Patterico's Pontifications

12/29/2011

Yes, a conservative candidate is electable

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 9:07 am

[Posted by Karl]

Commentary’s Jonathan S. Tobin (tough competition for Jennifer Rubin as the media’s most shameless Mitt Romney shill) defends National Review’s anti-endorsement of Newt Gingrich against the critics:

 The latest to vent his spleen about this alleged betrayal of conservative principle is Jeffrey Lord who wrote in the American Spectator that the attack on Gingrich was akin to NR’s founder William F. Buckley blasting Barry Goldwater​ in 1964 or Ronald Reagan​ in 1980. His point was not just that any of the other conservatives still in the race was better than Romney but that Buckley’s magazine had become the moral equivalent of the old-line GOP establishment that its founder had spent his life battling.

But Lord’s anguish is misplaced. Newt Gingrich isn’t Ronald Reagan. Neither is Rick Santorum​, Michele Bachman​ [sic] or Rick Perry​. And if you really think any of them are worthy successors to Barry Goldwater, does anyone on the right believe another 1964-style wipeout that would mean four more years of President Barack Obama is a good idea?

A focus on winning in 2012 is what many conservatives think is wrong with NR’s editors and others who have come to grips with the fact that Romney is the Republicans’ best chance for victory next November. Lord, and others who agree with him are not really arguing that Gingrich should be president any more than they are making a serious case for Perry, Bachmann or Santorum. None of them have a ghost of a shot at beating Obama though all of them can make a much better case than Gingrich for representing a consistent conservative stance on the majority of the issues. Rather, Lord seems to be making the case that ideological purity is a higher value than electability.

What does Tobin have against strawmen that causes him to beat them so repeatedly?  His column makes most of the same errors John Hawkins made earlier this week in claiming Romney is unelectable.  Like Hawkins, Tobin likely exaggerates the impact of ideology on voter choices, ignoring the fundamentals.  The general consensus among political scientists is that in presidential elections, the dominant factor is the economy, with candidate ideology being a distant second. Indeed, the studies suggest that a moderate does 1% or 2% better.  The 1964 wipeout of Barry Goldwater is remarkably well-explained by the fundamentals of peace and prosperity that year.  Absent the most remarkable economic turnaround in American history, a 1964-magnitude loss would probably not be in the cards for any of the candidates Tobin mentions.

This is not to argue that only the fundamentals matter; in October, I would have placed the odds of Obama’s re-election at better than one-in-seven, and they are likely even better now.  Rather, the point is that people who fixate on electability at the expense of the fundamentals tend to lapse into foolish arguments.  They also tend to be unknowingly drenched in irony.  If you want to fixate on electability, ideology is part of the mix, but so is the very basic Dale Carnegie notion of making friends and influencing people.  The snide arrogance of many Romney supporters is every bit as annoying to others as the spoon-banging of True Conservatives claiming they will stay home in November if Romney is nominated.  The voices shouting the loudest on both sides about electability seem to have a shaky grasp on the concept.

–Karl

60 Responses to “Yes, a conservative candidate is electable”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (f07e38)

  2. Tobin, has a whole case of matches, and what else do you with strawmen. What is sad, is how both he and Rubin contort themselves in order to sustify
    their support.

    narciso (87e966)

  3. Five more days, and our Long National Nightmare will begin anew.

    Any idea when the dog’s tail will send the first Tomahawk into Iran?

    AD-RtR/OS! (140483)

  4. Wall Street Romney was talking just the other day about how proud he was of using the power of the state to force people to buy health insurance.

    If we’re bent on having a cowardly statist whore in our once-respectable little white house I don’t think we can do better than Barack Obama.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  5. What is the straw man in Tobin’s argument? I’m not seeing it.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  6. ________________________________________________

    If you want to fixate on electability, ideology is part of the mix, but so is the very basic Dale Carnegie notion of making friends and influencing people.

    But not just the importance of persona or charisma (or lack of such) in either helping or hurting a person, but also the importance of observing the reactions and biases of the people that are a part of one’s daily life. That includes a person’s spouse, family members, neighbors, friends, colleagues, co-workers, acquaintance. IOW, there is plenty of liberal bias floating around out there, sort of like a blanket of smog, or the emotions of “I favor mommy over daddy” sentiment. Even more so if one isn’t living in an ideological vacuum (ie, a staunchly red-state type of place), and instead is residing in one of those bubbles where perhaps as many as 90 percent == or a solid majority — of people tend to think and vote the same way (eg, urban areas, the MSM, the Jewish community, many Episcopalian churches, black America, the entertainment industry).

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    Mark (411533)

  7. Speaking of straw men and brave hootchie posters who don’t have clown car uteruses.

    Simon Jester (450deb)

  8. Gerald A,

    The two major strawmen Tobin is flogging:

    1. Who (other than Gingrich) is comparing Gingrich — or Perry, Santorum or Bachmann — to Reagan? No one, although Tobin wrongly compares them to Goldwater.

    2. Who is making the case that ideology trumps electability? Not Lord, and not me. Not even Hawkins, who argues (incorrectly, imho) that a more conservtaive candidate is more electable.

    Karl (f07e38)

  9. then He smiled at me pa rum pa pum pum

    me an mah drum

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  10. Either who the individual candidate is matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, if the only thing that counts is “fundamentals” then there are no arguments for or against any candidate for the nomination.

    Now I think it does matter.

    But if it does matter, a crude idea of what ideology someone has not the only thing that matters. Character matters. And ideology is a little bit more complicated.

    Mitt Romney may not come across as less conservative than Newt Gingrich. Romney has been shamelessly pandering on immigration. If there is any place where liberal/conservative redounds to the benefit of the liberal, it is immigration. Gingrich at least has the germ of a proposal.

    Gingrich also has an internal aversion toward speaking nonsense, unlike Romney. Speaking nonsense, or making nonsensical proposals that don’t make sense on their own terms, is going to catch up with Mitt Romney. Now Gingrich makes incomplete proposals, and fails to see problems with them, but he should have an ability to correct himself.

    Now actually also Santorum might make a plausible candidate too.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  11. “… most shameless Mitt Romney shill …”?

    I thought that honor belonged to Ann Coulter?

    A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf)

  12. Now the idea that Romney is more electable than say, Gingrich. I think that’s making a big assumption. You’re assuming the negatives are going to stay the same – or assume for Romney at least they will, and there also seems to be an assumption by someone that the reason has something to do with Romney being less conservative.

    The fact of the matter is, right now there is, or was before the mid-December round of negative attacks against Newt Gingrich, a 2% difference in polling in a general election between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

    That does not mean Newt Gingrich loses 2% compared to Romney. It means they both lose votes compared to a generic Republican, or an ideal Republican nominee, and at the point when these polls were taken Newt Gingrich had a negative appeal to more people than Mitt Romney had, probably because of lingering memories from the 1990s.

    Now the old negatives (bad spending cuts) against Newt Gingrich can be expected to disappear (Newt Gingrich is best positioned to counterargue against all that) and Mitt Romney can be expected to lose esteem in the eyes of the voters – because he’ll be acting like Mitt Romney.

    There are new things though against Newt Gingrich, which he hasn’t answered. He has not explained what he did for Freddie Mac – and it’s killing him – and he’s got a few things he said recently too, like about starting constitutional crisis with the courts. He should just admit it was a stupid idea and unnecessary.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  13. Given the propensity of conservatives and liberals to vote for whomever is ‘their’ nominee, a 1-2 point advantage for the ‘moderate’ in the overall vote actually equates into quite a nice swing among those mushy middle voters who are actually up for grabs in any given election. This suggests (at least to me) that all things being equal, a moderate pulls more votes from the middle than is lost by the purists who pout and stay home.

    Another point: ‘electability’ is an outcome while ‘ideological purity’ is but one of the inputs that factor into the ‘electability’ outcome.

    steve (254463)

  14. then He smiled at me pa rum pa pum pum

    me an mah drum

    I’ve had that song going through my head for days now. It’s bloody infectious. And I was surprised to learn that it was written in 1941, and is still in copyright.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  15. Comment by Karl — 12/29/2011 @ 10:48 am

    I won’t argue with number 1.

    On point #2, I would say that it’s fair to read that argument into Lord’s piece since the primary argument by National Review for Romney CLEARLY is electability and Lord never challenges that premise. Instead he just complains about National Review being founded to oppose the GOP establishment, Romney being the establishment guy and not in the same political mold as Reagan etc. etc.

    He also says:

    Only the in the world of the GOP Establishment — producer of losing candidacies from Dewey to Dole to McCain — is the timid Romney’s flip-flopping seen as saleable. But saleable for what? Winning? Then what?

    So taking his not disputng the electability premise together with saying a President Romney won’t be conservative, I don’t see Tobin’s statement as a straw man.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  16. Rudy Giuliani is comparing Gingrich to Reagan. Santorum thinks Santorum is Reagan and says Perry wasn’t for Reagan before he was for Reagan.

    Chrissie Matthews says Perry is Reagan-like.

    Bachmann says she wants to be Margaret Thatcher.

    Tobin has been fairly open-minded about each candidate (exception is Paul), but has seen each of them – with the exception of Romney – prove themselves to be not up to the task… IMHO.

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  17. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    This place has become watching paint dry boring ever since Aaron Worthing left. Karl’s posts are always the same. I’m done here and going over to Aaron Worthing’s blog.

    Enquiring Mind (7068ce)

  18. Funny how there are no shameless shill charges lobbed at those who have favored the “not Romney”s…

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  19. bye

    steve (254463)

  20. Apparently, the “enquiring” part is meant to be ironic.

    Icy (711ae3)

  21. Dang it, Aaron! You can’t be a shameless shill for your own blog!

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  22. Gerald A,

    Your Lord quote suggests that he thinks the establishment guys aren’t particularly more electable than the conservatives, giving Dole and McCain as examples, without the policy benefits when conservatives win. I don’t read that as claiming ideology trumps electability.

    (My view would be that the fundamentals didn’t favor Dole or McCain, and that neither was a great candidate in terms of “electability” beyond ideology — neither was all that charismatic.)

    Karl (f07e38)

  23. True Conservatives claiming they will stay home in November if Romney is nominated.

    Anyone who does this is a moron of vastly greater magnitude than anyone who goes out and votes for The Great Big 0 a second time.

    THAT person is a mere fool, unable to learn from their errors.

    The person who refuses to vote out Obama for someone who isn’t anywhere near as good as they want — but IS blatantly better than President Downgrade (an exceptionally LOW bar I grant) — is someone who KNOWS how bad Obama is, but is in a childish SNIT because they aren’t getting their way.

    Grow the eph up. I don’t like Romney AT ALL, but he’s a damned sight better than 0 could ever possibly be — and, much, much more critically, he’ll put in far better SCotUS judges than anything 0 will select.

    And that is something with a very lasting effect.

    You can’t support Romney? Then don’t — support the selection of judges who will restore the Constitution to its rightful place in our government.

    The simple fact is, in every election, there may be NO ONE you want to vote FOR. There is almost ALWAYS someone you want to vote AGAINST.

    And if, in this election, that’s not Obama, then stop calling yourself a “conservative”, and tarring the name with ignominy. Because the fact is, you’re just an *idiot*.

    Geez, that anyone has to be TOLD this is scary in itself.

    I DO agree there’s too much timidity in terms of “electability”, but the ones who might have been electable alternatives to Romney aren’t generally running. We have THIS crop. Deal with it.

    I Got Bupkis, Don't Tread On Me (411b2b)

  24. I fail to see how anyone but the rankest partisans could not agree that the more ideologically pure a candidate is, the harder it is for that candidate to win the general election.

    Even if there was agreement as to what constitutes a ‘true’ conservative, there aren’t enough of them that such a candidate can win without getting support from people who aren’t as conservative. A candidate can lock up 100% of the conservative vote and still lose badly if the abandon the mushy middle to the other side (there is a reason candidates run to the middle once they’ve locked up the nomination… to paraphrase Willie Sutton, it’s where the votes are).

    And the more conservative a candidate is, the more likely that they’re going to scare those in the middle. The mushy middle are that way because they aren’t conservative… and no one in their right mind would argue that the best way to appeal to such people is with someone whose positions are at odds with their views. You’re not going to win these people with hard conservative views on abortion, immigration, tax cuts or spending on social welfare programs.

    To win, a GOP candidate has to appeal to the people in the middle… while minimizing the number of hardcore conservatives who illogically would prefer that a true liberal like Obama win a second term than have a demonstrably less liberal candidate like Romney win.

    As much as I would like a ‘real’ conservative to win, the question in the end is, per Buckley, going with the most conservative of the electable candidates. Paul isn’t electable, nor are Santorum and Bachman. And neither is Gingrich, but not for his positions per se, but because he is Gingrich.

    And my unhappiness at not being able to elect a true conservative is tempered by the fact that there is absolutely no way such a President would be able to win enough votes in Congress to implement a truly conservative reshaping of government. The best we can hope for is some nibbling around the edges, a postponing of the day that the whole liberal created mess comes crashing down.

    steve (254463)

  25. :roll: we get it steve if anyone doesn’t walk in lockstep with Romney they are partisan.

    I spit in your general direction.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  26. I think part of the problem is how the whole thing is framed.

    Obama directly supporting income redistribution, which is by all means an idea held by socialists and communists, is somehow framed as standard liberal politics, and wanting to limit out of control spending instead of increasing the debt ceiling is seen as a “right-wing extremist” position.

    In such a situation it is easy to see why a conservative (read=R wing nut job) would be hesitant to support someone “in the middle”, and why the typical person not paying attention would never vote for a conservative (Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know why, but they don’t care if the air or water is clean, and they want children to go to bed hungry, and, and…they’re just a bunchy of mean meanies!!!).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  27. Ron Paul: “The World Is Waiting for the Sunrise”

    Oh, wait, that was Les Paul.
    OK, I can vote for Les, since that is a sum greater than Ron;
    for with Les, you get Mary.

    AD-RtR/OS! (140483)

  28. Bain and the LDS vs Conservatives.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  29. Les, unlike Paul (the other one), is dead. While the dead can vote, and often do, they are rarely elected. And if elected, even more rarely fulfill their responsibilities.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  30. 27. At the very worst they can call us ungrateful masochists.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  31. Well then, Les will do a superb job compared to the present occupant, because at least he brings talent to the job, both artistic, and scientific (a tinkerer).
    The other guy just knows how to destroy, but never created anything in his desultory life.
    And, compared to Ron, Les at least was always looking towards the next new thing, not stuck in a past of his own fantasy.

    Yes, I know Les & Mary are no longer with us; and more’s the pity, they would have made a wonderful First Couple.

    AD-RtR/OS! (140483)

  32. #25: if you can stop spitting enough to respond, pray tell us which of the other GOP candidates will do better than Romney at getting votes from the middle?

    steve (254463)

  33. Virginia is skeptical of that yes answer.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  34. Centrists are just milquetoasts who will vote for Obama even if Romney is elected.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  35. Dohbiden takes a break from examining his chocolate starfish to type another meaningless comment.

    Carry on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  36. he’s the Queen of the Non-Sequitur.

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  37. Virginia is skeptical of that yes answer.

    She’s the girl with faraway eyes…

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  38. here is the catchy catchy song … it was on the CNN or something cause of it’s supposed to be a huge Song Of The Year but I do not understand the criteria

    but is very catchy it is in Tamil and English

    “kolaveri di” means something like “murderous rage” the CNN said… this is because of the song is about a guy what just got dumped by his sweet sweet Tamil girlfriend person, and he is sad, and he is angry, and he feels he must do the singings, and there you go

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  39. Your Lord quote suggests that he thinks the establishment guys aren’t particularly more electable than the conservatives, giving Dole and McCain as examples

    Maybe it suggests that, but he doesn’t explicitly make that claim. My take on Lord’s argument is the same as Tobin’s.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  40. Anyone who speaks the truth about centrists who refuse to vote for Romney is the enemy of Romneyrocks and Thug Haiku.

    I hope those two choke on their spit.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  41. Centrists are just milquetoasts who will vote for Obama even if Romney is elected.

    Comment by Dohbiden — 12/29/2011 @ 1:16 pm

    My in law describes herself as a moderate Republican and voted for McCain. She’s really bothered by the more conservative candidates. I don’t think she’d vote for them. Huntsman is her preferred nominee. I’m pretty sure she’ll vote for Romney although I didn’t ask about anyone in particular.

    One of the odd things about the conversation was that she mentioned the pro-life positions as a problem. I pointed out her guy Huntsman is pro-life. She didn’t seem to realize that. McCain is also pro-life. It seems “moderate” has as much to do with image as specific positions.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  42. What y’all seem unable to grasp (or at least have a hard time acknowledging) is that the average American voter is a lot closer in their thinking to Obama than they are to, say Bachmann. Romney marks about as far to the right as most of them will go; GWBush ended up being too conservative for their taste.

    Until you move the middle of American politics closer to the conservative side, you will have a difficult, if not impossible, time electing an actual conservative to an office such as POTUS.

    jbs (1b86f1)

  43. Yes and what will Chris Matthews do blame the Right and CIA for killing JFK because he saw how dangerous and evilly anti-communist the CIA was?

    Even though JFK would have been an evil anti-communist by Matthews standards?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  44. I just returned from a holiday where I talked to a lot of people about politics.

    I am shocked at how misplaced my faith in Perry’s electability was. Fair or unfair (And I think unfair) the fact is that he has completely failed to connect or inspire. That’s just the way it is.

    Romney has done poorly too. No one trusts him. His own advocates tend to be slimeballs or simply willing to compromise on almost anything to change (D) to (R).

    It’s Newt who seems to be the leader, the potentially great president, and I’m switching from Perry to Newt. He’s not perfect, but he can beat Obama and I’m not so sure that Romney can (polls say he can, of course, before he’s trashed and has no substance to overcome that with).

    Dustin (cb3719)

  45. I started out in Camp Mitch but then jumped to Camp Perry Mr. Dustin.

    Then I sorta flirted with Camp Cain.

    Not a lot came of that.

    Then I decided the admittedly odious Mr. Newt was the best we can do.

    But the childrens of the corn, they take their own counsel in these matters.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  46. 42) when then we really are doomed, or untergang as it is, in German

    narciso (87e966)

  47. 44,45. Newt will roll in the South.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  48. 42. No offense, but a ham and cheese sandwich with brown mustard will crush Obungle.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  49. narciso @46–
    well, let’s hope I’m wrong…

    Mind you I’m not saying the average voter is as liberal as Obama. But Obama’s difference in the leftward direction from the average is smaller than almost every GOP candidate’s difference in the rightward direction except Romney–and if anyone here has been arguing that Romney is a real conservative, I missed it.

    JBS (46fd97)

  50. Newt will roll in the South.

    – Newt will roll anywhere there’s a hill and a banana peel.

    Icy (800ea2)

  51. 50. Churchill: “A lie gets halfway round the world before truth gets its pants on.”

    Newtie is a beanbag on stilts, he needs a ball-busting push and a steep grade.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  52. I don’t see how Barcky is less hard left than some Team R candidates are hard right. Maybe the perception of, and portrayal of his ideology is such. But he is no closer to the middle than his potential opponents. And, on matters that matter, he is way outside of the middle – taxes, jobs, and the economy.

    JD (5e8dfe)

  53. JD–it’s the difference between the mean and the median. This country’s political middle is actually to the left of center. But so much of it is seen as generally accepted or common sense that most people don’t even think of it as being left.
    To get a real conservative elected requires pushing that middle back past the true center and to the right. Otherwise you will have to be content with candidates like Romney, who are simply less left than Obama.

    JBS (437df2)

  54. That may very well be the case, on social issues.

    JD (5e8dfe)

  55. This country’s political middle is actually to the left of center.

    Mindless propaganda, without any substantiating evidence!

    The Country is Center-Right, as has been shown with every study undertaken in the last 40-years that is statistically valid.

    Now, it is true that the intellectual “mainstream” is somewhere off to the Left, but that doesn’t cut it on “Main Street”, where the real votes are cast –
    which goes a long way to explain the distrust of major media, and the disdain that “real people” have for intellectuals and academics ensconced in their Ivory Towers.
    You really need to peruse Angelo Codevilla’s “The Ruling Class”.

    But, to the argument at hand:
    Yes, Romney is the current “establishment” candidate, and has the ability to erect a “wide tent” that would be comfortable for a lot of the squishes that inhabit the “Decline to State” middle muddle; but we would end up with ’08 Redux as it has not become apparant that he has the gumption to take the fight to Obama and confront him over the weaknesses, and blank areas, in his background (a major deficiency in the McCain campaign performance).
    Newt, on the other hand, if nothing else is combative when it comes to political policy and discussion of the weaknesses of his opponents.

    There are very few people who aren’t less Left than Obama!

    AD-RtR/OS! (304b67)

  56. Anybody evaluating these candidates would do well to read Robert Novak’s book, “Prince of Darkness.” He was a character but his views on fellow Republicans came with the bark on. He thought that Gingrich lost interest in governing as soon as he became Speaker but his most scathing criticism was of Goldwater who he called a lazy candidate. Remember that Goldwater did not even spend all the campaign funds available and returned the rest to the GOP committee. That’s how hopeless he considered his own campaign to be. He was a terrible candidate.

    Mike K (9ebddd)

  57. We know perception at times may be more important than the truth. A large segment of the public at large believe that a conservative is a greedy SOB that doesn’t care if children go to bed hungry and don’t care if the air and water is poisoned, and that to be a liberal/Democrat is to be concerned about other people.

    If one could ever get past that and show how many conservatives are every bit as concerned, if not more, than the typical lib, but that the conservative desire policies that can be shown to work, not just sound good but damning unintended consequences, and people taking responsibility for themselves rather than spending somebody elses money, then things would be different.

    Take abortion as an issue. Obama’s opinion is that if a woman does not want the child she is carrying that she has the right to make sure it dies, that it is killed. Not even Nancy Pelosi favors that stance. But how often have you heard that in the general news when abortion is discussed? Never. Unfortunately, I’ve known people who claim to be pro-life due to Christian convictions who voted for Obama anyway because he was African-American.

    So America may be “center-left” in self-perception, but if you go issue by issue you will find people are actually more conservative than they think, because they can’t imagine themselves to be one of those “self-centered conservatives”.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  58. Comment by Mike K — 12/30/2011 @ 9:57 am

    Barry was all set, with an agreement from JFK, for a Lincoln-Douglas campaign in ’64, but things changed abruptly that day in November.
    I think he only pursued the nomination to deny it to Rockefeller – which denied the establishment absolute control of the party.

    An interesting anecdote:
    In the ramp-up of the war following the election and LBJ’s inaugaration, there was a cartoon in the OCRegister of a meeting between LBJ & McNamara.
    LBJ asks McNamara: What should we do in Viet-nam now?
    McNamara is shown going through a file cabinet drawer labeled “Goldwater – Bombing / Viet-nam”.

    So, BHO is not the first Dem President to follow the advocacy (or policies) of his campaign opponent.

    AD-RtR/OS! (304b67)

  59. Comment by MD in Philly — 12/30/2011 @ 11:53 am

    Doc, those are also the findings of Dennis Prager from the 20+ years of being on the radio and talking to callers.
    The “center” has this perception that the “right” are all Simon Legree’s, or Ebeneezer Scrooge’s, that they have been sold by the Left, and are just plain uncomfortable even thinking that they are, in their heart-of-hearts, conservative because the don’t wish to be thought of as “uncaring”.

    AD-RtR/OS! (304b67)

  60. Yes AD, thanks for commenting.
    I claim no thoughts to be completely original, but neither do I remember things clearly enough to assign proper credit to whom it is due.
    I think I have heard Hewitt also (along with Prager as you say) ask a caller who considers themself a liberal a series of questions then ends up saying, “If that’s what you believe, why do you say you’re a liberal”.

    Of course, they both smoke the same stuff (cigars), so one could expect some things in common.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2823 secs.