Patterico's Pontifications

I also see on Twitter that Perry defended not knowing who all the Supreme Court justices are, saying he’s not a “robot.”

Probably it’s hard to be objective about this, as a lawyer. I can rattle them off quite easily, without even having my hard drive rebooted or my joints oiled. Is it too much to expert the same from someone who could be naming the next 2-3 justices?

Patterico (f724ca) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:39 pm

The point has been heavily made that Newt is leading in the polling in three of the four early states, and that when the next NH poll is released, he’ll be leading there also.

I lean strongly to the opinion that his support is buttressed by his willingness to levy specific criticisms against the DC establishment.
The degree of unhappiness with the way DC is “working” is almost unprecedented.
I think that Chris Wallace noted this morning that the “wrong way” stat is now at 77%.
That does not hurt Newt.

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:44 pm

I don’t always — or even often — agree with Ronald Brownstein, but his summary of the debate largely matches the righties in my Twitter feed. And as Romney was about the only one who hurt himself in the debate, we were treated to the spectacle of Jennifer Rubin claiming that Gingrich was the sole loser of the debate.

Karl (e39d6b) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:46 pm

See, they not only own the court, but the referries;

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lies-damned-lies-and-fact-checking_611854.html?nopager=1

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:47 pm

Patrick, you as much as anyone should realize that a competent manager may not have all of the answers/data at his fingertips, but does know who to call to get a specific answer to a specific question.
In this case, he calls a lawyer.
He doesn’t need to know their names to know that there are quite a few disturbing opinions/trends emanating from the penumbras of jurisprudence.

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:48 pm

So let me guess this straight if you think law-abiding citizens deserve to have guns your a tyrant who wants to hunt down illegals?

This is a open thread so I’d thought I’d vent my frustrations out.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:50 pm

Patterico

In the Des Moines Register footage-he says-“not Montemayor”..

In Texas-Perry appointed a Insurance Commissioner by the name of Montemayor twice.

If you look at The Fix-the schedules of the candidates that seem to want it more are grueling…

Perry did a taped interview with the Des Moines Register that went for who knows how long-and probably covered a breadth of topics…

If your guy is Gingrich he complained publicly to Greta the other night that he is already “tired”.. so there is that.

Obama who isn’t doing the primary claimed the other day that extending the payroll tax and unemployment benefits would create more jobs than building the Keystone Pipeline-he also called Iran-Iraq, and claimed that the military are being tricked into mortgages that charge 200% interest rates- none of that has been “fact-checked” by the MSM yet-for some reason..

Finally lets get down to the important matter-who will appoint Conservative judges-with Perry you actually have physical evidence-he’s appointed about six Conservative judges-with all the other candidates you have to take their word for it-or take it on “faith”.

madawaskan (89a442) — 12/11/2011 @ 12:58 pm

I’m tired of these lame debates where it’s immigrants immigrants immigrants and nothing about what the next president should do about climate change fraud or even about the spendings

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 12/11/2011 @ 1:17 pm

Is it too much to expert the same from someone who could be naming the next 2-3 justices?

I agree, Patterico. And if in 2008 Obama had not been able to name a single justice, he would have been upbraided for it in the conservative press. I don’t think we should give Perry a pass on this.

Chuck Bartowski (69b74e) — 12/11/2011 @ 1:28 pm

Word is Perry did better than in previous performances

That is a remarkably low bar.

aphrael (1fc48e) — 12/11/2011 @ 1:33 pm

Patrick, you as much as anyone should realize that a competent manager may not have all of the answers/data at his fingertips, but does know who to call to get a specific answer to a specific question.
In this case, he calls a lawyer.
He doesn’t need to know their names to know that there are quite a few disturbing opinions/trends emanating from the penumbras of jurisprudence.

I know all that, and agree, and I like Perry the best of all of them, despite his foot in mouth disease.

It’s just . . . kind of a major thing, in my opinion. But again, I admit I may be prejudiced as a lawyer.

Patterico (f724ca) — 12/11/2011 @ 1:38 pm

STOP THE PRESSES!

Lawyer admits that a lawyer may be prejudiced!
Film at Eleven!

In other news, a dog bit a mailman today….

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 1:44 pm

Piling gaffe upon gaffe and given his less-than-stellar performances, Perry isn’t a factor anymore.

Romney had – for him – a sub-par performance. I think Newt is a man of many interesting ideas, but I also think that his mannerisms, his “I’m an historian” schtick and his condescension will begin to wear thin and grate on the American people. If he ends up being our (Republican) nominee, I don’t think he has a snowball’s chance in El Paso of besting Barack Obama. That’s my fear.

Colonel Haiku (13f65b) — 12/11/2011 @ 2:06 pm

that poor mailman and this the busiest time of the year

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/11/2011 @ 2:49 pm

The NRA sure loves them some leftyism.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:22 pm

_________________________________________________

I don’t think he has a snowball’s chance in El Paso of besting Barack Obama

Since I don’t find any of the Republican candidates even a fraction as disreputable, questionable, unreliable and ideologically bankrupt as the guy now in the Oval Office, your assessment suggests a good percentage of the American electorate is therefore more than willing to have their nation bent over and given a swift “goddamned” kick in the butt.

Mark (411533) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:24 pm

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/11/first-family-attends-church-preacher-reinforces-obama%E2%80%99s-deeply-seated-messiah-complex/

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:34 pm

In my experience election candidates mean eph-all until iowa and new hampshire. before that, anyone who is the “front runner” has just as much of a chance of disappearing as staying the course, and someone no one has ever heard of is suddenly a household name. the only candidate that is reliably likely to get the nom in December is the sitting PotUS.

Remember hillary last election?

Anyone here know the name “Gary Hart”? No?

QED: It’s virtually not worth paying any attention until well after at least January. It’s nothing but a media circus to fill dead air and a platform for the media to either build up a Dem homeboy or tear down the GOP opposition.

Smock Puppet, Five-Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award (aacc3d) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:35 pm

Smock Puppet, you forgot how Johnson swept to re-election in ’68.

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:49 pm

I agree that someone who wants to be president ought to know at least something about each Supreme Court justice. This is something he should have committed to memory by now. I understand having a brain freeze, where the answer is on the tip of your tongue and you just can’t come up with a name. That happens to me a lot. But actually not knowing shows that one is just not prepared to run for president.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:50 pm

Compare this to W Bush not having Pervez Musharraf’s name on the tip of his tongue — but he knew exactly who he was.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/11/2011 @ 3:52 pm

MEMO TO: Newton Leroy McP/G
SUBJECT: grenade practice

“Let’s be candid. The only reason you [Romney] didn’t become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994.” – Newt Gingrich, 12/10/11

Let’s be candid. The only reason you’re at the top of the list this month, Newton, is because desperate conservatives have reached the bottom of the barrel. You know, where the stale, rotten apples bloat, ferment and decay. They have a better bite and flavor when they’re ‘fresh n’ Cristie,’ eh, Newt. What a gift. And what are the odds this would even have happened with the numbers you had within the GOP when you and Callista sailed off to Greece. Which is why, Willard, it’s a safe $10,000 bet that President Obama will be reelected.

DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/11/2011 @ 4:20 pm

DCSCA always comes thru to make my day. Just when I think he/she/it is truly gone. Always the same story with a different spin.

PatAZ (c65c00) — 12/11/2011 @ 4:44 pm

IMP never fails.

JD (554e77) — 12/11/2011 @ 4:48 pm

DCSCA – Obama’s polling is certainly looking strong!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/11/2011 @ 4:50 pm

Always the same story with a different spin.

=yawn= It’s called conservatism.

DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/11/2011 @ 4:54 pm

DCSCA,

Are you unhappy with anything President Obama has done? If so, what?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:02 pm

“A new poll found that 75% of Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction. 66% of Americans have absolutely no idea what Obama want’s to accomplish in a second term if he is reelected. And, you have to go all the way back to Jimmy Carter to find a president with such low approval numbers going into an election year.”

It’s called a failed presidency.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:03 pm

Yawn, IMP. Are you that self-unaware?

JD (554e77) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:08 pm

You can lead a horse’s-ass to water, but you can’t make him drink.

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:14 pm

Speaking of self-aware:
The Dems have a history of populist rabble rousing, and to a great degree, that activity has not turned out well for those engaging in it.
Huey P. Long…Robert F. Kennedy…George C. Wallace…
There are some really unstable people on the Left of the political spectrum.

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:24 pm

Does not knowing the names of all of the justices interfere with being president? I don’t think so.

There are 9. We like Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and that nice man who was installed as Chief Justice with the darling young children. Then there is Kennedy, we always hear about him because he is so often supposed to be the deciding vote. Then there are Kagan and Sotomayor who we wish we couldn’t remember, and then there are two more that usually do what Erwin Chemerinsky thinks is right. (Is Ginsberg with her pro-abortion legal background still one of the last two?)

Now, did I leave anything out that was important?

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:33 pm

You left Cupid and Blitzen, MD, that would be Ginsburg and Breyer, right

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:36 pm

But narciso, does it make any difference whether I know their names? I’m not going to agree with them. they are not going to listen to me. I doubt we will be guests at a mutual friend’s dinner party

I guess that nice man they made chief justice must be doing a good job of sorts, I don’t hear enough complaints about him to remember his name.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:43 pm

Patterico #1,

Via Hot Air, maybe Perry knows more than we gave him credit for.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:45 pm

DRJ-

So, this might be like the heat Palin received for referring to 1773 that everyone went crazy over, only for it to be pointed out that Palin was right and the critics were so eager to laugh they didn’t realize the joke was on them.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:57 pm

The debates are like watching reruns.

sickofrinos (44de53) — 12/11/2011 @ 5:59 pm

I was just point out how irrelevant they are, although they are still more competent than the most recent hires, of course Kennedy is the result of the lesson, they thought was illustrated with Bork.

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:05 pm

reruns. Exactly.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:06 pm

@28- Then you have nothing to worry about… do you.

@27- Of course. He is not JFK. He is not FDR and the nation sorely needs either or both proactively at work. Rather, he is Mr. Spock– at a time when the nation needs a Captain Kirk. Newt Gingrich is not a Captain Kirk. (More a Captain Bligh given how his colleagues feel about him.) Have been consistent in that conclusion; more a frustration than a disappointment. But Obama has a 30 year mess to clean up- such is the flotsam left as Reaganomics, now in its death throes, sinks into history. Generally speaking, his mistake was attempting to negotiate rationally, when he chose to engage, with irrational conservative idealogues. You cannot negotiate with idealogues. Particularly in an era when pragmatic solutions are needed. A lesson hard learned. By Boehner as well. But given the alternative in 2008 and what’s on deck this cycle, he’ll be reelected by independents and moderates alienated by Republicans over the past three decades and repulsed by the current clan of clownish conservatives. The right would do well to revisit Buckley to recalibrate their compasses rather than Reagan. Personally, this writer would have given Huntsman due consideration as an alternative to Obama whereas the rabid right has all but dismissed him. Too bad, because he probably would draw the most interest from indies and moderates seeking intelligent solutions to complex problems. Republicans could win this. Conservatives cannot. Which is why they best just look toward 2016 and cultivate a candidate who can win. Why would they want to own this economy now, anyway. Let Obama do the heavy-lifting for another four years and then make a winning run on the upswing. Support for Gingrich is weak among those who’ve actually worked with him. And Romney is simply not convincing conservatives he’s one of them. But the battle between the right and center right has to be worked though. It makes for amusing political theatre and good TV but not very productive toward problem-solving. But at this point, Romney has a safe $10,000 bet Obama will be relected.

DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:07 pm

Hmm, justices in 1963, tough one. Were Warren, White, Douglas, Stewart, Harlan and Frankfurter on the court then? [peeks] No, Frankfurter was off in 1962, the others were Black, Brennen, Goldberg and Clark.

Kevin M (563f77) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:15 pm

But Obama has a 30 year mess to clean up

Nonsense. Were that the case, you might suggest to him to quit making it worse first, then start working from there.

Generally speaking, his mistake was attempting to negotiate rationally, when he chose to engage, with irrational conservative idealogues.

Can you cite an example where he negotiated with anything other than strawmen

JD (318f81) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:17 pm

I’ll bet you $10,000 that DSPCA didn’t watch a single on of these debates all the way through.

Kevin M (563f77) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:17 pm

My wife says that if Obama is re-elected, he will be the last President of the United States. Not sure she’s wrong, especially if you emphasize “United”.

Kevin M (563f77) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:19 pm

, he’ll be reelected by independents

The current numbers suggest you are hallucinating. Again.

Another leftist praising Hunstman. Familiar chorus.

JD (318f81) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:19 pm

He’s Vizzini like in his unwillingness to understand.

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:22 pm

Does not knowing the names of all of the justices interfere with being president? I don’t think so.

I agree. The flip side being, a candidate could easily rattle off all the justices, their dates of birth and significant cases they’ve weighed in on and still be incompetent to be president. This shouldn’t be a litmus test for qualifications. And at this point in time, it appears Perry is just awful when speaking publicly – he’s either tongue-tied, forgetful, blanks out, or just doesn’t know some things by memory (which won’t make or break a presidency).

Governor Perry’s record is what I’m looking at and most interested in.

Dana (4eca6e) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:27 pm

DCSCA is upset that Obama isn’t death incarnate and killing ever right-winger in america.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:33 pm

every*

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:33 pm

Rather, he is Mr. Spock– at a time when the nation needs a Captain Kirk.

Another fool who thinks Obama is cerebral. Do you also think Austrian is a language, the Navy has corpse-men and Emperor Hirohito signed the surrender on battleship Missouri?

But Obama has a 30 year mess to clean up- such is the flotsam left as Reaganomics, now in its death throes, sinks into history.

Reaganomics means lower taxes. So as soon as the Bush tax cuts expire, the economy will take off like a rocket! But just in case higher taxes don’t work their magic, there’ll be a renewed push for lots of “green jobs”, paid for by massively higher carbon fuel prices. That’s a recipe for economic growth…in an insane asylum.

Gerald A (9d78e8) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:33 pm

True, that was the gotcha they tried on W, back in 2000, by some two bit anchor in Boston, Andy Hiller,

By comparison, either Obama and/or Biden are often
not simply wrong, but it’s a whole architecture of error, like when FDR gave a fireside chat in 1929,
as President, Couric nodded wisely to that, or when
he said the US and the French had kicked Hezbollah
out of Lebanon, it’s awe inspiringly wrong,

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:34 pm

Here is a transcript of he debate:

http://thecritical-post.com/blog/2011/12/abc-iowa-republican-debate-saturday-10-december-2011-video-transcript-text-tcpchicago/

I like this transcript with the notation of the timing – I need to do a search sometime to see where you can find others like this and what else is on that blog.

By the way the last (and next?) debate before Iowa will be on Fox News on Thursday December 15 at 9PM Eastern Standard Time. That will be 8 PM Central time. This is maybe the only debate being held in western Iowa (not that physical location really makes much of a difference)

Someone who’s running it said I think that he could sell twice as many tickets if he had room.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:36 pm

Generally speaking, his mistake was attempting to negotiate rationally, when he chose to engage, with irrational conservative idealogues.

Can you cite an example where he negotiated with anything other than strawmen

That Obama has been negotiating something or other with conservatives is the another of the many fantasy stories that liberals tell each other. The Republicans were complaining that during the debt ceiling “negotiations” that Obama never offered any concrete budget proposals at all. There was no actual negotiation.

Gerald A (9d78e8) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:38 pm

CIrroational idealogues.

projection.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:41 pm

Agreed, Gerald. The closest he comes to negotiating with a Republican is whacking around the caricature of a Republican that he trots out when he tries his “some would have you believe”, etc … schtick. There is scant evidence of said negotiation in real life. I won.

JD (318f81) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:42 pm

But Obama has a 30 year mess to clean up- such is the flotsam left as Reaganomics, now in its death throes, sinks into history.

Actually, since he’s blaming Reaganomics, not Bush for our mess, then presumably the tax rates have to revert to what they were under Carter before an economic recovery can occur. Once we get back to a top rate of 70% and get rid of indexing tax brackets for inflation, there’ll be a jobs explosion!

Gerald A (9d78e8) — 12/11/2011 @ 6:44 pm

Comment by DCSCA — 12/11/2011 @ 6:07 pm

Is that the Captain Bligh of “The Caine Muntiny”, or the Captain Bligh of “Men Against the Sea”?

One was a false martinet, the other a superb seaman, as later research has proven.

[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:02 pm

narcisco, not just a “fireside chat”, but on TV.

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:05 pm

The idea that this president now,
was out all night last night, but apparently there was another debate.

Oh, that’s why no thread was started yesterday.

I was actually writing here but listening too.

P.S. Word is Perry did better than in previous performances, while people piled on Gingrich.

Perry made a few good points, and he doesn’t make so many, and he avoided big mistakes. They weren’t all piling on Gingrich – they were all piling on Romney.

Did any of it make any difference?

Yes, each debate affects 2-3% of the vote all by itself. their cumultative effect is very big.

Best Rick Perry moment:

Rick Perry speaking:

22:13:33:00

….with Iran getting one of our predator drones in their possession, and he had two opportunities– well, he didn’t have two opportunities, he had two choices– actually, he had three. And he chose the worst.

And those two opportunities he had was to either retrieve that drone, or to destroy it, and he did the worst of the three and he did absolutely nothing. And the Russians and the Chinese will have our highly technical equipment now. This president is the problem, not something that Newt Gingrich said. (APPLAUSE)

That was a reference to Newt Gingrich saying that the Palestinian people had been invented, which Romney had criticized. I bet some viewers went away with the impression that this was actually wrong even though Newt Gingrich elaborated that you don’t see the term “Palestinian people” before 1977.

This is an illustration, by the way, how Newt Gingrich has a somewhat accurate but much too superficial knowledge of things.

I am actually old enough to remember when the Palestinian people were created – and Newt should be too. I guess they just crept up on him and he’s not sure when.

But it was not in 1977, but in 1974, specifically
at the meeting of the Arab League in Rabat Morocco in October 1974, that, simultaneously, the Palestinian people were invented, and Yasir Arafat was declared to be the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people

This is the locus classicus:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70714FF35551A7493C2AA178BD95F408785F9&scp=1&sq=rabat%20%22palestinian%20people%22&st=cse

Or free non-PDF: (and longer version)

http://mondediplo.com/focus/mideast/rabat74-en

Actually I see here it says the Palestine Liberation Organization, is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and not specifically Yasir Arafat, altough his name is mentioned as the Chairman in the longer version.

I must be going by news reports, and I had thought this was in November, but the resolution of he Seventh Arab League Summit Conference, in Rabat, Morocco, is dated October 28, 1974, and that’s when King Hussein gave up claims to the West Bank, and agreed to the creation of a separate citizenship.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F1EFD3D5B147B93C7A9178AD95F408785F9&scp=2&sq=rabat%20%22palestinian%20people%22&st=cse

HUSSEIN TO REVISE REGIME TO ERASE WEST BANK’S ROLE; He Says Action Is Designed to Give Meaning to Rabat Ruling on Palestinians

A CHOICE FOR EAST BANK

Palestinians There Can Be Jordanians or Citizens of New State When Formed New Reality Exists’ He Chides Israel Hussein to End West Bank Role in Nation

By TERENCE SMITH

Special to The New York Times ();
November 05, 1974,

, Section , Page 1, Column , words

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

Jordan intends to rewrite her Constitution soon and to reorganize her Cabinet and Parliament to remove representatives of the Palestinians living in the Israeli occupied West Bank from her Government, King Hussein said in an interview today.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:07 pm

That was also right around that notion of ‘Zionism
was racism’ was passed as a UN Resolution, with Soviet imput, the irony that Russia would have any
such insight, is deep.

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:11 pm

Irrational*

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:27 pm

This is an illustration, by the way, how Newt Gingrich has a somewhat accurate but much too superficial knowledge of things.

Because he was off by 3 years on the date of their creation? Because the idea that Palestine was invented is not somewhat accurate, it is a fact.

JD (318f81) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:28 pm

It’s was sort of besides the point, in the end his spokesman had to backtrack, sort of defeating the main point,

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:30 pm

Here we go again…………..some more conspiracy theories on who killed JFK.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:30 pm

I’m taking advantage of the “open thread”

Colonel Haiku, did you know that NYC is using your preferred means of communication to make public safety announcements?

For example:

Aggressive driver.
Aggressive pedestrian.
Two crash test dummies.

I am not making this up:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/curbside-haiku-sample.pdf

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:43 pm

No, there was no information about how many accidents had occurred while people read haiku.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:46 pm

BTW, Perry may have gained a bit in the debate, and may have made a claim to evangelicals with his recent commercials, but he has completely alienated the part of the party (and everyone else) who isn’t a social conservative. Which means he cannot get the nomination and he cannot win the general election. See Huckabee, 2008. He is now capped as badly as Paul.

Kevin M (563f77) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:51 pm

the city driver
the clueless pedestrian
death by chromium

Colonel Haiku (9dc8b8) — 12/11/2011 @ 7:59 pm

Just when you think Bloomberg can’t pass the satirical test, he challenges you.

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:02 pm

http://www.google.com/search?q=rick+Perry+judicial+appointments&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7ADFA_en

EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:02 pm

he’s one smart sumb*tch
with be-Tiffany’d hawkwife
fat newton gingrich

Colonel Haiku (9dc8b8) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:05 pm

When I watch my lefty friends make fun of people of faith, I notice one thing: They think people of faith are stupid.

The problem for the left, though, is they are not stupid, they simply have faith in something outside the realm of secular humanism, the lefty faith.

Perry’s spectacular failure is not that he’s dumb, but more that he has decided to appeal to the evangelicals as if they were stupid.

They understand politics without being patronized.

They mostly want Obama to be defeated and although grace can not be hesitated, politics is earthly.

Of course, I may be wrong. Far be it for me to go out on a limb.

Ag80 (ec45d6) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:10 pm

Green monday sounds like some bull to save the environment from the tyranny of man.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:16 pm

That’s actually not far from the truth, Doh;

http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/Capitalism_is_Man_Exploiting_Man%3B_Communism_is_just_the_opposite/220216/

narciso (87e966) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:22 pm

________________________________________________

He is not JFK. He is not FDR and the nation sorely needs either or both proactively at work. Rather, he is Mr. Spock– at a time when the nation needs a Captain Kirk

Kennedy’s wife at least didn’t make one think of “Wookie” (leaping from references that pertain to Star Wars, not Star Trek!) and rabble-rousing, proud-of-my-country-for-first-time speeches.

As for Franklin Roosevelt, while he admittedly didn’t have the “goddamn America” frame of mind that Obama has, he sure went about screwing things up not too much more thoroughly than his successor over 60 years later:

newsroom.ucla.edu: Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

I also hate to think that the presumably rational, logical, practical Mr. Spock had the foolish, immature, corrupt leftist biases of the guy now in the Oval Office. But if Spock was no more than a fictitious creature of phony-baloney Hollywood (aka Limousine Liberal Land), I guess unfortunately he did.

Mark (411533) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:34 pm

Anyone who votes for Obama for a 2nd term deserves doom and destruction.

Obama is paid off by special interest.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:46 pm

And the Tea Party is abhorred by the DNC because we expose them as the tax and spenders.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 8:46 pm

Gingrich mutters
what stupids sputter
smartly
haiku
gesundheit

Kaopectate (9d1bb3) — 12/11/2011 @ 9:49 pm

I love how the left accused Bush of paralyzing us with fear when he said don’t go shopping on 9-11-01 but yet the left complain about the rich[read anyone not voting for them] spending money during a recession.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:09 pm

newton buys
breasts and thighs
in family value-pak
with slaw
haiku
gesundheit

Kaopectate (9d1bb3) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:33 pm

I am actually old enough to remember when the Palestinian people were created – and Newt should be too. I guess they just crept up on him and he’s not sure when.

But it was not in 1977, but in 1974, specifically
at the meeting of the Arab League in Rabat Morocco in October 1974, that, simultaneously, the Palestinian people were invented, and Yasir Arafat was declared to be the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people

Incorrect. You start hearing of a “Palestinian people” from about 1920, but especially from 1964 when the PLO was established. That’s why Egypt never annexed the Gaza strip; it was held “in trust” for a future Arab “Palestine” that would be established once the Jews were all dead.

The Rabat conference was primarily about backing down from the “three Nos”, meaning the absolute refusal to negotiate with Israel; at Rabat, after realising that their dream of defeating Israel on the battlefield and simply wiping out all the Jews was not going to happen, the Arabs agreed that it was OK to negotiate with Israel and obtain whatever territory was possible as an interim solution, so long as there was no compromise on the ultimate goal of destroying Israel completely. In the meantime any territory that could be obtained from Israel was to be used for a “Palestinian” state which could serve as a staging area from which to attack Israel again in the future.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:39 pm

No!
Gaza, and the West Bank, were never formally annexed by Egypt and Jordan because they did not want to grant citizenship to the Arabs of the Palestine Mandate, but instead wanted to keep them in the squalor of the Refugee Camps as propaganda tools against the Zionist usurper.

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:44 pm

OWS if you oppose bailouts then you shouldn’t be voting for Obama.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:46 pm

It’s was sort of besides the point, in the end his spokesman had to backtrack, sort of defeating the main point,

I don’t understand why his spokesman backtracked. Why not say out loud that the “Palestinian nation” is made up and has no right to a state of its own. Why does a solution have to involve rewarding terrorists with a state on land that they have no right to?

Surely it’s now obvious that the only viable solution is to stop putting up with irridentism, violence, and sedition, and make it clear to them that they will never achieve their goal no matter what they do. Just act as the USA would act if there were an uprising of La Raza or as the UK would act if the Pakistanis of Birmingham were to launch a terrorist campaign.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:48 pm

Gaza, and the West Bank, were never formally annexed by Egypt and Jordan because they did not want to grant citizenship to the Arabs of the Palestine Mandate, but instead wanted to keep them in the squalor of the Refugee Camps as propaganda tools against the Zionist usurper.

What planet are you living on? Transjordan did annex Judaea, Benjamin, and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) and therefore changed its name to “Jordan”. Egypt didn’t annex the Gaza strip because it laid no claim to that land; it was instead reserved for the future “Palestine”, and in the meantime its inhabitants were to launch fedayeen attacks on Israel to kill as many Jewish children as they could.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/11/2011 @ 10:53 pm

Another viewpoint about Newt, and “invented people”:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/newts-palestinian-comment-was-more-than-about-history/

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:10 pm

Well, Milhouse, if the West Bank was formally annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom, all of those Arabs on the West Bank would possess Jordanian Passports then…
but, they never did.
And, they would no longer be Palestinians, but Jordanians…but they weren’t.
Jordan, like Egypt in Gaza, was just an administrative entity under U.N. auspices until the Palestinian Question could be answered.
The International Frontier still existed at the Jordan River

AD-RtR/OS! (5fba54) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:17 pm

Well, Milhouse, if the West Bank was formally annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom, all of those Arabs on the West Bank would possess Jordanian Passports then…
but, they never did.

Wrong. They certainly did.

And, they would no longer be Palestinians, but Jordanians…but they weren’t.

Yes, they were. I don’t know where you’re getting your history, but it’s wrong.

Jordan, like Egypt in Gaza, was just an administrative entity under U.N. auspices until the Palestinian Question could be answered.
The International Frontier still existed at the Jordan River

Not according to Jordan, it didn’t. Nor according to the UK or Pakistan.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/11/2011 @ 11:54 pm

I agree very much with AG80’s view of Perry’s recent redirection on religious topics. I think it’s unnecessary and I think it’s a pander.

I also have to agree with Patterico finding it a problem if a guy can’t name the damn justices on the Court. This is not trivia. How can you intelligently talk about practical constitutionality without knowing recent cases and which justices will do what?

Perry did well in the debate, and he’s been doing well in a number of ways lately, but I don’t think he’s the right one anymore.

Newt is not really my idea guy, but when you compare Romney and Newt in these debates, it’s clear Newt is ideologically conservative at a deeper level than Romney, who is reduced to slogans and continues to have problems with his thin skin. Romney’s trying to sell us Romney. Newt is trying to sell us solutions.

It’s disappointing to see conservatives bashing Newt for his weight or his wife. But that was just trolling and I’m making a mistake to pay attention to it.

Dustin (cb3719) — 12/12/2011 @ 12:05 am

ideal, not idea

Dustin (cb3719) — 12/12/2011 @ 12:05 am

Newt is trying to sell us solutions.

Wouldn’t expect a snake oil salesman to peddle anything else.

DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/12/2011 @ 1:04 am

And we would not expect an ad hom spewer ^^^ to scribble anything else.

Icy (58301d) — 12/12/2011 @ 1:27 am

Wouldn’t expect a snake oil salesman to peddle anything else.

Comment by DCSCA — 12/12/2011 @ 1:04 am

All politicians are what they are. Newt I can’t respect in the way I respect Perry, who ran a large state through some hard times, and did it walking the walk as a conservative even when it wasn’t easy.

But what do you want Newt to do? He explains solutions, he discusses problems that justify them, he distinguishes himself from Obama. I think he does this very well.

If you think some of Newt’s solutions are snake-oil, be specific. Either note how another GOP contender or Obama has a better solution.

Otherwise, it’s just as Icy said. You’re spewing an ad hom when what you need is an argument.

Dustin (cb3719) — 12/12/2011 @ 1:33 am

Like Brownstein said, this was the last opportunity to move the ball before the Holiday’s, it becoming frozen in the turf.

Upshot is Team Romney is pulling for Paul and Bachmann in IA to dent Gingrich because their candidate face planted.

Buy the airwaves in NH and jam the outside world.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/12/2011 @ 1:59 am

86, 87. The Transjordan was a British governorship as Syria French. The Sauds had booted the Hashemite curator of Mecca so the British set him up as King of a Borehole.

Palestinians are the disenfranchised majority in Jordan. Why else would they ditch their homes in ’47 and run across the Jordan to safety?

Because the Jordanians shoot better in dresses, and from behind children?

The Palestinans are the Ammonites and Moabites of old from the east of the Jordan. Around the turn into the 20th century they entered Israel in search of work with the Zionist influx.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/12/2011 @ 2:07 am

The Jews have been in Jerusalem since the Temple fell, a few thousand Samaritans held out at Israel’s refounding.

But when Mark Twain knocked about Palistine in the 1840’s he declared the land empty. It wasn’t until the first Zionists arrived in the 1880’s that the living returned.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/12/2011 @ 2:17 am

If Perry could have debated as well as he did the other night in the previous debates he would be in the mix.

sickofrinos (44de53) — 12/12/2011 @ 2:36 am

If Perry could have debated as well as he did the other night in the previous debates he would be in the mix.

Comment by sickofrinos — 12/12/2011 @ 2:36 am

True.

It’s not much comfort to me, but he’s losing fair and square for reasons that I think were within his control. but this isn’t a game, so this isn’t the way I see who to vote for.

Dustin (cb3719) — 12/12/2011 @ 3:35 am

Dustin

this is a looong campaign and as I can remember – no one has voted yet

Also watching Frank Luntz this morning the realization just hit me – he’s a Romney advocate just like Rubin

Made sense as he keeps on going on.

also as we found out many times Perry underpolls and Romey overpolls

Also with error ratios of 5 and 6% anyone’s game

Some internal polls shared with em show pratically a five way tie in Iowa

EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 12/12/2011 @ 5:00 am

I heard of segment, of Luntz with Diane Rehm, back from about 6 months ago, he turned his nose up at ‘death panels’ too inflammatory, but patted himself
on the back, for ‘death tax’

narciso (87e966) — 12/12/2011 @ 5:09 am

Perry says that he isn’t a “robot” who has “memorized” Supreme Ct judges.

Yew Yankees and yer book learnin’…

Colonel Haiku (db6c74) — 12/12/2011 @ 5:42 am

Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 12/11/2011 @ 7:07 pm

Actually, the term Palestinian was around well before 1974, but it generally referred to Jews in Palestine. Arabs living there did not want to be called Palestinians.

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8520

Gerald A (9d78e8) — 12/12/2011 @ 6:30 am

I agree very much with AG80′s view of Perry’s recent redirection on religious topics. I think it’s unnecessary and I think it’s a pander.

I just now watched Perry’s “war on religion” ad. It’s titled “Strong.” Should be titled “wrong.”

carlitos (49ef9f) — 12/12/2011 @ 6:49 am

The last debate might have been the most watched-I think it was the first one on a major network-cable does not get as many viewers. Plus it might have been the first one working folks could get home in time to watch.

madawaskan (89a442) — 12/12/2011 @ 8:31 am

The more people react to that commercial-the more I get into Perry’s argument-I’m kind of sick of the war on Christmas trees-back the hell up.

I have atheist as best friends-but if you want tolerance and you don’t believe-what in the hell is your problem with Christmas trees?

It’s ridiculous-we should have a right to freedom of religion but I think a lot want to take it to the extreme of freedom from religion and getting all pretend upset about something you don’t even believe in-what in the hell?

madawaskan (89a442) — 12/12/2011 @ 8:35 am

The communist junta in china would have set that christmas tree ablaze.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/12/2011 @ 9:40 am

Thomas Jefferson didn’t own slaves that was debunked.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/12/2011 @ 12:44 pm

Wasn’t aware greed is a criminal offense leftys?

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/12/2011 @ 1:12 pm

The Transjordan was a British governorship as Syria French.

It was. But it became an independent kingdom in 1945. And it annexed Judaea, Benjamin, and Samaria in 1949, and became “Jordan”.

Because the Jordanians shoot better in dresses

No, it was the Iraqi soldiers who were found disguised in women’s clothing after the battle of Dir Yassin.

The Palestinans are the Ammonites and Moabites of old from the east of the Jordan.

Hardly. Sancheriv exiled those people more than 2500 years ago. The “Palestinians” are mostly composed of immigrants from all over — as close as Syria or as far as Bosnia. See Joan Peters. And unlike the Jewish immigrants, they were not returning home, they were coming to a foreign land in search of economic opportunity, which, as you say, was created by the zionists.

The Jews have been in Jerusalem since the Temple fell,

Not quite. The crusaders killed all the Jews and Moslems of Jerusalem, and there were no Jews living there for something like a century afterward.

But when Mark Twain knocked about Palistine in the 1840′s he declared the land empty.

Well, mostly empty, in between the cities. Which weren’t all that full themselves either; just look at photos from the early 20th century.

Actually, the term Palestinian was around well before 1974, but it generally referred to Jews in Palestine.

Only until 1948. And Daniel Pipes dates the beginning of Arab “Palestinians” to 1920.

Milhouse (d7842d) — 12/12/2011 @ 3:53 pm

It’s been a tough choice. Agonize, agonize, deliberate…. oh which? Finally, the answer is right there. Obvious, yet elusive until this moment….

PopSecret.

tifosa (d53eff) — 12/12/2011 @ 6:40 pm

But when Mark Twain knocked about Palestine in the 1840′s he declared the land empty.

Mark Twain was there in 1867. His observations were published in his book “The Innocents Abroad” which was a humorous book, with many things not intended to be taken seriously, but aside from his language you can tell that what he says here is mostly true.

You can start reading about hee, maybe:

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=244&fk_files=1806746

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/12/2011 @ 6:57 pm

#

Comment by JD — 12/11/2011 @ 7:28 pm

SF:

This is an illustration, by the way, how Newt Gingrich has a somewhat accurate but much too superficial knowledge of things.

Because he was off by 3 years on the date of their creation? Because the idea that Palestine was invented is not somewhat accurate, it is a fact.

Because he was off by 3 years, and had no idea of the circumstances of their creation. There was a date and a place where they were created.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/12/2011 @ 7:07 pm

Comment by Milhouse — 12/11/2011 @ 10:39 pm

SF: I am actually old enough to remember when the Palestinian people were created – and Newt should be too. I guess they just crept up on him and he’s not sure when.

But it was not in 1977, but in 1974, specifically at the meeting of the Arab League in Rabat Morocco in October 1974, that, simultaneously, the Palestinian people were invented, and Yasir Arafat was declared to be the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people

Comment by Gerald A — 12/12/2011 @ 6:30 am

Actually, the term Palestinian was around well before 1974, but it generally referred to Jews in Palestine. Arabs living there did not want to be called Palestinians.

The term Palestinian, yes, but I was talking about the term “Palestinian people” Before the fall of 1974, we had “Palestinian refugees”but no “Palestinian people”or even “Palestinians. In 1947 Palestine was supposed to be divided into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

Sirhan Sirhan, in 1968 (and because of that till today really) was never described as a “Palestinian”

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8520

In this link, Walid Shoebat says he became a Palestinian in June 1967. This is incorrect, actually. He became a “Palestinian” because of the 1967 war, but it didn’t happen until 1974.

Comment by Milhouse — 12/11/2011 @ 10:39 pm

Incorrect. You start hearing of a “Palestinian people” from about 1920, but especially from 1964 when the PLO was established.

I will try to check that out tomorrow. I know it does go back a few days before October 28, 1974 but at that time I would say the Palestinian people were an idea – they hadn’t yet come into existence.

The Rabat conference was primarily about backing down from the “three Nos”, meaning the absolute refusal to negotiate with Israel; at Rabat, after realising that their dream of defeating Israel on the battlefield and simply wiping out all the Jews was not going to happen, the Arabs agreed that it was OK to negotiate with Israel and obtain whatever territory was possible as an interim solution, so long as there was no compromise on the ultimate goal of destroying Israel completely. In the meantime any territory that could be obtained from Israel was to be used for a “Palestinian” state which could serve as a staging area from which to attack Israel again in the future.

That may be, but that’s when they declared that Yasir Arafat was the only person for Israel to negotiate with, dressed up, of course, in all sorts of other ideas.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/12/2011 @ 7:36 pm

12/11/2011

GOP Debate: Open Thread

113 Responses to “GOP Debate: Open Thread”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out