Patterico's Pontifications

11/20/2010

Circular Firing Squad Watch

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:56 pm

If people think Jim DeMint has been counterproductive, the Correct Response is:

a) Say you disagree and explain why.
b) Sign a letter* telling the critics to shut up or face the consequences.

If Barbara Bush suggests that Sarah Palin should not run for President, the Correct Response is:

a) Say you disagree and explain why.
b) Tell her to shut up.

146 Responses to “Circular Firing Squad Watch”

  1. Specifically: “Conservatives will also work to defeat in Republican primaries those Republicans who retain consultants who criticize or try to undermine Senator DeMint.”

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. It’s always nice to see sophisticated thinking True Conservative Classical Liberals taking a page from the fiercely independent thinking and tolerant left and using group action to squelch speech they don’t like.

    I think I’ve seen this movie before.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  3. You forgot:

    c) Threaten bodily harm over the internet but claim you were kidding after the fact.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  4. Why wasn’t there this type of concern toward Crist, Specter, Murkowski, until it was left without a shadow of a doubt, how truly bad they were to the GOP brand, unprincipled, almost genetically wrong
    on policy

    narciso (82637e)

  5. narciso, because the CW said that they would vanquish all before them, until they didn’t.

    AD-RtR/OS! (27a664)

  6. narcisco – I don’t understand how your #4 relates to the post, which is more the equivalent of Bill Clinton getting excoriated for criticizing Pelosi or Reid.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  7. Why wasn’t there this type of concern toward Crist, Specter, Murkowski, until it was left without a shadow of a doubt, how truly bad they were to the GOP brand, unprincipled, almost genetically wrong
    on policy

    Don’t follow this.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  8. The term refers to friendly fire, as I understand it, what that is what those three, you can add Snowe Collins and Graham, on every alternate Thursday, Chambliss on that behemoth ‘food safety’ bill, which as with Obamacare, and Sutton/Dillinger, we will learn to loath after it is passed.

    narciso (82637e)

  9. The point is who has been right on policy, and who has been wrong, almost to a criminal extent, the latter are lauded by the Times, the Daily News,
    McClatchy, academia the New York/Hollywood axis, the
    former are painted as ignorant, at the most charitable and racist and malevolent at the other end

    narciso (82637e)

  10. This seems like a reasonable letter to me. I don’t have a lot of specific knowledge of how this came to this point, but based on ongoing news and comments that I weigh according to my impression of the credibility of the sources, I believe DeMint is a legitimate Conservative leader, trying to act in accordance with Conservative principles. If there are people trying to undercut him (as claimed by the signers, who constitute many heavyweights in the Conservative movement), then I think it appropriate to issue warnings of consequences. Especially when the consequences involve legitimate ways to resolve the issue, i.e. replace the offender with a better Conservative via the election process.

    Ken in Camarillo (645bed)

  11. “The point is who has been right on policy, and who has been wrong”

    narcisco – How does that relate to Barbara Bush and Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin supporters telling Barabara Bush to shut up?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  12. If there are people trying to undercut him (as claimed by the signers, who constitute many heavyweights in the Conservative movement), then I think it appropriate to issue warnings of consequences.

    The letter said undercut or criticize.

    Meaning criticism alone warrants retribution.

    Quote in first comment. In context (provided with the link) you could argue it’s a reference to unfair criticism only. In which case I would say, respond by correcting it, and next time make it clear that mere criticism is not something that warrants revenge.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  13. Say you disagree and explain why.

    Patterico, do you believe McConnell and Cornyn are likely to be persuaded by the approach you suggest? If not, is it so unreasonable to threaten to shift donations and volunteer support to DeMint’s organization until the GOP leadership change its ways?

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  14. The scapegoat becomes Demint, because the unstoppable wave, ended at the shore, Angle was denounced for losing, although we had indications of fraud, a week before the election. O’Donnell recovered most of the independents, who apparently
    did consider that 60% tax increase, is more important than some teen daliance with some goth
    types, Murkowski gamed the whole system, in ways not seen since the Czar appointed his viceroy in those parts, SEIU worked their magic up Rossi’s way for the third time around

    narciso (82637e)

  15. good for Barbara… she raised one of our mostest classy presidents ever and if she says she thinks Sarah Palin is unsuited for higher office I’m inclined to take heed

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  16. …one of our mostest classy presidents ever…

    Classy.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  17. “is it so unreasonable to threaten to shift donations and volunteer support to DeMint’s organization until the GOP leadership change its ways?”

    Scrutineer – As Glenn Reynolds pointed out, it is a very MoveOnish tactic.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  18. I don’t like the tone of the attacks on critics of DeMint and Babs Bush. But I dislike even more the latters’ arrogant and hectoring “we know best” tone.

    When the likes of Mona Charen say that “sensible Republicans” don’t want Palin to run for president, they’re showing all that’s wrong with the GOP establishment. The “sensible Republicans” like Bush Sr. opposed Reagan.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  19. Well I didn’t mind that instance so much Karla Faye
    could square away accounts in the next life, but pikachu forgot about the spendings in general, or NCLB, or the Medicare Part D, well you get the picture

    narciso (82637e)

  20. I thought Mr. Bush was very helpful in making some headway on the death row with the murderous fiends like Karla

    she died with way more dignity than those people she helped kill

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  21. Scrutineer – Great answer on the Tucker execution! LOL.

    Liberal heads explode.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  22. I don’t want that opportunistic laskan skeezer to run for president and I’m certainly not a sensible Republican Mr. Bradley

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  23. happyfeet,
    I’m not even a Republican, although I might be in the near future.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  24. daleyrocks, am I reading too much into Instanpundit’s updates when I infer he became less sure about the Moveon comparison after getting reader emails?

    I’m temperamentally on Patterico’s side on issues like this, but I don’t know that he’s right in this specific case.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  25. If not, is it so unreasonable to threaten to shift donations and volunteer support to DeMint’s organization until the GOP leadership change its ways?

    I think that’s a great idea. People shouldn’t feel obliged to give money to a GOP establishment that denigrates Palin (and by extension her supporters) with cultural snobbery.

    Speaking of television, sorry, this must be mentioned. Have you watched “Dancing With the Stars”? Cheesy would be several steps up for this one. Perhaps the former governor should not be blamed for the decisions of her adult daughter. Yet there in the audience we see Sarah and Todd Palin, mugging for the camera and cheering on their unwed-mother daughter as she bumps and grinds to the tune of “Mamma Told Me (Not to Come).” Her parents had advised her, the 20-year-old Bristol told an interviewer, that she had to stay “in character” if she expected to win. Being “in character” apparently meant descending to the vulgarity that “DWTS” peddles on a weekly basis. The momma grizzly was apparently unfazed by — or, equally disturbing, unaware of — the indignity. And this is supposed to be a conservative culture warrior?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  26. happyfeet, I’m pro-death penalty and am not criticizing Bush’s record in that department. It’s just comical to praise as “most classy guy evar” a governor who apparently makes up a story about a convict begging for her life, and then mocks her for it.

    daleyrocks, at the risk of sounding like an emo commenter, I have to say your answer depresses me. I love seeing liberal heads metaphorically asplode as much as the next guy, but this was indecent.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  27. That tack was old, when Carol Platt Liebau, one of those ‘sensible’ Republicans who was snookered by
    Obama, back at the HLS, was doing it a year and a half ago,

    narciso (82637e)

  28. maybe I set the classy bar lower than some others I think that’s entirely possible

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  29. “I have to say your answer depresses me.”

    Scrutineer – It was a realistic answer. What do you really think Karla would have said? I think it’s hilarious people are on a high horse over this.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  30. How about a GOP establishment that denigrates Palin based on substance, Bradley? Charen’s column had plenty of substantive points in it, aside from the paragraph about DWTS.

    The problem I’m seeing is that valid criticism of conservative candidates is now seen as acting like cocktail party RINOs.

    Joe Scarborough (e84e27)

  31. This is the thing, she rightly called out ‘death panels, Krauthammer who was equally wrong about the tea party, told ‘her to leave the room,’ then a weak or so, later NR did a cover, on what was really meant. She warned the blue dogs their headswere on ‘the chopping bloc’ they ignored her at their own risk, she told the President, along with a whole host of other figures, like Frum, that he had to fully commit to Afghanistan, this has become the default position, for now. She pleaded with the GZ Mosque organizers that they should ‘refudiate’ this particular site, well who’s laughing now. When the TransOcean blew, she held fast, while others ran for the tall grass. She actually had to pay a penalty for challenging
    the soundness of the stimulus, that was the 20th ethics complaint

    narciso (82637e)

  32. I’m really not surprised that the socially-conservative, fiscally-liberal wing of the GOP has it in for the Tea Party. After all, it is the Tea Party that’s calling them out, just like Ross Perot did with Papa Bush (bet you Barbara doesn’t think much of Ross, either).

    Yes, that gave us Clinton, but it also gave us a Republican Congress and a balanced budget a few years later. And the SC-FL wing squandered both. Is it any wonder there are folks who want to put a stake in it this time?

    Kevin M (298030)

  33. “daleyrocks, am I reading too much into Instanpundit’s updates when I infer he became less sure about the Moveon comparison after getting reader emails?”

    Scrutineer – Instapundit posted an update based on a reader email which indicated he had been unaware of a leak campaign directed at DeMint which might have gotten conservatives annoyed. Instapundit indicated he had kissed and made up with Dan Riehl who had earlier called him misleading and silly, but Instapundit did not modify his own position that I saw.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  34. The problem was it did give us Clinton, and the CRA revisions, and the moratorium on off shore drilling
    and the draconian cuts to the military and intelligence as AQ was getting up to speed, and ‘corporate welfare’ laden scams like Enron and Global Crossing, which gave us Sarbanes Oxley and McCain Feingold, and made subprime the premier
    investment product on Wall Street,, so there is no upside

    narciso (82637e)

  35. The “sensible Republicans” like Bush Sr. opposed Reagan.

    Sure but she’s no Reagan. Charen points out one reason why and there’s other more important ones as well.

    Gerald A (a8f004)

  36. Don’t care for Palin. Matt Labash’s review of her reality show in today’s Weekly Standard puts a capstone on that potential debacle.

    Yet Barbara Bush had best consider that the betrayal by her husband and son of conservative principles has now led to 8 years of Bill Clinton and at least 4 years of Barack Obama. What any Bush has to say about Sarah Palin good or bad (or ANYTHING)might give good reason to consider that this Palin lady might have more backbone than anyone named Bush.

    Bush Jr. said he was upset his brother Jeb will not be a candidate. May be he and dad had best take a long look in the mirror.No New Taxes, PC “Islam is Peace”, Rules of Engagement, Nation Building, Comprehensive Shamnesty, No CHild Left Behind, TARP, Prescription Drug Benefit and huge deficit sapending all come to mind.

    Bugg (996c34)

  37. Patterico – I acknowledge your point re criticism vs unfair criticism with respect to DeMint. I just didn’t give that poor choice of words the same weight you did.

    re: Barbara Bush: I think it was a poor comment showing lack of class or perceptive political insight. She was lazily and carelessly reinforcing the leftist meme about Palin, which they use to try to marginalize her before the contest even begins. If you’re going to be “anyone” in a movement (Republican, not necessarily Conservative), don’t be conceding points before the opponents even pressure you.

    Palin says a lot of things that have me thinking she speaks pretty well for me. I’m monitoring her to see if she will look good enough to support in 2012. This early sniping reminds me of what people were trying to do to Reagan leading up to 1980.

    Maybe she won’t pan out, but whatever her role, I think she will help the Conservative side all the way through to the election of 2012. Therefore I take offense at gratuitous sniping.

    Ken in Camarillo (645bed)

  38. Jim DeMint famously said that he’d rather have a Senate with 30 True Conservatives than 60 GOPers with no principles.

    We are not to criticize DeMint, so I will assume that he did not mean to present that false dichotomy literally. However, even taken figuratively, it is clearly a position that is willing to lose certain elections. Indeed, Riehl (one of the letter’s signatories) wrote today that he “was always prepared to lose DE to dump Castle.” IIRC, that was the position Erickson (another of the signatories) took also.

    While I would not blame DeMint for losing the Senate this year, I do think it is fair to suggest that as we moved from 2009 through the 2010 primaries, the GOP in some states chose ideology over electability, consistent with DeMint’s preference. Thus, it strikes me as odd that the signatories to this letter got their knickers in a twist over comments suggesting that their approach loses elections. By their own reckoning, that’s supposed to be a feature of their strategy, not a bug. They need to get their Col. Jessup on — damn right they ordered the Code Red! The fact that they are not owning their argument and trying to stifle any debate about it speaks volumes.

    Karl (83846d)

  39. daleyrocks, the point of the email was that the alleged anti-DeMint leakers, and not his defenders, deserved the MoveOn-ish label. I interpreted Instapundit’s comment “I did not know that” to mean something like, “maybe this isn’t as clear cut as I thought.” Do you think that’s a bad interpretation? I’m not trying to lawyer you into agreeing with me. That’s honestly how I read him.

    Anyway, isn’t it hyperbolic to compare the “leave DeMint alone!” campaign to the people who gave us “General Betrayus”?

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  40. Me. Karl that was an awesomely well-expressed comment is what that was

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  41. Kevin M – “After all, it is the Tea Party that’s calling them out, just like Ross Perot did with Papa Bush (bet you Barbara doesn’t think much of Ross, either).”

    Please don’t draw equivalence between the Tea Party and Perot, they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Perot was a political saboteur whose only goal was to defeat Bush. The only thing Perot left unsaid was “there’s no way I would ever serve as President.”

    I will grant that some people who are similar to today’s Tea Partiers were fooled into taking Perot seriously.

    My Mom is one of those who was fooled. We had animated arguments about it, and I told her that Perot was a con man who would withdraw as soon as he thought Clinton had the election. The next day she sheepishly showed me the headline that Perot had withdrawn. It’s not often that you get to make a somewhat extreme prediction that is satisfied the next day.

    The surprising thing was that when I said this proved that he was a con man, and that he would get back in to the election if it became close again, she didn’t contest the concept that Perot would re-enter. However, she did stick to her argument that he wasn’t a con man.

    Ken in Camarillo (645bed)

  42. FEETS!

    Karl (83846d)

  43. oh. oops that was supposed to say *Mr.*

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  44. “daleyrocks, the point of the email was that the alleged anti-DeMint leakers, and not his defenders, deserved the MoveOn-ish label.”

    Scrutineer – My reading of the reader email was that Glenn did not know about the leak campaign. If he wished to agree with the reattribution of the MoveOn label or agreement with the reader, he should have said so. He didn’t.

    “Anyway, isn’t it hyperbolic to compare the “leave DeMint alone!” campaign to the people who gave us “General Betrayus”?”

    Isn’t it a little arrogant to presume to speak for all conservatives and to presume to determine what fair or unfair criticism is without defining your terms? I think the comparison Glenn is making is to the constant threats MoveOn makes of primarying politicians or withholding contributions from those who do not toe the line. It is a valid comparison. Attempts to squelch speech are attempts to squelch speech.

    This is not rocket science.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  45. Actually in many states, Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky, and Alaska, let’s leave one out for the moment, the machinery chose electability, even when that bird had flown the coup, one of the architects of that strategem was reelected to his post. In that
    other race, it was assumed they didn’t even bother with a primary. There were some admittedly crazy choices, Paladino!!, that fellow with bicycle aversion in Colorado, but they were the exception

    narciso (82637e)

  46. narciso,

    Probably should have been clearer. I meant that GOP primary voters in some states chose ideology over electability. You are correct that the state parties were a different animal altogether.

    Karl (83846d)

  47. As for the folks telling a woman in her 80s, the wife of a decorated military hero, to shut up because they doesn’t support their candidate of choice — I’m sure their mothers are incredibly proud.

    http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/308486.php

    Rhymes With Right (9016cf)

  48. Forget it if Palin is the nominee. The party then belongs to the dumbfuk creationist Christ-ees. If thats where you want your Republican party going … run Sarah RUN!! Right now, I don’t see any possible GOP nominee that is even halfway intelligent, save for Romney, despite his Mormon cult affliction. There seems to be very little intellectual leadership in the GOP. Real big on Jesus and science denial, not so big on smarts. Sorry.

    ajb (cd1a90)

  49. “Therefore I take offense at gratuitous sniping.”

    Ken in Camarillo – Would you tell her to shut up?

    I agree that Palin will help the conservative side whatever she chooses to do. I don’t want another freaking two year campaign.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  50. ajb – We understand. Just let the commies and socialists continue circling the drain. Tell us when to flush, mkay.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  51. You’re right, to hell with social security, the VA, heathcare for vets and the miitary, and all those other socialist programs. We’re better than that.

    ajb (cd1a90)

  52. As for the subject at hand, I’m sure she’s kind of outwardly amused, at all the hullabaloo, she does
    things according to her values, the others consult
    a poll, I think she’ll run because the others are playing games, with the nature of this country

    W didn’t on more than a few big things, andI admire him for that. Some of these right media stars, turned their back on him, at a tough time, that’s called ‘a circular firing squad.’

    narciso (82637e)

  53. is it so unreasonable to threaten to shift donations and volunteer support to DeMint’s organization until the GOP leadership change its ways?”

    Where was the criticism of Hugh Hewitt, and others, who advocated ceasing contributions to the RNC/RSCC/RCCC and sending the money directly to specific candidates chosen by the donors?

    AD-RtR/OS! (27a664)

  54. Isn’t it a little arrogant to presume to speak for all conservatives…

    It’s a lot arrogant and a bit ridiculous.

    …the constant threats MoveOn makes of primarying politicians or withholding contributions from those who do not toe the line.

    Would it ever be ok to primary an incumbent Republican or withhold contributions from him because you strongly disagree with what he says?

    MoveOn does lots of things. Some are merely annoying, while others are despicable. I wouldn’t compare a group to MoveOn just because there’s some overlap between what they do. It’s like calling tobacco prohibitionists “nazis” because Hitler instituted an anti-smoking campaign.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  55. You’re right, to hell with social security, the VA, heathcare for vets and the miitary, and all those other socialist programs. We’re better than that.

    You know what I like about lefties such as ajb?

    First, they type about as well as I and, second, their only response is always assuming that every one on the right wants to stop government programs. So it, and they, always trot out the same old tired meme. Rethuglicans want to kill old people and veterans.

    They never stop to think that the only solution is the government solution.

    So, let me as a conservative deconstruct the whole stupid argument.

    First, we owe our veterans a lot. They volunteered or were conscripted to protect our country and our people should be willing to assure that the the few who did take on this obligation should be afforded the best that we can offer.

    Unfortunately, the obligation of the nation, through the government is failing them. That is our fault for not holding our representatives responsible for the job assured by their election.

    Second, the government, at a point in time, also took the responsibility to assure old people a secure life before their death.

    I won’t argue with you about whether that was the correct thing for a government to do, but the government does not do it very well.

    So, I guess my question to ajb is not what is right from a political sense. My question is when the government fails its obligation — obviously voted on by the will of the people — to assure the best care for veterans and the old, what is the solution?

    If you say the solution is more government, then you are just trying to sell a ’78 Oldsmobile. What worked then doesn’t work now.

    I would like to hear your ideas because I’m as bankrupt on the answer as you.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is you don’t like Palin and I’ll give you that. She’s not exactly my choice.

    However I do know that every elected member of Congress up until the 112th has not done a whole lot to make things better.

    So, forgive me if I find your arguments a bit hollow.

    Ag80 (e828a4)

  56. Ag80, ajb is just another big gov’t type, typically found in Austin and environs.

    AD-RtR/OS! (27a664)

  57. Joe Scarborough,
    Nothing wrong with criticizing Palin on substance. But Charen and the other Establishment types oppose the very concept of Palin running, which she condescendingly says all “sensible Republicans” also oppose.

    At this point I prefer Daniels to Palin, for the reasons of experience that Charen mentions. But I’m not going to get the vapors if Palin runs. That’s just giving the people a chance to choose. Of course that upsets the Establishment types no end. They’d rather make their own handpicked choices rather than let the frightening unwashed masses decide.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  58. Yes, it’s interesting how the Establishment is trying to walk back from the traditional GOP position of the last-standing candidate being the future front runner;
    in this case Mitt Romney, who was the last to drop out in ’06, is tarred by RomneyCare, has the economic chops to deal with the economies problems in a coherent manner,
    but just doesn’t set the grass-roots on fire the way Caribou Barbie does (and they just hate that).

    AD-RtR/OS! (27a664)

  59. valid criticism of conservative candidates is now seen as acting like cocktail party RINOs.

    Comment by Joe Scarborough — 11/20/2010 @ 6:55 pm

    Actually it’s the parts of the article that are filled with gratuitous sneering that make it acting like a Cocktail Party Elitist. (I’ve given up the term RINO bc one’s relative snobbery is unrelated to one’s social and economic policy preferences.) Feel free to quote an article free of such sniping, if you can find one.

    alwaysfiredup (23de9f)

  60. “Would it ever be ok to primary an incumbent Republican or withhold contributions from him because you strongly disagree with what he says?”

    Scrutineer – Absolutely. I’m just one of the great unwashed out here in flyover country. I’m not fond of being told what to do or what to think. I’m not fond of speech police either. I don’t care whether it’s coming from the left or the right, Cocktail Party Republicans or self-annointed True Conservatives, it’s offensive. If peoples’ ideas can’t stand on their own, there’s a problem with the ideas.

    “I wouldn’t compare a group to MoveOn just because there’s some overlap between what they do.”

    Good thing you didn’t make the comparison, Reynolds did.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  61. Bradley – How do you define an “Establishment type” other than through the use of the term as a pejorative?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  62. Moveon is just a wretched sphere of toxic idiocy, have they ever been right about anything, that the comparison just rankles. They are the continuation
    of the strain of radicalism that swept through the Democrats and most of the nation’s key institutions in the 70s. In the late 90s, we underestimated them, at our peril, even when they foisted Howard Dean on an unsuspecting nation, we dodged a bullet
    with Kerry, but they just doubled down on the mendaciousness and between the SOS project, the Journolist, Van Jones CAP elements they won the day, and we’ve been fighting a rear guard ever since

    narciso (82637e)

  63. Bradley – How do you define an “Establishment type” other than through the use of the term as a pejorative?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 11/20/2010 @ 9:58 pm

    Try “Rockefeller Republican” if you prefer, although it’s a bit of an anachronism. I like the “Cocktail Party” v. “Tea Party” dichotomy myself, but it is a bit pejorative.

    alwaysfiredup (23de9f)

  64. ajb says:
    I don’t see any possible GOP nominee that is even halfway intelligent, save for Romney, despite his Mormon cult affliction. There seems to be very little intellectual leadership in the GOP. Real big on Jesus and science denial, not so big on smarts. Sorry.

    Please! I am so sick of this argument about “intelligence” for the following reasons:

    1) The measure of intelligence, absent of any measure, is subjective. At least Clinton and Carter had the credentials. Kerry, Gore and Obama have shown no MEASURABLE evidence of intelligence. Show me a GPA, especially in the hard sciences, or a SAT etc. and I MIGHT believe you.

    2) Many judge intelligence based on what the press says. What makes them the arbiter of which politicians are smart and which are not. As a whole “journalists” are perhaps the most UNINTELLIGENT profession in the world. Hell, before the second half of the 20th century reporters were blue collar workers, wannabe writers waiting to be published. If you’ve ever read an article about something or someone you really know about, it is amazing the errors in interpretation of fact and outright fabrication that occurs in the printed press. There is no objective review of what they publish and thus they think they can understand complex subjects by 30 minute interview with “experts”(I use experts in quotes because reporters haven’t a clue of who is an expert and who is a hac(

    2) High intelligence does not equate to great leadership or vision. Clinton was absolutely more intelligent than Reagan, but who was the better president? Technically, I am a genius, but I know buddies from college and my brothers-in-law that are far better leaders and successful people than me. I’m a great number 2 or 3, but my personality should preclude me from ever being a number 1

    JFH (6579fb)

  65. And what was this high-minded set of arguments that Barbara Bush made to lay out her position when she “suggest[ed] that Sarah Palin should not run for President”, wherein those who differ should “Say you disagree and explain why.”?

    “I sat next to her once. Thought she was beautiful,” Barbara Bush said. “And she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.”

    I’d say that “shutup” is just as nuanced an argument as saying that while a female candidate may be beautiful, she should just stay out of national politics.

    Anon Y. Mous (ca1f55)

  66. S: “Would it ever be ok to primary an incumbent Republican or withhold contributions from him because you strongly disagree with what he says?”

    daleyrocks: “Absolutely. I’m just one of the great unwashed out here in flyover country. I’m not fond of being told what to do or what to think. I’m not fond of speech police either.”

    It would be okay for you to do it, but if they (Riehl & co.) do it they become the “speech police”?

    Good thing you didn’t make the comparison, Reynolds did.

    What’s with the snark? First the “rocket science” crack and now this. I’m not your enemy.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  67. “Try “Rockefeller Republican” if you prefer, although it’s a bit of an anachronism. I like the “Cocktail Party” v. “Tea Party” dichotomy myself, but it is a bit pejorative.”

    alwaysfiredup – Thanks, although Rockefeller helps, I’m still not sure we have a definition. A lot of terms get thrown around that mean different things to different people. It would be nice to have some commonly accepted understanding of them.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  68. I’ll take the Mark Steyn viewpoint: Bar Bush should keep talking so we can understand where she’s coming while mocking the silliness of her statements at the same time.

    In fact, I need to travel over to SteynOnline and see what Mark has to say. Hope he had a good time subbing for El Rushbo.

    John P. Squibob (882a08)

  69. “It would be okay for you to do it, but if they (Riehl & co.) do it they become the “speech police”?”

    Scrutineer – The DeMint fatwa was all about controlling speech. Primarying somebody or withholding contributions were the consequences.

    “What’s with the snark?”

    I thought that’s what you did by introducing General Betrayus when to me it was clear to me what Reynolds was doing was comparing tactics, not the entire organization. My bad if I misunderstood.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  70. “It would be okay for you to do it, but if they (Riehl & co.) do it they become the “speech police”?”

    Writing a post telling Barbara Bush to shut up is acting like speech police in my book.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  71. The Dims(hello you sockpuppets), GOP loyalists(AKA pragmatists) and assorted libertarians are hoping to bum rush the TEAs, Palin specifically, and lock them out of the National convention barter.

    So far, apart from the slutty flight attendant, only Pence figures to gain any of the base’s votes. No ‘kingmaker’ would leave the remaining former governors to elbow their way to the front in a level contest.

    In the bargain the platform can remain uncluttered by graffiti on abortion, gay marriage, education, yada, yada.

    If the bets pays off, Ron Paul runs up their keister and Hill walks, winning by a furlong.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  72. daleyrocks, no problem. I don’t think I understand the distinction you’re making between what’s appropriate behavior for us as individual voters/contributors versus what the True Conservatives are threatening to do, but I should probably think it through some more.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  73. Oh, on “the bet pays off”, I suppose I forgot O’Leper-he gets put down. Busted fetlocks.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  74. Writing a post telling Barbara Bush to shut up is acting like speech police in my book.

    Yeah, I agree. I also agree with Anon Y. Mous’s comment about the ‘nuance’ of Mrs. Bush’s remarks.

    Scrutineer (b496e6)

  75. (forgive me, I had posted under the name Joe Scarborough, a holdover from the sock puppet post)

    Feel free to quote an article free of such sniping, if you can find one.

    How about the fact that Palin can’t seem to let go of any criticism in the press? How about the fact that he Twitter tweets make her look, well, stupid? How about the fact that the general public sees her as having bailed on her term as governor to go make money with her books and speaking engagements? (Yes, I know there were good reasons for her resigning her office, but the public perception is what matters.) How about the fact that she comes off as lacking knowledge of world affairs? (Again, it’s public perception here that matters, and she’s done nothing to change that image.)

    Yeah, the mainstream media is unfair to conservatives. It always has been. But somehow, Reagan managed to rise above that. Palin, not so much.

    I’ve read Palin’s book Going Rogue. I’ve also read the book of Reagan’s letters (the title escapes me at this moment). She’s just not in the same league as Reagan, and pretending she is while dismissing all criticism of her as elitist won’t help conservative causes.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  76. Anyone want to bet how high gulrud was when he wrote #71?

    Icy Texan (d01b6a)

  77. AG80: Great response in #55. Too bad you won’t get as thoughtful an answer.

    Why does everything seem to go to the ‘digital’ reducto ad absurdium or whatever the heck it is these days. Happens on both sides of most debates, sadly. And those wanting to search for better paths get lost between the battlefronts.

    rtrski (033232)

  78. Scrutineer @72 – I was not attempting to make the distinct you note. Sorry if there was confusion. The distinction I would note since you asked is that the True Conservatives are claiming to speak for others when they are telling you to shut up, whereas if I said it I would only be speaking for myself. As an individual, my threats to withhold contributions or primary somebody don’t carry much weight, but coming from True Conservatives, they presumably do.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  79. An interesting comparison, that book came out a decade, after Reagan had retired from public life, after the media had denegrated him, as a forgetful
    old man, who had ‘unexpectedly’ended the cold war, and restored a nation, from the solipsisstic dispair of Carter

    narciso (82637e)

  80. An interesting comparison, that book came out a decade, after Reagan had retired from public life,

    Oh, good grief! I was trying to compare their intellectual depth. The timing of the books’ releases doesn’t matter.

    Seriously, Palin’s got a lot of weaknesses, and it doesn’t help when her supporters appear blindly dismissive of valid criticism.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  81. daleyrocks,
    Bradley – How do you define an “Establishment type” other than through the use of the term as a pejorative?

    They’re the people who typically have been in charge of the GOP apparatus, the self-appointed thought leaders, who look on the Tea Party types as a worry. The Cocktail Party crowd that sneers at the unwashed rabble. David Frum and Lisa Murkowski are good examples.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  82. As a whole “journalists” are perhaps the most UNINTELLIGENT profession in the world.

    Say “unintellectual” and I’ll agree with you. MSM journalists are not unintelligent for the most part. However, they are forced by their editors* to dumb things down, who think that the lowest common denominator is the way to get readers. Hence, they write for the less educated people who are not interested in newspapers, exasperating the more educated/curious types.
    *(With a few honorable exceptions).

    Hell, before the second half of the 20th century reporters were blue collar workers, wannabe writers waiting to be published. If you’ve ever read an article about something or someone you really know about, it is amazing the errors in interpretation of fact and outright fabrication that occurs in the printed press.

    True, sad to say. Journalists are the least informed people in the room, on any subject except journalism. That should teach them some humility, but it doesn’t. Just look at the biased and plainly inaccurate information most journalists provide on global warming.
    For example, in a 2008 article on black carbon’s temperature-raising effects, a Los Angeles Times article described this localized agent of warming along with greenhouse gases as a global warming agent. And this is far from the only LAT misrepresentation of global warming/climate change/climate instability/please fund my grant.

    There is no objective review of what they publish and thus they think they can understand complex subjects by 30 minute interview with “experts”(I use experts in quotes because reporters haven’t a clue of who is an expert and who is a hac(

    That’s the same problem that everyone who is not an expert faces. However, assuming one has reached an actual expert, good reporters know the interview trick of paraphrasing the expert’s statements in their own words, repeating it several times, to see the expert’s reaction. Iterate until the expert is satisfied you understand.

    The real problem is the lack of an informed review. Editors typically know even less about the subject the reporter is writing about than the reporter. They will catch instances of ambiguity, poor writing, where the story doesn’t back up the lede, etc. But rare is the editor who actually is better-read on the subject than the reporter, who at least is usually allowed to specialize.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  83. Bradley – Thanks for the answer. Does your definition include candidates supported by such establishment types?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  84. daleyrocks,
    Does your definition include candidates supported by such establishment types?

    Not necessarily. It depends on whether the candidates also display those characteristics I’ve described.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  85. Ken in Camarillo

    As people, I don’t equate Perot with Palin. But as far as message — why Perot was running and why Perot got 19% of the vote — it was pretty similar: the budget needs to be balanced and some sanity needs to return. It was a slap at GHWB, who had massively expanded social spending and blown out the budget. Just like his son did. You really don’t think the Tea Party is only about Obama, do you?

    Kevin M (298030)

  86. #

    It’s always nice to see sophisticated thinking True Conservative Classical Liberals taking a page from the fiercely independent thinking and tolerant left and using group action to squelch speech they don’t like.

    I think I’ve seen this movie before.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 11/20/2010 @ 4:59 pm

    So true.

    Terrye (7d99e4)

  87. A comparison of books:
    The compendium of Reagan’s letters/speeches v. Palin’s Going Rogue.

    Let’s not forget that the contents of the letters and speeches by Reagan were his thoughts during/after a quarter-century or more in prime-time politics;
    Sarah Palin’s book is the work of someone who is a relative newbee on the political scene,
    and will be the foundation upon which she will build a national/international career if she so chooses.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1f4eec)

  88. #

    And what was this high-minded set of arguments that Barbara Bush made to lay out her position when she “suggest[ed] that Sarah Palin should not run for President”, wherein those who differ should “Say you disagree and explain why.”?

    “I sat next to her once. Thought she was beautiful,” Barbara Bush said. “And she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.”

    I’d say that “shutup” is just as nuanced an argument as saying that while a female candidate may be beautiful, she should just stay out of national politics.

    Comment by Anon Y. Mous — 11/20/2010 @ 10:24 pm

    I think it is just absurd that a woman like Barbara Bush can not make a simple statement without a bunch of people feeling the need to tell her to shut up. The lady has a right to her opinion.

    Terrye (eec529)

  89. Yes, but she should temper that opinion with the knowledge that her husband, and her oldest son, have alienated a vast swath of the American public, many of whom were supporters of Pere & Fils, and are in no mood to be lectured to by another member of the Bush clan.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1f4eec)

  90. “are in no mood to be lectured to by another member of the Bush clan.”

    AD – I did not see the show containing the interview. Did you?

    The only reason it came to my attention was due to True Conservative bloggers being upset at a former First Lady expressing her opinion. I don’t feel lectured yo at all.

    Writing a blog post telling an 85 year-old woman to shut up is pure bullsh*t.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  91. Barbara Bush calls em like she sees em

    she’s ok in my book

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  92. The peasants don’t want to fight the King’s wars on the King’s terms and are telling him so. The peasants would just as soon let the invaders run the asylum if their terms are not met.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  93. If the lady has a right to her opinion then don’t others have a right to tell her to shut up? Circular firing squad indeed.

    … but I already told the NRC not to call me till they weed out the RINOs. RINO’s delivered Obamacare out of committee — what more to say.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  94. …. but (new thought) …..

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  95. Heaven has sent the speech purity police back to the blog!!!!!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  96. I believe his early bio, was called ‘Where’s the Rest of Me’ from that line in Kings Row, so apples
    and apples please. Consider that one of the reporters who misunderstood Reagan’s arms control strategy, Strobe Talbott, was promoted to the top ranks of the Clinton Administration, where some say ‘Russia was lost on his watch’ Joe Biden, who the people of that certain state, returned to office 6 times, was legendarily wrong about the nuclear freeze. Obama’s sentiments at the time, conveyed in his 1983 piece for the SunDial, was
    abyssmal in it’s understanding of the world. And 27 years later he hasn’t learned anything new

    I disagree with Riehl’s choice of language, but not the sentiment behind it, which is to look askance at the judgement.

    narciso (82637e)

  97. If the lady has a right to her opinion then don’t others have a right to tell her to shut up?

    Did anyone say they didn’t?

    By criticizing what I said, were you thereby saying I didn’t have the right to say what I said?

    No?

    Why is my criticism different from yours?

    Do you understand the difference between having a right and exercising it responsibly? Criticism of the failure to do the latter is not a deprivation of the former.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  98. “Do you understand the difference between having a right and exercising it responsibly?”

    Patterico – I think the answer to that has been clear for some time.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  99. I was at lunch in Montrose I was at the Rice Epicurium and getting something on the very bottom shelf I noticed a pair of dress shoes right in front of me, and as I was clutching my bag of tapicoa or something I heard a lady say “agent, leave that man alone” – yeah the old lady still went to the grocery store…

    I’m sticking with the woman who married one and raised two great politicians

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  100. #98 Oh dear god. Yes counselor, it is your place to determine whether they are exercising it responsibly. Patterico Uber Alles!!!

    #96 Purity is bad when it expunges Castle (and Supporters) because Castle would win! Purity, however, is good when O’Donnell gets bashed by for resume lies. Makes sense to me…… when you consider yourself the pure one then is OK but when you are the object thereof you are bad.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  101. Frank Rich, which proves that line about broken clocks, indicates that this tack the establishment
    has taken against the upstart faction, is full of fail, or words to that effect

    narciso (82637e)

  102. #100 This is like crediting the Princess for raising the successors to the King.

    Babs, as much as I like her, married into a powerful family. The fact her sons are important men has just a lillllllllll bit to do with Grandpappy Bush from CT.

    I have a hard time thinking that Jeb or George would be where they are without a lil help.

    Sarah and Bill and even Obama are self made … and that is something neither Bush can say.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  103. I would say, only one really qualifies for that title, the other relied on existing power networks,
    from the Fulbright camp, from the community organizers cadres

    narciso (82637e)

  104. Barbara Bush is a lovely woman. I hope she is enjoying her golden retirement years and visiting with her great-grandchildren.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  105. _________________________________________

    “I sat next to her once. Thought she was beautiful,” Barbara Bush said. “And she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.”

    That’s a snotty comment from George’s mother, er, uh, wife—-inserting a snipe of my own, based on what various people quipped about Barbara Bush during her husband’s time in the White House. However, from a purely tactical standpoint, she is onto something. For a variety of reasons, Palin arouses wariness or resentment in a good percentage of the public—based on recent opinion polls.

    Of course, some of those respondents are the same folks who put Barack “Goddamn America” Obama into the White House.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  106. #98 Oh dear god. Yes counselor, it is your place to determine whether they are exercising it responsibly. Patterico Uber Alles!!!

    Oh dear God. I was politely pointing out that you don’t seem to understand that criticizing speech is different from saying the speaker has “no right” to say what he said. Or, more likely, you’re deliberately conflating the two for an advantage in the argument.

    Specifically:

    If the lady has a right to her opinion then don’t others have a right to tell her to shut up?

    Why did you frame this as a question of the “right” to tell people to shut up?

    You have already shown you won’t answer the question, so I’ll answer it for you: you did it to load the dice in your favor.

    Criticizing speech is American; depriving people of the right to speak is not. So when I do the former, you pretend I am doing the latter — to give yourself a cheap and intellectually dishonest rhetorical leg up.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  107. “when you consider yourself the pure one then is OK but when you are the object thereof you are bad.”

    Incomprehensible pretzel logic returns with Torquemada The Pure.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  108. Mark,
    Of course, some of those respondents are the same folks who put Barack “Goddamn America” Obama into the White House.

    To be fair, Obama didn’t say that. It was this pastor fellow Jeremiah Wright that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with, other than helping convert him, presiding over his marriage, being his mentor and providing a pew in which Obama slept during 20 years of Sunday services.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  109. Daleyrocks #49 (would I tell her to shutup?)
    I think I would use more nuanced language to tell her to shut up. Anon Y. Mous # 65 matches my feelings very well.

    Terrye #89, Daleyrocks #91: Your comment works if you’re talking about a random old lady that lives down the street. But when its a former First Lady who knows her words have added weight, she owes us (in her party) some consideration before saying things that are so helpful to the opposition. She risks making herself look like McCain.

    Ken in Camarillo (645bed)

  110. I think I would use more nuanced language to tell her to shut up.

    Whatever happened to responding to speech with more speech?

    There is a pattern wherein certain people are consistently telling people on their side to shut up, time and again, and it doesn’t strike me as the way we Americans handle disagreement.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  111. I have absolutely no problem with people lighting into Barbara Bush for something she says, if they disagree.

    It’s the reflexive “shut up” response that grates on me.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  112. Patterico: I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear my tongue was in my cheek about telling her to shut up.
    The proper response is to ask her to be a bit more thoughtful before saying things that are helpful to the opposition. I don’t mean you can’t say things that turn out to be helpful to them, just make sure it is important enough to the point you’re making to justify the help it give to your opponents.

    Ken in Camarillo (645bed)

  113. Kevin M. #86: You have a point about the budget, but when you look at all the issues that were in play where Perot’s stated position was closer to Bush than to Clinton, you have to ask why all of Perot’s fire was directed at Bush. Perot was completely disingenuous, and only used the budget concern because it was a handy lever against Bush.

    Everyone seemed non-plussed at Perot’s choice for Vice President running mate. To me it was obvious: Admiral Stockdale had been awarded the Medal of Honor, which would completely dwarf (and remove from the campaign) the fact that Bush had been a pilot who had lied about his age to get into the fight, while Clinton was a draft dodger. Perot is a despicable louse for having put Admiral Stockdale on the spot for that purpose.

    Ken in Camarillo (645bed)

  114. Yes, Perot, had many admirable qualities, like his hiring veterans to staff his companies, but his involvement in the POW issue had gotten him into the strange world of the Christics, who were the early version of the Truthers, who trafficked in CIA drug conspiracy against the Bushes, years later they targeted Bob Dole’s campaign, and one of his top aides, Richard Armitage, and was defended ably by his attorney Scooter Libby, which goes to show you no good goes unpunished for long.

    In retrospect though, I think he was right about our support of the Sauds vis a vis Saddam. It would have been better for Osama to have perished
    in fighting the Republican Guard, than the protection we provided his funders

    narciso (82637e)

  115. == …and even Obama are self made ==

    Uh, Torquemada, for future reference you may want to rethink that one. He’s from Chicago, remember? No one is “self-made” who comes out of Democrat politics there. Trust me on this. It’s just a different kind of family he got his “help” from.

    elissa (bf1a25)

  116. The proper response is to ask her to be a bit more thoughtful before saying things that are helpful to the opposition. I don’t mean you can’t say things that turn out to be helpful to them, just make sure it is important enough to the point you’re making to justify the help it give to your opponents.

    I imagine Barbara Bush’s problem with Sarah Palin is the same as mine: she doesn’t think she can win.

    Is it now decreed that it is wrong even to voice that opinion? I thought it was OK to hash out these issues before a primary. Now I’m learning it’s not OK to criticize a potential candidate before that candidate even announces her candidacy?

    The best response to Barbara Bush is not “shut up” but rather: “Your views of who can win are not infallible. Remember that you told your own son George he couldn’t win the Texas Governorship in 1994.” (Learned that one reading Bush’s book, which I started recently.)

    Patterico (c218bd)

  117. I would ignore her comments rather than bringing more attention to them by criticizing them in writing if I disagreed with them.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  118. True, as he didn’t win in ’78 against Hance, he was too associated to establishment at that time, as his father lost in ’64 and ’70, against Yarborough
    and Bentsen respectively. It’s an unoriginal insight

    narciso (82637e)

  119. In 1994, Barbara Bush was interviewed by Larry King when her sons (George W. and Jeb) were running for the governorships of Texas and Florida. King asked Mrs. Bush if they were going to win and she said yes, but not to take her word for it because she’s “always wrong” about who would win elections:

    KING: Do you think they’re both going to win?

    B. BUSH: Yes. I’m very hopeful…

    (CROSSTALK)

    B. BUSH: And don’t go by what I think, though…

    KING: I know…

    B. BUSH: I mean others have told me, if you want to know the way to go, don’t go with me. I’m always wrong, but…

    Like Patterico, I think Barbara Bush has every right to express her opinion about the 2012 presidential election. I also believe her when she says she’s not a good judge of who will win.

    By the way, I wonder if Jeb is interested?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  120. DRJ:

    Great minds think alike, and sometimes so does mine. See my comment above.

    W. says she told him different when he was still deciding. So she was wrong after all.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  121. __________________________________________

    Is it now decreed that it is wrong even to voice that opinion?

    The problem with Barbara Bush’s comment was that it was overly flippant. If she had made that remark in private, and it had leaked out, that would be one thing. But she sarcastically said “I hope [Palin] stays [in Alaska]” on the Larry King show.

    It’s similar to when various idiotic liberals (or “progressives”) say “I don’t like such-and-such a person because he (or she) is stupid!” IOW, saying that instead of “I don’t like such-and-such a person because he (or she) is too conservative.”

    Barbara Bush, instead of snidely saying Palin should stay in Alaska — assuming George’s wife doesn’t care for Palin for reasons that go beyond the purely personal or petty — could have said “I’m not confident that Sarah Palin will receive enough support from the voters to get into the White House in 2012.”

    Mark (411533)

  122. Patterico,

    I wish I’d read your comment first and I could have just said “Ditto!”

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  123. I really wish that someone would publish the “Amy Vanderbilt guide for Palin Skeptics – how to ensure you don’t hurt her supporters feelings”…..

    vor2 (f9989d)

  124. vor2,
    I really wish that someone would publish the “Amy Vanderbilt guide for Palin Skeptics – how to ensure you don’t hurt her supporters feelings”…..
    It’s a little thing called the “Golden Rule.” Have you heard of it?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  125. narciso,

    Maybe this was your point but George W Bush didn’t win in 1978 because his opponent, Kent Hance, successfully portrayed him as an out-of-touch Yankee elitist who had attended Andover, Yale and Harvard. Meanwhile, Hance frequently pointed out he had been educated at Dimmitt High, Texas Tech and UT Law. Bush never had a chance.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  126. Yes, I tend to shorthand sometimes, DRJ, but like the old joke about newts, he got better and defeated
    Anne Richards, who really dialed the folksy arrogance up to 11, Dustin knows what I’m talking about

    narciso (82637e)

  127. Patterico,

    I wish I’d read your comment first and I could have just said “Ditto!”

    Ditto!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  128. Blog commenter 1: Good thing this isn’t an echo chamber!

    Blog commenter 2: What he said.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  129. Oh: I mean ditto like ditto that I wish I could have read YOUR comment first and said ditto.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  130. DRJ:

    Have you read the Bush book?

    If not, do you plan to?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  131. Unlike many here, I do have a lot of admiration for what President Bush did in hard times, one of the reasons I really held my nose voting for McCain. his former advisors, Gerson, Wehner, and Rove, seem to forget how the left baited them, with the same jibes they target on Palin; definition of acircular firing squad

    narciso (82637e)

  132. It’s a little thing called the “Golden Rule.” Have you heard of it?

    So what did Mrs. Bush do that was so egregious? Walking on eggshells to avoid “offending” the people who Really like Palin is kind of silly don’t you think?
    It is almost as if some think that if we try really really hard and don’t criticize Palin she will sneak in to win the 2012 election. Okay to criticize the dastardly RINOs currently sitting in office or the NRSC for its actions but when it comes to one individual the rules are completely different…. Simply amazing!

    vor2 (f9989d)

  133. VOR2,
    In Mrs. Bush I’s case, I think it would have been wiser to have ignored her snark or just replied in the same dismissive vein. She’s a peripheral figure at best nowadays.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  134. I haven’t read Bush’s book but I will probably get it for Christmas. Palin’s, too. I’ll probably read her book first.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  135. There is a war acomin’ and the only result I see is exactly what the left wants.

    Ag80 (e828a4)

  136. I’ve skimmed through the former, the interviews were pretty good, Remember Eisenhower was considered
    almost a cipher in policy, till Greenstein came along nearly 20 years later. The left denied Reagan’s accomplishment practically to his dying day, then reversed themselves. Nixon was rehabilitated in the mid 90s by Crowley, well you get the picture

    narciso (82637e)

  137. I think it will be interesting to see whether there is any additional material when the full interview runs on Larry King – Live tomorrow as opposed to just the teaser CNN released.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  138. Much as with the Gawker exercise, Daley, that included what they considered the more objectionable
    bits the selection was intentional. I know you’re surprised such a thing has ever happened, re the PI bits this fall

    narciso (82637e)

  139. Comment by DRJ — 11/21/2010 @ 7:29 pm

    IIRC, the aftermath of that loss was that GW swore that he would never be “out-Bubba’ed”(sic) again in an election.
    Some say he would lay on the accent in the WH just to make the Ivy-Libs in the press-corps have fits.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1f4eec)

  140. And, No!, daley, I didn’t see the interview (gave up Larry King a long time ago), just going by what I read.
    But, I count myself as one who soured on first GHWB when he made that tax deal with the Dems, and then on GW over his insane “compassion” and the resulting explosion in non-defense spending, plus Harriet, and Amnesty, and his unwillingness to defend his actions when he was taking them (What we have here is a failure to communicate)….well, you get the idea.

    Finally, if Jeb wanted to run, the left-over slop from his Dad, and older Brother, have made his candidacy the longest of long-shots.
    There’s just no good mojo associated with the Bush name at this point.

    AD-RtR/OS! (1f4eec)

  141. The supposed ‘voice of reason’ needs a book on how to be respectful to Governor Palin?

    Check out “How To Engage In Dispassionate Discourse, Free From Ad Hominem Attacks and Non Sequiturs”; imdw, EricPWJohnson & Chris Hooten — Editors.

    Icy Texan (51f81a)

  142. #

    I think I would use more nuanced language to tell her to shut up.

    Whatever happened to responding to speech with more speech?

    There is a pattern wherein certain people are consistently telling people on their side to shut up, time and again, and it doesn’t strike me as the way we Americans handle disagreement.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/21/2010 @ 6:26 pm

    No kidding, they can dish it out but they suck at taking it. My God, imagine the stuff Barbara Bush has heard people say about her family, her husbands and both of her sons. So far as I know she has never told anyone to shut up.

    Terrye (9d8507)

  143. Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/21/2010 @ 10:30 pm

    I am reading Bush’s book right now and he does a good job of explaining his thinking on the decisions he made. However, it really should be remembered that Bush never pretended to be Tom Tancredo or Jim DeMint or Newt Gingrich. He ran as the education president and before 9/11 his primary objectives were all about domestic policy.

    The fact that people became upset with the fact that he remained true to his own principles rather than changing his well known positions to suit them says as much about them as it does about him. If you catch my drift.

    Terrye (9d8507)

  144. Comment by Icy Texan — 11/22/2010 @ 3:16 am

    Sorry to see that Mrs. Bush’s comment has you so wee weed up….

    VOR2 (8e6b90)

  145. The “pragmatists” and loyalists are embarrassed they have to rely on the anti-abortion, creationist, anti-gay marriage trailer trash they suppose to be behind Palin, that stuffs envelopes, bangs on doors-their foot soldiers.

    They’d like not to have to hear from them except when their approved candidates need them.

    It’s their fault they take “speak when spoken to” in a bad way.

    Same old, same old.

    gary gulrud (790d43)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1680 secs.