A Time for Choosing
Republicans are angry. Obama is putting the government in charge of decisions that the Founding Fathers never intended to rest in the hands of government officials. We feel powerless to stop what we can clearly see is a disaster fully set in motion.
Some among us believe that because the left won its power with the help of deceit, lying, and dishonest tactics, we must therefore fight back by using the same tactics. As one commenter said here at my site: “spreading lies and smearing your opponent is needed to create balance and tilt odds in your side.”
No. That is not what is needed.
Here’s what is.
Yesterday Mark Levin ran Ronald Reagan’s speech “A Time for Choosing” on his radio program. It is an inspiring speech, and there is not an ounce of deception in it. You can listen to it all the way through and you won’t hear one unfair smear. It’s good old-fashioned American common sense, delivered with equal measures of humor, outrage, and confidence.
I found it online and am embedding it here. I encourage you to watch it.
This is what we need, right here:
Reagan is gone, but his spirit lives on, in Americans across the land. We must appeal to that uniquely American, freedom-loving spirit — and call it to action. The threat we are facing is every bit as perilous as the threat of which Reagan spoke. It is the end of our way of life. It is a surrender of all decisionmaking to a Centralized Group of Planners.
We can’t allow this to happen. Somehow, we have to make a stand.
Reagan’s words, spoken in a different context — yet really, not so different at all — will ring in your ears all day:
“I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. . . . If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
Ah, making a stand in defense of lofty principles… and doing so with tactics that the Marquess of Queensberry would approve of. How noble. How naive. How utterly doomed to failure.
The people whose votes and support you need to thwart Obama’s plans DO NOT CARE about Reagan’s spirit. They do not care about whether Obama decides the pay of executives at big companies or Geithner’s plans to take over companies that he deems in trouble. These are issues that the public does not and will not see as germane to their lives and livelihood… and if they don’t see it as relevant, they’re not going to vote for you based on that issue, you’re going to need something else to garner those votes.
Yes, I know you consider these important issues as does the echo chamber here and Limbaugh’s audience… but all of you and $4 add up to a Starbuck’s latte, there just ain’t enough of you to be any more than a permanent and ignored minority.
To avoid that fate, you need the mushy middle. You need the RINOs (Specter and Collins and Snowe) and the other folks you decry as being insufficiently pure to the conservative cause. And you need the people who don’t and won’t spend their days listening to old clips of Reagan and reading Ayn Rand and listening to Hannity. You need the people who vote on the basis of how they perceive the candidate, the candidate’s positions and the people who support that candidate.
If you had hours and hours with these people, you might be able to educate them on the issues and the stakes involved and turn them into reliable conservative voters… but you don’t. So the choice is simple: do you go with what has been proven – over and over again – to work or do you play martyr? Paraphrasing Clint: just how desperate are you to keep Obama from doing what he wants to do?
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 5:42 amWhat we need is not more RINOS but more principled conservatives who will stand up against the wrongheaded policies of the left. If I am left with the choice of a Democrat and a Republican that votes like a Democrat, I’ll take the real Democrat every time.
tmac (f9e092) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:01 am[…] show last night of Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech. Patterico found a video copy of the speech and posted it on his blog, Patterico’s Pontifications. The speech, given in 1964 before the campaign between LBJ and Barry Goldwater, was given at a […]
Reagan's Wisdom for Troubled Times | Axis of Right (4bdcf7) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:10 amWe need to focus on these issues and not just on the control of talk radio, which I believe is what they want us to be talking about right now.
The best way to shut Rush up is to suggest that you will restrict talk radio. Only Rush fans care about that.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:17 amVery well said. A Reaganesque message of optimism and faith in America, laced with a little humor, is much more appealing than an appeal to negativism and deception.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:24 amHere’s a thought, why doesn’t the RNC buy a series of 30 minute informercials and just play clips like this?
Jeremy (c89af2) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:38 amAh, making a stand in defense of lofty principles… and doing so with tactics that the Marquess of Queensberry would approve of. How noble. How naive. How utterly doomed to failure.
steve sturm,
Are you arguing against your own little strawman version of my post, in which you get to pretend that I am advocating being nicey-nice and never telling the truth about the other side’s policies? If so, take your strawman, burn it, and come back when you can take on my ACTUAL argument.
Now, if you’re taking on my ACTUAL argument, I’ll remind you what it is by quoting from my post:
You’re certainly welcome to disagree with that, and to come out in full-throated support of spreading lies and unfounded smears.
But if that’s your position, I just have one question for you: why should anyone ever believe anything you have to say?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:47 amPatterico:
Does Gresham’s Law apply only to money? Maybe to behavior?
Since the left’s tactics worked, what do you have in mind to combat them? If,as one commenter suggested, the right starts putting Reagan up on tv and in other places, what happens if–when–the left starts in on him as a Nazi, homophobe, theocrat? Sure, you can point out that the accusations are false, but so what?
How many people believe Palin said she can see Russia from her house?
I’m not suggesting a particular line of action. I’m asking if you think that lies and smears supported by the media and Hollywood can really be overcome by merely telling the truth.
Richard Aubrey (a9ba34) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:57 amIf,as one commenter suggested, the right starts putting Reagan up on tv and in other places, what happens if–when–the left starts in on him as a Nazi, homophobe, theocrat? Sure, you can point out that the accusations are false, but so what?
The left already tried that, and failed. Their angry accusations against the good-natured Reagan, were so transparently false they backfired. Even Obama has expressed admiration of Reagan.
That may have been just a political tactic on Obama’s part, but it was also a recognition that the demonization of Reagan was an utter failure.
As Obama plunges the country into collectivism and the country’s outlook bleakens, people may be ready by 2012 for a Reaganesque alternative. Congress may be ready by 2010.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:21 amP: I read your post as not only advocating playing ‘fair’ and using the likes of Reagan (“… that uniquely American, freedom-loving spirit“) to rally the public to oppose Obama’s programs but also, and more importantly, arguing that Republicans can win following your advice.
And my response was to argue that those tactics will only ensure continued minority status and an inability to keep Obama from doing what he wants when he wants to who he wants.
So if I misread you, did I do so by concluding you want to play fair? Or that you can play fair and win?
And as far as believing me, I didn’t say I was going to spread lies and smear my opponents, so you can keep believing me as much or as little as you have.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:33 amSS,
The truth will out. Sometimes we have to take a step back in order to make the proverbial two steps of forward progress. Very unfortunate but Obama will force the opposition to nominate candidates with a coherent philosophy in future elections.
BJF,
Chris (a24890) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:51 amI think you’re right about 2010 elections. My only fear is that a conservative win will make it easier for the socialists in 2012.
Reagan Newt and even Bush 43 looked right at the camera and told the american people exactly how they felt and what they were going to do
Time to go back to the power of self reliance and the taming of government intrusion in our lives
EricPWJohnson (b25747) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:58 amLet’s be specific, steve sturm.
I oppose lying and unfounded smears.
Do you support those tactics or oppose them? It’s a simple question.
Patterico (8e05e9) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:06 amPatterico…doubling down on 20th century conservative principles will surely fail you. Sure Reagan was great…..for his time.
The times they are a changing though.
Cultural and demographic evolution are going to doom the conservative movement. When the environment changes organisms must adapt to their environment or go extinct.
I know you disagree with him, but Frum is right.
Reagan evolved to solve 20th century problems.
But reaganomics is not a one size fits all solution for the very different problems of a 21st century environment.
These problems.
You can learn from the past, but you cannot recreate it in a dynamic environment where culture is in flux.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:10 amAnd finally, anime wisdom…that I learned from my sempai, Steven Den Beste.
And Breibart is just throwing chaff.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:16 amHe seeks to distract conservatives from the need to change, to adapt to a fluid political environment.
There are always trolls and mobys on both sides of the aisle.
There is no grand liberal conspiracy of distraction.
And a simple answer: if I care enough about something, NOTHING is off the table. Lying and spreading unfounded rumors pale in comparison to what I would be willing to do to protect my family from harm (for example, I have no problem with obliterating Iran if that is necessary to keep them from getting and using nukes against us). And the less I care about an outcome, the more I will play fair.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:17 amGoldstein and Breitbart are indulging in the same magical thinking that will doom the conservatives to rump status forever…that the media is distorting your memes, or that liberal commenters are distracting from them or sabotaging them….. but the truth is your memes are not competitive. And building more echo-chambers like Fox Nation or Big Hollywood is not going to magically render your memes competitive.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:24 amsorry.
This just dances around Patterico’s question. Where do you stand on lying and spreading unfounded rumors where politics and elections are concerned?
If you would resort to lying and spreading unfounded rumors in elections, why should anyone believe you when and if you tell the truth?
Steverino (69d941) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:30 amYou need to be more specific if you want a specific answer. do I support lying to defeat a candidate for dog catcher? no. would I support lying to keep Obama from capping salaries at AIG? no. would I support lying to defeat a candidate who wants to take tens of thousands of dollars out of my pocket or who wants to deny me the medical care I’m willing and able to pay for? sure.
Note that I used the word ‘support’ as I am not going to lie and cheat, I’ll leave that to others. For just as I’m not going to kill the cow or flip the switch at an execution, I’m willing to cheer on and reap the benefits of those willing – and eager – to do the dirty work… and all so you can keep believing me.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:43 amLimbaugh was just brilliant yesterday, and not in the British sense. His description of why collectivism is harmful and individualism and self-interest are good deserves to be pondered.
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. We are all different. We are all individuals. We are being told to sacrifice our individuality. We’re being told we must assemble in other groups of victims. Well, not all of us because some of us are the victimizers. The smallest minority on earth is the individual and thus those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. This administration claims to be a minority administration, first black president, historical nature. This administration is out to destroy the whole concept of individual rights under the guise of sacrifice, pay equalization, equalization of outcomes in other areas. But the smallest minority on earth is you, as an individual. You have individual rights, as granted by God, who created you, and our founding documents enshrine them: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Those rights don’t come from other men or governments or women. They come from our creator, God. Higher power, whatever, however you want to look at it. . .
When any of you decide to do away with pursuing what you want in your best self-interest, you are sacrificing who you are. You are giving up control of your essence, and you are saying, I would rather be a member of a group that is approved by people so that I don’t get criticized or so that I’m thought of as enlightened or so that I’m thought of as advanced. In the process, you are helping to destroy the very foundational building blocks of the greatest country on earth, the country in which you happen to be born and the country in which you happen to live. So giving up your individual identity, giving up who you are, sacrificing your passions and your desires and your own self-interests for the so-called common good, who gets to define the common good? I would define the common good as everybody acting as an individual, born as he or she is, pursuing self-interest. That’s the common good. That built cities; that built a great country; that built railroads and engines. It built airplanes. It built everything. People denying who they are did not.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:49 am“It is a surrender of all decisionmaking to a Centralized Group of Planners”
OK, sure, make a stand, but before you do I would suggest that you make sure just exactly who the “Centralized Group of Planners” are.
EdWood (c2268a) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:50 amPatterico seems to think that they exist on some “left-right” political plane with the usual cartoon characters of the lying thieving lefty-and-by-definition socialist being juxtaposed aganinst the noble honest righty-by-definition-capitalist.
I think the centralized planners that you want to launch your jeremiad against are outside that spectrum and exist as mega sized multinational corporations who control governments, lefty or righty, with donations, lobbying, and their “too big an employer, part of the economy to fail” sizes.
What is the real difference between a Centrally Planned government and a corporation like WalMart or AIG that is so huge, and commands so many aspects of the economy that we must all kowtow to whatever helps their bottom line? In essence they are planning the economy. Like any other dictator they can be good or bad. WalMart is so huge that their efforts to save money by saving on energy costs have real and large effects (some would argue positive effects), AIG is so huge that has been catered to by two governments that are supposedly political opposites but apparently are quite in agreement when it comes to arranging for the bad debts of that company and other monsters like it to be paid off at the expense of the little people.
Right v left, conservative v liberal, is an old game that is true in some of its aspects but is just buying into the sucker’s game of “divide and conquer” in others. I think this is one of those cases.
Worrying about Obama being a “Socialist” is a red herring, it’s taking your eye off the ball and turning it towards congressional elections in a couple of years down the road. That’s just about trying to shift all the goodies back to Republican cronies instead of Democrat cronies.
It isn’t going to make any difference to all us little people who lose their jobs(without the benefit of 750.000$ bonuses) when the economy tanks if Republicans, even good “Regan Republicans” (that, really, everybody longs for, even lefties) get back into power and give rich people even more tax cuts if they won’t reign in the size of corporations and the kind of excesses that caused the current financial crisis.
If you advocate lying, I’m not going to believe a word you say. It’s that simple.
Lying might work in the short run, but that doesn’t justify it.
Steverino (69d941) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:52 amIt’s the corporations, man. The corporations are working with the government, man.
…
Anybody wanna hit Taco Bell?
Stoned College Hippie (390112) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:57 amAh for the love of . . .did we say anything about lying or distorting the opponent’s record, no, it’s precisely because we knew his record so well, that there was no way we could assume he was ‘a good man’ . You cannot have let yourself and your family absorb the hate of Reverend Wright for twenty years, taken counsel from a terrorist, and a thousand other steps, and come to the right conclusion.
narciso (996c34) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:57 amDistortion and omission is the calling card of the L.A. Times, McClatchy, New York Times, AP
and the ‘reality based community’. Frum is exactly the sort that would have endorsed Baker,
Connally or god help us John Anderson to get us
out of the wilderness, because ‘detente’ and peaceful coexistence with the Soviets was the way of the future , Noonan’s still on that bus full ofprotesters at Fairleigh Dickinson, Parker, there’s no explanation for her. Rush was right, but we’re on ‘a Rush to failure’ a total SNAFUBAR, involving not only our currency, our liberties. It’s odd how the one who described our current predicament so well, was shunned ‘like
a cancer on the GOP’, What’s that line about prophets in their own land.
Do what you want but spare me the lofty idealism that lying is never justified. You might not lie to save your family from death… and if you are, I’m glad I’m not related to you. The fact is that pretty much everybody will lie, cheat and do whatever else they deem necessary to win battles they deem as ‘can’t afford to lose’. The only debate is in defining those battles, whether defeating Obama is such a battle or whether it falls into the category of ‘nice, but not necessary’… you know, like a game of pickup basketball.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:02 amI heard the speech on Levin yesterday, actually pulled over to the side of the road to give my full attention. It was inspiring, and what was particularly striking about it was it’s simplicity. That was the brilliance of Reagan in so many ways – there was no need to embellish, just the simple truths that appeal to the individual who values their right to individualism and understands the privilege of self-reliance.
Lying is a means to an end, rarely, if ever justified, and in the end always comes back to bite. I don’t agree that we should become as manipulative and deceitful as the opposition. Why become like the very thing we detest? Would that not make us the ultimate hypocrites? Why would we ever then be trusted? With that though, I think that the right can certainly battle more effectively and forcefully. During the campaign there were numerous instances where McCain should have forcefully called out Obama on issues of obfuscation and dishonesty. Instead, he politely ignored the opportunities instead intent on appearing a Mr. Nice Guy Bipartisan (trying to play both sides) which only made him appear weak and rudderless…
Dana (137151) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:14 amOh, please, get off your high horse. We’re talking politics here, not my family’s death. Argue the matter before you, not some extreme condition that you conjured in your head.
If you advocate lying in politics, I will never believe what you have to say about politics.
Steverino (69d941) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:20 amDana,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:27 amThank you for bringing your moral sensibility to bear on that whole disturbing idea of lying like your opponents, and exposing the flaws.
Steve asks: just how desparate are you to keep Obama from doing what he wants to do?
Steve, perhaps you should realize that there are those of us who would rather die standing than live on our knees.
Nothing that Reagan said in that speech, so many years ago, is any different today. Except that the socialist Democrats are craftier, more organized, and even more determined to impose soft socialism on us. The Democrats, in their unmitigated arrogance, have increased the numbers of their ranks in the Congressional Progressive Caucus started by the professed socialist, Bernie Sanders. Maxine Waters admits she is a socialist, and we now have a POTUS who has adhered to the Rules for Radicals his entire public life.
Some of us believe that the Founding Fathers had it right, not Marx, or Alinsky, or the POTUS so well trained in those philosphies. Some of us understand that the reason so many millions want to come to the U.S. is not because we will take care of them, but because our government is designed to allow them to take care of themselves.
There are hundreds of Tea Parties scheduled all across the nation on April 15th. The left has always counted on Americans being too stupid to realize what they do and too busy with their own lives to care. They are wrong.
WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT.
retire05 (52db14) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:28 amSteve is advocating the correct answer to a prisoner’s dilemma. It’s a good tactical decision if the game is limited to the one encounter, but if the game extends beyond the one hurdle, you’ve scuttled your own reputation in order to gain a temporary advantage. That damage is irreversible.
Conservatives aren’t fighting a series of lies that were invented in the last election cycle. The left has been patient and slowly moved through the cultural bodies, seizing control of education, the media, and the bureaucratic portions of government. You can’t defeat that slow creep by calling Obama a doody-head what cheats on his wife and probably murders hookers on the weekend. There has to be a sustained and forceful pushback to wrest the rhetorical ground from an embedded foe. That’s a war, not a battle, and allowing our side to sacrifice themselves in rhetorical kamikaze runs won’t help us achieve the important victory.
Hadlowe (390112) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:33 am#19 Steve Sturm is so correct as to be scary in my book. I particularly love ….
“I’m willing to cheer on and reap the benefits of those willing – and eager – to do the dirty work…”
Truth is power and don’t think our Founding Fathers or Lincoln or Reagan did not benefit from misdirection is achieving their ends.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:41 amBut reaganomics is not a one size fits all solution for the very different problems of a 21st century environment.
Poppycock. The particulars may change over time but not the underlying principles and philosophies. I think Reagan understood this was the starting point, this was the hurdle to overcome and we see it more clearly evidenced with our new administration’s approach and path they’ve begun to march us down,
Government is the problem.
Dana (137151) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:43 am#30, Hadlowe this presumes the Cop learns in the game he/she has been lied to or even cares to begin with.
Your analogy while interesting presume that a sufficient amount of “Squishy Middle” of American Public cares or has the brains to get there. Error 1.
Error 2. You forget that Steve writes that it is possible to convince the squishy middle of principles but that it takes time and repetition. So,, Steve, does not advocate forgetting principles but understanding their is a time and place when certain “ugly” tactics simply get you across the rising river.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:49 am“When my opponent stops lying about my policies, I’ll stop telling the truth about his.”
– or –
“Liberals have to lie about what they want to do – if they told the truth, nobody would vote for them.”
“The Speech” was a remarkable event that came too late in the election to help Goldwater, but was instrumental in launching the electoral career of RR. It was inspirational to watch.
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:52 am“if the game extends beyond the one hurdle, you’ve scuttled your own reputation in order to gain a temporary advantage”
au contraire, the advantage is only lost if (1) the public is somehow convinced that you have lied, (2) the public cares that you lied, (3) the public remembers you have lied, and (4) the public thus ignores what you say in the next battle. None of these are givens (unfortunately, more so for the Democrats than for the GOP), if it were, who would have listened to anything the MSM or the Democrats said? heck, who would have listened to anything said by any of the candidates running last fall?
And then the advantage is only lost to the individuals or groups who are deemed to have lied, to the extent new fresh volunteers can be found to carry on the fight, you can keep playing the lie and smear card.
I do agree that the right is wasting their effort on rhetorical kamikazes. Even worse, they’re trying to score points on issues that don’t matter to the people whose votes are needed (who cars if Obama cheated on his wife? or still smokes cigarettes? or hung around Bill Ayers? the answer: only a handful of the right fringe. oh yeah, those issues would have worked if only the MSM hadn’t covered up for Obama.)
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:55 amOur greatest president ever! We need leadership like that. Great Video Patterico. I’m so glad he joined our side.
His tax cuts back in the eighties is the only reason Barack Hussein Obama created a recession instead of a depression today.
Oiram (983921) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:55 amGovernment is the problem.
Only when someone believes government is negatively affecting themselves, their families and their livelihood… and in a concrete, not abstract, take two hours to explain it kind of way.
Someone who pays little in taxes isn’t going to care about taxing AIG executives or whether there is a large deficit, neither affects them (in their mind, which is the critical point to remember). likewise, who is going to care that Holder overrode OLC to push forward voting rights for DC? Or going to care if Obama forces out Rick Wagoner? On the other hand, people are going to forget all about ‘limited government’ if they think expanded government is going to help them. Scream all you want about earmarks, but show me one politician who lost because he brought too much money home.
The whole battle is to convince people that policies you advocate are going to either help them or be of no concern, while the other side tries to convince voters of the exact opposite… and polls showing the GOP as going no where are proof that the GOP hasn’t yet made any inroads of convincing the public that Obama is going to hurt them… and playing videos of Reagan ain’t going to turn the tide.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:03 amThe Stentorian has great information on how to wage a propaganda campaign.
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:08 am@ Jiminy. The cop is only a set piece in the prisoner’s dilemma. The main choice is whether betrayal of a comrade is helpful to your cause. The ramification that would logically follow would be that other comrades would look to you as a traitor in the future (this isn’t really part of the prisoner’s dilemma calculation, it was a fictitious extension in this one case used to make a point.)
A real world example would be the gleens. He(they) spiked his(their) own reputation and rhetorical cachet in order to win a stupid online argument.
You’re right that the dishonorable conduct needs to be discovered and people should be reminded of it when those who use dishonorable techniques try to engage the public. Dowdify, Gleens, Astroturf Axelrod, TurboTax Timmy. These are all fair and essential rhetorical smears to remind us of the history attached to these mouthpieces.
As to point #2, I’m not arguing that disreputable tactics can’t work. I just point out that any gain will be temporary and will ultimately leave you in a worse condition than where you started.
Hadlowe (390112) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:13 amThe key difficulty being the parenthetical at the end. The intermediary press corps has made it their job to fact-check every statement from a conservative source while whistling past the graveyard at any wrongdoing by progressive fellow-travelers. The wages of dishonorable rhetoric by would-be conservative smear merchants are public disrepute for the purveyor. The wages of dishonorable rhetoric by would-be progressive smear merchants are public disrepute for the target.
Hadlowe (390112) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:17 amNo, those are polls that show that lying, omission and distortion work, sadly. That application of Alinsky’s rules work very well But we don’t need to do that, the truth is disturbing enough. I want to know Steve, what policies are guaranteed to work, that will wean the people off Obama, before the dolar goes the way of the Reichmark. He lied about so many things, and the media abetted those lies.
narciso (996c34) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:21 amSince the media is clearly biased, is there any way our side can take over the media and turn it into propaganda machines in our favor? Why can’t people on our side buy the New York Times and conduct a wholesale replacement of the reporters and editors with the right people?
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:25 amSomeone above my paygrade once said that the most disturbing thing about government is not the illegalities that occurr, it is what happens that is legal that is the most destructive.
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:26 amNope, Steve is advocating “tit for tat.”
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:28 amBut you have no tit.
Because you are magical thinkers with non-competitive memes.
Foe example, Obama is a muslim is a falsehood, while GW lied about Situation Iraq is true.
Hey Kate, how’s it going? Writing lurid fanmail to Patterico now?
Hadlowe (390112) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:31 amWas Nishit banned from some other sites recently? No other reason for it to suddenly appear here.
Dmac (49b16c) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:33 amWhy can’t people on our side buy the New York Times and conduct a wholesale replacement of the reporters and editors with the right people?
Because the Sulzberger family owns the great majority of voting stock, and they aren’t selling.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:40 amSince it is a verifiable fact GWB had information from multiple extra-national intelligence agencies corroborating our own intelligence agency’s assertions of WMDs in Iraq, Kate is being wholly dishonest. Her false statements have been soundly trounced for several years. Using evidence, even.
Beyond that, a self-professed liberal female who was an E-4 in the US Army, serving as a military translator, wrote a book regarding her time in Iraq. But I doubt any liberal would ever deign to read that liberal’s book. It would shoot howitzer 155-sized holes in their
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:44 amliesarguments.Also, because the media is allowed to frame anything owned by a conservative as irredeemably tainted and biased, while Ted Turner, Pinch Sulzberger, etc. are politically neutral and fair.
Hadlowe (390112) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:46 amSince the media is clearly biased
myth.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:48 amthe media wants to sell.
it is the free market in action.
#44 Obama is a Muslim wheeler.
Oiram (983921) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:51 am“The media wants to sell”…….. yeah right it does!!
The media is only interested in selling liberalism.
Oiram (983921) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:52 amOh, wow. Mario said something honest?
Kate, since I haven’t seen you around here in the 3 months I’ve been here, I can only surmise you have not actually seen the total dismantling of the Dog Trainer here. I suggest you click on that in your sidebar before you try to claim the liberal nature of MSM to be a myth again. Your claim has already been disproven 27 ways to Sunday on this very blogsite.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:56 amJohn Hitchcock, I am not talking about WMDs.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:57 amThe global intell community all believed in WMDs in Iraq.
I am talking about misrepresenting the occupation in Iraq, and the blatent untruths told about “victory” and “progress” and “teh surge”.
Which seem to be unravelling even as we speak.
mariOmoby-alert!Somebody bought some new cami’s that he’s strutting about in.
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:57 amHey Kate, how’s it going? Writing lurid fanmail to Patterico now?
Comment by Hadlowe — 4/1/2009 @ 10:31 am
No.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:01 amI am correcting your ignorant misinterpretation of the prisoner’s dilemma, which has to do with cooperation and defection.
Steve is advocating tit for tat, which is quite different.
The most important line in the post is:
“We can’t allow this to happen. Somehow, we have to make a stand.”
So the obvious question is “How?”.
I live in rural California, and learned long ago it is pointless to write my Senators – I get back form letters thanking me for my support. Ha!
My Representative happens to be Republican, but is squishy – I just wrote him that I’m ashamed of a Congress that targets punitive legislation at private citizens who have committed no crime. He voted for it.
Tea Parties are well and good, but get no publicity. I’m going to the one in Bakersfield on the 15th. I’m rounding up others in my little desert valley to go, setting up car pools, etc.
We can’t wait for the mid-term elections to find ways to act. Both the executive and legislative branches are shredding the Constitution. By 2010 they can do irreparable damage to the country.
Rather than hypothetical discussions of ‘how low will we go’, we need to brainstorm practical suggestions of what citizens can do now. If my “representatives” won’t listen to me, what can I, as a citizen, do?
I think the danger is profound and immediate.
jodetoad (b147dc) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:04 aminability to evolve is the cause of extinction.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:06 amYou can claim that all you want, but that does not make it so.
wheeler’s cat/nishi/Wedge! ain’t gonna discuss things, folks. It is a griefer.
JD (6f1fb5) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:07 amJodetoad, vote with your feet. Find a new state in which to live.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:08 amForgot to say-
The idea above of purchasing one of the bankrupt news outfits has merit. I would contribute to a fund for that purpose.
I do believe the objective would have to be to provide real news, and if I were doing it, I’d offer commentary from both liberal and conservative perspectives. I think if people could look at both they would see the merit in conservative principles.
jodetoad (b147dc) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:15 amim not wedge whoever that is…w/e
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:28 am….but my sempai SDB once famously said that tit for tat is unbeatable.
So in the game theoretic sense that is what you should do if you want to “win” watevah game it is you are playing.
I would ask Patterico what the gamespace goal is tho….
Can I ask what is the goal, the payoff?
Patterico’s question is if the payoff is cost-viable, in the sense it means abandoning the Reagan ethos as he understands it.
Like, what profit him to gain the world if he loose his soul.
Why? You have Foxnews for your kind of news.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:31 amThe same ppl would subscribe to your new venue, and the same ppl would ignore it.
In order to get message penetration of new markets you need to change message, or at least package it more attractively to make it competitive.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:34 amI mean….the same demographic that thinks weepy televangelist Glen Beck is a newscaster and that Sarah Palin is the second coming would read your newly acquired newspaper, everyone else not so much.
Boy, the Times cross-word puzzle must have been a stumper today to allow the “cat” this much free time.
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:37 amKate, you have successfully offended me by calling Glenn Beck a televangelist. How dare you equate a political pundit with a Christian preacher. Your absolute hate of conservative ideology and your obvious hate of Christians has been clearly shown in your Freudian slip. You have shot your whole lode and have no gold left to redeem your intellectual or critical thinking reputation.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:38 amJohn Hitchcock……..as to why im here now when I wasn’t before, its spring break and im bored.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:41 amI blame time dilation and the reduced curvature of spacetime i guess.
Spring Break…
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:43 amSomeone forgot to renew their passport for that trip to Cancun.
That doesn’t mean Bush lied…just that Obama’s an incompetent CinC
Steverino (69d941) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:46 amLOL I don’t hate christians! I love christians!
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:46 amI’m writing a paper for my Cognitive Anthropology class on Magical Thinking and the Religious Right.
You guys are field lab gold for me.
😉
Nah, coudn’t afford it in this reccession…..I blame Bush.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:50 am😉
I am in no way advocating tit for tat, as that is nothing more than doing to someone what they have done to you for the sole purpose of revenge (calling someone dumb because they called you ugly) I am claiming that if the GOP wants to regain power they must be willing to use tactics that work and smart enough to stay away from issues (like expanding government) that resonate only among the party faithful.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:51 amSturm, expanding government is a liberal agenda, not a conservative one.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:53 am“…Cognitive Anthropology…”
Just what the world needs, another line of PsychoBabble!
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:55 amOh well, Kate will be able to understand those line-workers at GM which she’ll be tasked to motivate to more efficiently assemble the Green Cars of the World Under Obama(lini).
Oh, is cognitive anthropology like the new math?
How do you feel about the fact 2 + 2 = 7?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:57 amsteve, from my sempai to u.
Patterico says he is a saint, like St. Reagan.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:57 amI think you are a sinner.
#72: sorry, I wasn’t clear, I meant to say complaining about expanding government is a useless tack for conservatives to use in targeting mushy middle voters.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:10 pm“Sinners”….why Capital Punishment was created!
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:11 pmwheeler’s cat: how does the computer model account for different views as to what is cheating and what isn’t? Ask a Democrat whether they lied and cheated to win last fall and they’ll all answer no, that they are all saints. Or more to the point, ask the mushy middle if the Democrats lied and they’ll answer no. In fact, they’d be more likely to say Bush and the GOP lied more than did the Democrats.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:17 pmFacts are fair and lies are cheats.
But the synthetic language just allowed a player to designate a move to be fair or a cheat.
Tit for tat isn’t audience interpretation dependent….its context dependent….it is like a debate where you score debate points, or like warfare with measured response being fair and bombing civilians being a cheat.
Like Patterico says, you know when you cheat.
Well….they won didnt they?
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:36 pmFairness and Cheating are just relative.
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:40 pmThis is what post-modernism has brought us to.
Mock and scorn, folks. Mock and scorn. Otherwise, it is through the Looking Glass with this one …
JD (6f1fb5) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:47 pmLOL I don’t hate christians! I love christians!
I’m writing a paper for my Cognitive Anthropology class on Magical Thinking and the Religious Right.
You guys are field lab gold for me.
Heh. Utterly amusing. Cognitive Anthro?? Love it!
Dana (137151) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:53 pmTo be fair, he said “GOP”, not conservative. GOP faithful (party elite, anyway) consistently expanded government while in power. His point was probably more in line with your correction and, if so, his words were more correct than his point. Conservatives want smaller government, the GOP as a party doesn’t anymore.
I don’t agree with most of his other points though. It’s not worth sacrificing your integrity to win elections and counter-productive in the long run.
OT: Is anybody else wondering where all the astroturfing came from? Lots of new commenters (some of them pretending to be conservative but clearly aren’t), old (and discredited) commenters that have been absent for a long time suddenly returning, drive-by left-wing talking points, etc… very strange. Also, since Hax and EfP were removed, my spam has increased 10x or more… thank you to whichever of you facilitated that, I enjoy deleting spam.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:53 pmStashiu – Ditto. I often wonder where they are coming from when we get waves like this.
JD (6f1fb5) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:55 pmOk…Patterico as Alice.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 12:58 pm#84 and #83 Yeah I was wondering where these trash dribbling liberals came from myself.
Oiram (983921) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:01 pmHello, Mario.
JD (6f1fb5) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:02 pmWheeler needs to have his meds adjusted I guess 😉
Oiram (983921) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:03 pmOT: Is anybody else wondering where all the astroturfing came from?
Breitbart has an inkling.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:06 pmI enjoy talking/debating with liberals Oiram. I don’t like dishonest commenters, liberal or conservative. To me, Trig-truthers and birth-certificate-truthers are two sides of the same coin. One of those fake Chuck-E-Cheese coins used for video games.
This just seems very coordinated and on many different threads.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:10 pmI’d like to think that just speaking the truth, that refraining from dirty tricks in our political action, will restore a limited, constitutional government; but the reality looks grim. There are just too many envious, resentful people clamoring for a free lunch, entitlements have gone on for decades, and the civil institutions have become too thoroughly corrupted by the Gramsci-ite cadres. We conservatives may lose nearly all partisan contests regardless of how virtuously we enter them. I fear that we must wait for the social democracy to fall from its own weight before the majority of voters (notice I do not say “citizens”) embrace the conservative principles of self-reliance and republican governance. Of course, eventually socialism must fall, but a hypnotized people can stumble along for generations before they dare to admit that it is the cause of their miseries.
I tend to agree with Socrates that it is better to suffer evil than to commit it, but in today’s corrupt polity that maxim may very well entail witnessing our Athens come under the heel of an aureate tyrant of Macedon and his perverted gang.
Noesis Noeseos (9d08d3) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:14 pmThanks BroBrad,
That pretty much says it.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:14 pmPatterico: Oh, thank you. I think I’ll see him…
Cat: Of course, he’s mad, too.
Patterico: But I don’t want to go among mad people.
Cat: Oh, you can’t help that. Most everyone’s mad here.
[laughs maniacally; starts to disappear]
Cat: You may have noticed that I’m not all there myself.
“It [the Cheshire Cat] vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.”
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:31 pmNow a Moby Libertarian shows up.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:44 pmA very confused one.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:45 pmSource please. I think you pulled this from thin air.
And another one which ignore the facts.
You’re an April Fool’s joke, right? You can’t be serious (okay, you can, but that just means you’re deranged… I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here.)
This just keeps getting funnier. Good parody.
Because all the reports of Muslims engaging in terrorism are just fabrications by Republicans to try and get votes. I’m starting to lean towards the “Darnell is deranged” category.
You say this as if it was new. Many conservatives were saying this throughout the administration. We just didn’t need to demonize him because we disagreed with some of his positions. Only the fringes (on both sides) feel the need to do that. GWB and Reagan were both great Presidents. I hope President Obama turns out to be a great President, but I don’t think so because I believe his current policies are harmful and would have to change.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:53 pmAlso, since Hax and EfP were removed,
Hax was removed? For what?
Gerald A (adb85a) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:53 pm#94 Darnell…. Reagan Cut taxes for the wealthy so that they could create jobs and a strong middle class. Imagine what Obama’s recession would look like if it weren’t for that foundation.
Oiram (983921) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:56 pmmuddle-headed neo-conservative notion that big government can solve problems
Yes…that neo-conservative Daniel Patrick Moynihan was such a firm believer in the use of big government to solve problems. He was a huge fan of the “war on poverty.”
Oh, wait…he spoke out against the “war on poverty” saying it would create a permanent underclass? Damn.
If only there were GOP congressmembers who were as conservative as this Democratic Senator when it came to certain fiscal policy.
For those who use “neo-conservative” as a synonym for “conservatives I hate more than others” and thus wonder how a Democrat could be a neo-conservative…read this article from NRO. Then you can read Irving Kristol’s Neo-Conservatism: Autobiography of an Idea.
Christian (abaa8f) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:58 pmThe derogatory “neo-conservative” reference is one of the signs of a Moby, even if it’s pretending to be a Libertarian.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 2:04 pmCognitive Anthropology
Funniest line of the thread – so far.
Dmac (49b16c) — 4/1/2009 @ 3:22 pmWait until it starts in on the Theoconz and Neoneoconz.
JD (6f1fb5) — 4/1/2009 @ 3:24 pmThose who see honor as a political weakness are misguided. In my memory the times when conservatives have won and been most influential and effective were when they took a principled stand and spoke the truth to the American people. The left was just as nasty and dishonest then, yet the public chose the party of principle. When the Republicans lost influence it was because they abandoned their principles and joined the Democrats at the trough, leaving no reason to support them.
Maybe you must be an old fart to remember the despair that gripped the country in the 70s and how quickly Reagan restored our pride and confidence. He did not do so with lies and smears but by leading us on a higher road, above the stench. People liked the view.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/1/2009 @ 3:28 pmMachinist,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:00 pmI remember that time well. All the rage and slanders the left threw against Reagan slid off, hence the monicker as the “Teflon President” by his opponents. It represented their impotent frustration.
Yes Sir, and he never responded in kind. Remember how devastating his line “There you go again.” was?
It was the same in 1994. The Dems were frantic and completely desperate but the conservatives offered a better way and won both houses for the first time in eighty years.
I completely reject the idea that honesty and honor can’t win. It has when it has been our guiding principle. There is no way we can outsleaze the left and I do not want to. When that is our countries chosen path, that is when I go outlaw!
Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:08 pmDrama queens — all of you. Where were your tea parties when George Bush was racking up massive deficits? Do you people know that they wrote up plans to SUBORDINATE the first amendment?
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:16 pm#107 Once again, Teh assumes we were all on board with Bush’s spending…………..
Oiram (983921) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:21 pmDo you people know that they wrote up plans to SUBORDINATE the first amendment?
I distinctly recall how fearful and muzzled protesters were during the Bush Administration. No freedom of speech at all, even for the mildest criticism.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d7901) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:33 pmComment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., — 4/1/2009 @ 4:33 pm
It is truly amazing that the NYT or WaPo have never been able to discover the location(s) of the concentration camp(s) that all of the disappeared were taken to.
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:43 pmI guess good investigative journalism has just gone out-of-style.
Did they use government databases to trash people who dared ask questions? Did self proclaimed “truth squads” threaten to prosecute people they didn’t agree with? Did people with anti Bush bumper stickers get pulled over for hate speech? Did the Whitehouse send out cyber goon squads to silence radio hosts who dared talk of the Presidents ties to domestic terrorists?
Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:46 pmRepublicans sure make lame Nazis.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:49 pmWell how are we supposed to tell whose spending you’re against if you’re not throwing TEA PARTIES?
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 4/1/2009 @ 5:29 pmTEH NARRATIVE – just why is it that you are making up stuff again? Wasn’t happy with just getting caught once doing it, you had to repeat?
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/1/2009 @ 5:40 pmWhat is the title of this book?
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:27 pmTeh Narrative,
From the 1/16/04 Washington Times:
I bet you remember what happened in the 2006 mid-term elections, don’t you? Here’s a hint: The GOP base did not turn out.
Anon (4025f2) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:34 pmMachinist #104
Wheeler’s cat #14
These guys get it right.
I liked the quotes way above from R. Limbaugh, but he maybe forgets that pursuing one’s self interest is most often effective in a group. It wasn’t a bunch of single combat samurai types who won WW2 for us, and the Evil Big Govt. ceded zillions of acres to the railroads to make the great “individualist” dreams of the railroad corporations happen. Those things happened that way because it was in everyone’s self interest to act collectively. The problem with individualism and belonging to a group, to have them trust you, is that you have to subordinate some parts of your individuality to the group (or get most of the group into YOUR personal movie which is the path that Mr. Limbaugh has managed to walk). You have to get along to go along. Very often acting collectively is the best strategy to get what you want as an individual. Which brings us back to Patterico’s post.
Steve Sturm is pretty clear eyed about what it would take to win if we are all still playing tit for tat. He is also clear eyed about the fact that ALL the politicians and their media enablers distort, exaggerate, make mountains out of molehills, and lie. So Patterico says “let’s not lie like THEM” but what he needs to say is “lets STOP lying like them.” Just that initial bit of honesty will make more people pay attention. If that is the case then I agree with him. People are sick of same old culture war, negative ad crap, and even if they are ignorant and clinging to their guns and religion, they aren’t as stupid as some people imagine. They (mostly) know when they are being screwed and manipulated, they just don’t know what to do about it. An idealist with some good ideas may be very well be attractive, but for the shape the good ideas need to take see Wheeler Cat #14.
EdWood (e17254) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:51 pmEdWood, from a comment far above:
I get to choose whether I’ll buy what Walmart and AIG are selling. I don’t have a choice when it comes to the government’s “products.”
Anon (4025f2) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:02 pmOne Moby helping the others.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:04 pmAccording to the Stentorian, “The best propaganda often drives a wedge between the other side’s leaders and its rank-and-file members. The effectiveness of such propaganda depends on the enemy leaders’ conduct.”
there is dissatisfaction between the Democrats and their leadership. To quote from Topix.Com,
“Every life long Democrat I know is sick and tired of the constant disasterous actions by those who run as Democrats but care nothing for the Party’s values or founding principles. The fact that a Democrat has to be proudly unpatriotic to please the far left in California is a bitter pill.
I don’t know a single Democrat Parent, or Grandparent, who is satisfied with the anti law and order, anti public education, anti American version of our Party which only cares about Union support at the expense of everything and every one else.”
It would be foolish to ignore this.
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:05 pm#117,
Thank you for the nod but I must respectfully disagree with #14.
The problems we face today are the same ones we faced in the last century and largely were dragged into this century by the same people who caused and aggravated them then. Likewise, the principles that worked before will still work. Tax cuts worked in the sixties, they worked in the eighties, and they worked in the 21st century after 9/11. Reagan’s principles of limited government and empowered individuals worked when the founders embodied them into our new Constitution and still work when they get a chance. The problems mentioned such as Katrina and the financial markets were examples of liberal failures that validate Reagan’s principles rather than repudiating them.
I would attribute the support of graduates more to the intolerant brainwashing on today’s campuses rather than a validation of liberal principles.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:11 pmReagan is gone, but his spirit lives on
Sidestepping the purely political and those matters that involve the prototypical (or stereotypical) politician in 2009, information released about Reagan over the past few years, including personal correspondence of his and commentary quite clearly written and edited by him, has made me more impressed with the man.
By contrast, insider information revealed through the years (and certainly decades) about presidents like Kennedy and, naturally, Bill Clinton, has done just the opposite.
As for Barack Jeremiah-Wright-goddamn-America Obama? I’ll be quite astonished if personal glimpses into who he really is, when released several years into the future, don’t end up making him and his administration seem even scroungier, and more incompetent and pathetic, in a banana-republic sort of way.
Mark (411533) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:04 pmSo Darnell/Bernie/others was Hax? A “journalist” using multiple sockpuppets… after being banned. He just can’t quit you Patterico, you’re his heroin.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:29 pmYou Can’t Fight a Culture War If You Ain’t Got Any Culture
Horatio (55069c) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:03 pmChange the culture – change the society
Change society first, and that the political payoff — provided you do things right — comes later.
Horatio – You can lead a whore to culture but you can’t make him think.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:17 pm#123: Stash, I just don’t get it. Why post at a place when you have been banned—right or wrong? Just move on (to coin a phrase).
Except when it is just a game.
The weird part is that, so far as a I know, our host knows that person’s “true identity.” Why irritate him?
I remember Levi Juhl.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:27 pmEB,
Against all reason, he has to “win”. What’s funnier to me is that even his sockpuppets get schooled.
Hopefully his prospective employers will google his name. I’m sure Hax’s employers wouldn’t appreciate anyone claiming the title “journalist” using sockpuppets and committing libel. Perhaps that thought will keep Hax from trying again.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:43 pm#126 & 7 Eric & Stash~I suspect there is also an element of … codependence? perhaps? A desire to play the role of “fixer” because us louts obviously don’t understand how simple life would be if we just acquiesced to the fixer’s view of the way things should work…
Conservatives have it so much simpler though, because they usually don’t have a compulsion to take on the role of “General Manager of the Universe.”
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:01 pm“Against all reason, he has to “win”. What’s funnier to me is that even his sockpuppets get schooled.”
Hey, when you’ve got no life or friends like Hax, visiting a place you’re not wanted and beclowning yourself everyday is living large.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:03 pmI remember one troll really getting on my case for “butting into” everyone’s business—yet that same person was astroturfing and insulting people like crazy.
Sigh.
I just like the commentary here without the nonsense. And that doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with me. I just get tired of the trolling.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:05 pmEW1 – How many drunks does it take to screw in a light bulb?
One. They just put their hand on it and the world revolves around them.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:07 pmLove My Rifle More Than You
It took a long bit of searching to finally find the book. I thought she finished up as a spec but I guess she got promoted before she got out.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:27 pm#131 daleyrocks:
So funny and so true…but I see the same pathology in the Left.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:34 pmSo Darnell/Bernie/others was Hax? A “journalist” using multiple sockpuppets… after being banned. He just can’t quit you Patterico, you’re his heroin.
The MultiTroll’s feeble Moby of a Libertarian perspective was especially amusing to this Libertarian. Its familiar stink of dogmatic leftism couldn’t be disguised.
Question for Patterico: Can’t you just ban the IP addresses used by the MultiTroll and block it from posting at all? I know Haloscan has that capability.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/2/2009 @ 7:52 amPretty pathetic, any way you look at it.
Dmac (49b16c) — 4/2/2009 @ 12:03 pmI was fortunate enough to be listening to Mark when he played the Regan tapes, and I got a chill up my leg. Wow. Regan could talk. Unlike the TOTUS. I am not sure, but I think he was Governor of California then. Now we have the Schwartzenator, who wouldn’t be fit to lace up Regan’s shoes.
TimothyJ (8fb937) — 4/2/2009 @ 5:47 pmGood analysis. After all, it’s still 1964 and today’s issues are no different from those of 45 years ago. Conservatives need to hold onto this insight and they’ll go far.
jack (dac651) — 4/2/2009 @ 10:43 pmDoes anybody else smell socks?
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:02 pmI was thinking it was possible.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:08 pmBO don’t know diddly and sock puppets don’t know jack.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:24 pmSometimes the first comment says it all, and Steve Sturm spoke volumes.
For many Americans, and most young Americans, Reagan is as remote to them as Thomas Jefferson or John Adams. He does not hold the magical sway over a changing America like he does over the narrow demographic that constitutes Rush’s audience, the leadership of the GOP and most of the folks on Web sites like this one.
The Republican most Americans are familiar with is the one who was Obama’s predecessor — and national polls show how we feel about him.
The election of Obama itself says all that needs to be said about how far the country has moved away from the Reagan way.
It’s emotionally comforting to hold onto the past, but at a certain point, a party must move forward or die.
In short, you need a whole new set of leaders. You need new ideas. They can be conservative, but they must be serious and prove effective.
Wake up.
Myron (98529a) — 4/3/2009 @ 1:50 pm