any more clear than what Rush said.

    It is, in my view, a minor point. It’s not a point about principles. It’s a point about whether the person you quoted was sufficiently clear about his point.

    You think he was. I think he wasn’t. That’s fine. We can disagree about that.

    It takes a demagogue to turn that minor dispute into an issue about the honesty of those who don’t happen to think Rush was clear.

    Demagogues appeal to your “DAMN RIGHT!” side. That’s why they’re demagogues. But that doesn’t make them right.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  137. RTO

    Please…

    EricPWJohnson (6c6058)

  138. Patterico’s intellectual dishonesty disturbs me.

    You, sir, divided our movement on the Rush issue, and you continue to do so now. You are wrong. Period.

    This is the last time I bother to come to this site.

    RogerCfromSD (628cfd)

  139. You, SIR, are the WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!!!!!

    And Jerry Seinfeld is the devil.

    I will miss your many, many insightful comments, RogerC from . . . who are you again?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  140. Because I don’t remember ever seeing you here before, is the thing.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  141. “I work here is done,” apparently.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  142. “he track record”….

    I can see, I work here is done.

    or should I say I am a dumb ass?

    ML (14488c)

  143. 139 rodger Cotton

    Your Website is interesting

    Statements like “pehaps we need to spread the definition of conservatives to all people of faith – not just Christians”

    Whew

    Glad you’re gone

    EricPWJohnson (6c6058)

  144. Jerry Seinfeld is the devil.

    So does that mean I have to throw out his DVD collection?

    Comedy will never be the same. “I was in the pool, I was in the pool!”

    “No soup for you”!

    ML (14488c)

  145. So, can Pat still post at pw?

    N. O'Brain (453dd2)

  146. Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

    Anonymous (5fa9a5)

  147. Fifty times more effective?
    Those sound bites will never again be replayed…anywhere.
    Have you seen CNN’s ratings. Hardly anyone even saw them on original broadcast.
    The message may be fifty times more effective, but 50 times zero is still zero.

    Barney15e (1bd1e2)

  148. Excuse me, but it is dialogues like this one that convinces me the Republican party is brain dead. You’re like the musicians on the Titanic playing a sonata on the deck as the last lifeboat leaves.

    alikazam (c20aa5)

  149. Well said, Patterico! & WELL SAID, Fred!

    And I know this might frustrate some – but my sense of loyalty compels me to say I had NO problem with what Rush said. REASONABLE people knew what he meant. I’m REAL tired of the double standard for watching what we say. 1 rule for who the media likes (and the pundits) and a COMPLETELY diff rule for everyone “in the club”…

    But, anyway – Well said, Fred!!!

    MInorcan Maven (578eec)

  150. Aaggghhh!

    Should read a COMPLETELY diff rule for everyone NOT “in the club”

    Ooops!

    MInorcan Maven (578eec)

  151. “To quote my alternative lifestyle frems”

    Jimminy – You’ve got a familiar tell frem. You want to cop to your usual screen name and where you come from or should I spill the beans?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  152. Not only that, we have election data to conclude this hypothesis is incorrect.

    Let’s see the data to support your conclusion, please.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  153. “And I know this might frustrate some – but my sense of loyalty compels me to say I had NO problem with what Rush said. REASONABLE people knew what he meant.”

    Ahhhh…key word…”reasonable”. Clearly this blog proves that both sides are full of unreasonable, clueless people.

    You shouldn’t have a problem with what Rush said because, despite bogus claims otherwise, Rush said the same thing as Fred, and anyone with a clue knows it. Sadly, there are too few with a clue left in this country these days.

    Kevin (e8c89d)

  154. IANMTU:

    I dreamed last night Rush came to town for a visit and was working at some large media place where I was. I saw Rush in the broadcast booth, saw him working at a desk, and wanted to say hi, but refrained because I didn’t want to interrupt him.

    There were the requisite huge protests outside, with large balloons sent high overhead denouncing Rush. All through this he kept on doing his job.

    Finally, as he was leaving, I saw Rush one last time and gave him a thumbs-up. He smiled.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  155. I don’t know what the hullaballoo is all about. Obama is failing. He is going to replace Jimmy Carter as the worst US President.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  156. Jindal:

    My answer to the question is very simple: ‘Do you want the president to fail?’ It depends on what he is trying to do.”

    Exactly. Is he trying to save the country’s economy? I want him to succeed. Is he trying to triple our national debt? I want him to fail. Does he think he can save the economy by tripling the debt? I disagree; I don’t think it’s possible.

    Just don’t leave the average Joe reasonably interpreting your words as “I want you to remain out of work, average Joe, so my party will win.” Fred! and Jindal get it.

    Patterico (8039f4)

  157. BS.

    It’s like those claiming when Packwood does it it’s sexual assault, but when Clinton does it he’s just being friendly.

    boris (ecab60)

  158. […] As several commenters have pointed out — and I had this thought myself — if Fred presented his desires “correctly” while Rush presented his in a needlessly provocative, unclear way (bracketing that Fred had Rush as […]

    Burnt Offerings (7a2640)

  159. Fred Thompson & Bobby Jindal

    “Attention. Mr. Frey to the barricades. Will Mr. Frey please report to the barricades. That is all.”

    Dave in SoCal (b7fe33)

  160. Over the last 3 months WABC goes 4.6 to 5.9 to 6.7 to be #1 from 12n to 3pm with total audience 12 plus. Cume is up to 693,000. Men 35-64 have moved 4.4 to 5.4 to 6.9 (#2) over the past 3 months.

    In the land of Obama, the show is #1 on WLS with 12 plus, going 5.2 to 6.9 to 6.9 with a cume of 396,700. Male 35-64 goes 5.4 to 6.3 to 6.7 (4th).

    The show is so huge in Houston it scores in every demo…12 plus has gone 6.0 to 8.7 to 9.8 to be #1 by a Texas mile with a cume of 382,300. With men 35-64 it’s another #1 going 8.6 to 11.0 to 12.2. Also #1 with 25-54 adults going 4.6 to 7.1 to 8.7. Even with women 25-54 the show has exploded going 3.7 to 6.9 to 8.3 to be only one tenth of a point from the female dominant AC which is in first place.

    In Dallas the show has grown 4.8 to 5.9 to 6.4 with men 35-64 (#2) and is 4th 12 plus going 3.5 to 4.5 to 4.5. 12 plus cume is up to 250,100 in Big D.

    Unlike the President’s Popularity… the show is Down NOWHERE…

    WJR in Detroit rules, moving 5.8 to 8.6 to 9.6 for the #1 spot with total audience 12 plus 12n-3p with a weekly cume of 253,200. With men 35-64 the station moves 6.0 to 10.4 to 11.6 for an easy #1. Even with adults 25-54 the station has doubled audience in 2 months for the 12n-3p slot going 3.2 to 6.0 to 6.4 for 4th.

    WMAL in Washington goes 4.1 to 5.4 to 6.7 up to 3rd with total audience 12 plus from 12n-3p with a weekly cume of 155,300. They are #1 with men 35-64 in that same time period going6.4 to 10.4 to 13.4 in the latest numbers.

    WGST in Atlanta jumps with total audience 4.0 to 5.2 to 6.2 to 5th 12n-3p with a weekly cume of 473,500. The station moves to 3rd with men 35-64 jumping 5.5 to 6.4 to 8.0.

    KFI in LA goes to #1 12 plus from 9a-12n jumping 4.6 to 5.2 to 6.0 over the past 3 months with a weekly cume of 618,000 and with men 35-64 flies 4.6 to 5.0 to 6.3 for another #1 demographic.

    In San Francisco, the show is up huge on KSFO…4.7 to 5.6 to 6.0 and ranks 2nd 12 plus as well as with men 35-64, where it has grown 3.5 to 4.8 to 6.1 and has a weekly cume of 346,100.
    _________________________________________
    Clearly driving people away with an unclear, poorly worded, and needlessly divisive message.

    RTO Trainer (b0723e)

  161. See, the one guy said he wanted the president to fail because successful implementation of his plans would be bad for the country, whereas the other guy said he wanted the president to fail because successful implementation of his plans would be bad for the country. Are you getting it yet, you troglodytes?

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  162. #162

    Thanks for clearing that up so succinctly. 😀

    Vivian Louise (c0f830)

  163. Jimminy’cricket –

    I don’t know if you’re still reading this thread, but I would take issue with your argument that being vulgar wins elections. I think the 2006 and 2008 examples you gave demonstrate that you can be vulgar and still win elections, IF (and only if) you have the media on your side.

    In other words, Democrats can pull it off. Republicans cannot.

    Robin Munn (c5a7e9)

  164. Wow, 22 million wingnuts, RTO!

    Maybe next time y’all can elect…

    a Republican nominee?

    Seriously, until you can get ol’ Fred Thompson or Rudy nominated over a “liberal” Republican, then please don’t get too giddy. After all, Obama’a at 64%, three times what George had over the 20 months.

    timb (8f04c0)

  165. Seriously, until you can get ol’ Fred Thompson or Rudy nominated over a “liberal” Republican, then please don’t get too giddy.

    Fair enough point. Maybe not them specifically, although I’d vote for Thompson in a heartbeat and Rudy if he was the nominee, but anyone like them would be fine. Having character goes a long way.

    After all, Obama’a at 64%, three times what George had over the 20 months.

    Well, let’s compare at the one-year mark, shall we? Don’t the Dems keep saying to give President Obama more time? If you’re going to pull approval numbers, they should be from the same point in the administration, right? So, I’ll bookmark this and at the one-year point we’ll see how well President Obama’s approval rating stacks up against President Bush’s. M’kay? Thanks.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  166. Sorry if I’m repeating what others may have said, I’ve not followed every comment on this subject.

    It seems to me that Patterico’s position of a carefully crafted message stems from his work as a prosecutor and is the good habit of a legal mind. He isn’t required to win a war of ideas over the long term, his entire objective in presenting a case is to win the tactical battle over one idea, the innocence or guilt of the defendent. Patterico can afford to make concessions in that world to larger principles if it means gaining an advantage in the short term and winning the immediate fight before him.

    Jeff on the other hand has no immediate need to convince a small number of people of certain facts or ideas. His scope is the greater political world where grand policy is played out and ideologies fight for supremacy in an ongoing battle. In this world the objectives are reversed, tactical losses in small battles don’t mean anything if you can advance your agenda or message as a whole. Jeff fights against the core principles of the left wing, Patterico fights the day to day battles. A simplification I know, but stay with me here. Different fights require different methods.

    For each, their practiced methods are what works in their professional lives and as they do work, they are used as a template for areas where they are perhaps not as suited. My own feeling is that Jeff has the better of this argument for the long term however Patterico’s point of crafting the message for the audience cannot be ignored either. However, message crafting assumes a fair chance to deliver that message past the gatekeepers, i.e. the media. We know this isn’t going to happen though and as such message crafting is largely rendered ineffective because the media will twist those well crafted words into something they never meant. Once you are fighting over your own meaning you’ve lost already. You cannot move forward when you are playing defense. It is a structural problem to be addressed over a generation, not an election cycle.

    Conservatives are losing the larger war of ideas and losing badly. Virtually every popular institution (media, Hollywood, academia, etc) is dominated by left wing folks spreading a left wing agenda. Well crafted messages aren’t going to penetrate this wall into the public consciousness because the gatekeepers will not allow it to. Borrowing something I read somewhere else, we need a civil war of ideas and principles to insert conservatism into the public eye. Not the racist, exploiting conservatism the left makes it out to be but genuine, principled, humanist conservatism. This civil war of ideas needs to secure ideological ground in public and popular institutions and only then will a well crafted message be our best weapon because at that point we will have a fair opportunity to present it.

    While this is a messy business between two conservative sites it is something that needs to happen, if only to mark out our own positions clearly. Neither Jeff’s nor Patterico’s approach can work if it is the sole means of confronting the left. We need people like Jeff to stick a knife into the body of leftism and twist it around some and we need people like Patterico to convince the soft middle of our principles once the left has been sufficiently weakened to allow us to get our message out fairly.

    Black (3b294f)

  167. #157

    You have no future on the defense side of the aisle

    SteveG (a87dae)

  168. Rush’s ratings go through the roof while Patterico wrings his hands about how libs who will try to mis-characterize the conservative message. Something they are going to do non-stop 24/7 no matter how carefully we parse our words. Pathetic.

    Ken (67885e)

  169. No Ken, what’s pathetic is how many people come over here and misrepresent what has been said. Why not discuss the positions actually presented here instead of those distortions placed in your brain from elsewhere?

    Truly pathetic.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  170. Ken – Is Rush running for anything?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  171. What Fred Thompson said is no different than what Rush Limbaugh said. Rush Limbaugh said that if Obama was going to be more like Reagan he wanted him to succeed, but if he was going to do what he said he was going to do he wants him to fail. Fred Thompson still leaves the ambiguity over whether he wants people to suffer short term if it will bring about better change for the long term. Rush Limbaugh eventually made his meaning clear, that he wants to see immediate effects of Obama’s destructive policies so people will ultimately change them.

    Dan M. (cb25ca)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5328 secs.