Hamageddon!
[Posted by Karl]
Did you think it was all over but the vote counting in South Carolina? That the cablenets would just be filling time with all that live coverage today?
Gingrich and Romney are both scheduled to hold 10:45 a.m. events [today] at Tommy’s Country Ham House in Greenville, to make a final push for victory in the surprisingly-competitive primary.
Could there be a more fitting climax to this saga? The Man America Hates vs. The Man Bleeding Support — mano a mano at the Ham House! To paraphrase Chuck “Cutman” Kimmel” “I’m not much on predictions, but I will say this: one of these fighters is gonna win this bout tonight, and the other will almost surely not.”
–Karl
I doubt a clash (if one was to happen) on the day of the primary will have much of an impact on the results in South Carolina.
steve (254463) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:17 amIf there is one, leave it to Newt to ham it up.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:21 ama newt in a poke
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:23 amis worth two newts in the bush
no Virginia Ham
That was ham-fisted of you, colonel;D
felipe (2ec14c) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:23 amfelipe…
picture fat li’l newt
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:27 amin the clutch with Callista
the honey-baked ham?
Of course, if the two candidates were to arrive on wild broncos, they would turn the place into Buckingham palace. XD -groan
felipe (2ec14c) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:28 amdown in florida
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:29 amafter Mitt kicks his fat ass
he be the smoked ham
With that, I ham outa here!
felipe (2ec14c) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:31 amif I smite the Newt
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:33 amyou wake up and smite the Newt
we done smote the Newt
ham a nice day, felipe!
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:34 amOr: vini, smite, smici! I came, I smite, I smote!
felipe (2ec14c) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:36 amYou, chew, Colonel!
felipe (2ec14c) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:37 amOops! My pig-latin is rusty. that should read: vini, smiti, smici!
felipe (2ec14c) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:39 amUHG! third time is the charm (I know, this is no longer funny, if it ever was)
Veni, smidi, smici!
apologies to everyone. OCD, ya think?
Now I really am outa here.
felipe (2ec14c) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:05 amHEY FELIPE–stop hamming it up!
John Bibb (193f6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:26 am😆
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:33 amThat’s not really how Iowa worked out.
The press loudly proclaimed that Mitt won the race he lost, and embarrassingly lost when you consider how much cash he spent on negative ads in that state… something like 75X more money than the guy who kicked his ass.
The longer this primary goes on, the better for candidates who do not need to rely on massive ad spending, and probably the better for deadening the low info voters to such ugliness that Obama will surely attempt to bring up again. That’s the only way the grassroots can beat the beltway, IMO.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:38 amUp next: CNN LIVE at the Ham House!
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:44 amSomewhere in Texas, Mr. Broken Record crawls out from under his rock.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:45 amCNN reports Romney showed a half-hour ago, but fled the Ham House before Gingrich arrived.
Brave Sir Robin.
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:48 amSometimes I wonder if Romneycare was really Ted Kennedy’s idea, or if the gun fee Romney championed was really Ted Kennedy’s idea.
But it doesn’t matter that much. When the GOP’s leader just takes the path of least resistance, it looks identical to being a democrat.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:52 amWhich candidate do America’s business leaders support? Which candidate looks toward the future and has developed a sound plan to help the nation steer the right course?
One clue is to look at who has the organizational skills to mount a campaign that moves along like a well-oiled machine… competent, not grasping at life-lines… order, not reactive chaos.
Ground game, not “Hail Mary” lurching.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:52 amTrust CNN, Karl. I know I do.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:53 amRomney explains his greatest weakness.
Apparently it’s honesty.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 7:55 amCol.:
Sure, CNN is lying about this big showdown at the Ham House. Because if Mitt showed up at the same time, it wouldn’t have been better TV.
Romney’s supporters stuck around, btw, holding up signs to try to block cameras from airing Gingrich.
Also, I dunno if it was worth it, just to get that chyron identifying “Gingrich at the Ham House.” Might not be the best look for ol’ Newt.
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:00 amIf I had to pinpoint the single weirdest thing about this primary so far, it would be that a transparently manipulative robot like Mitt Romney had actually found a passionate supporter. Albeit a lone one.
Weird.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:01 amMeanwhile back in Texas, Perry spends another relaxing day, trying to figure out which crony capitalist to tap to help pay off his failed-campaign debt.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:01 amHe may be dumb, but at least he’s… relatively honest.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:05 amMaybe.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:06 amProbably not, actually.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:06 amWell, leviticus, I’ll compare the support Romney has from respected conservatives with all of his competition combined.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:06 amClassy.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:08 amAt least he’s not a robot. You are literally excited about casting a vote for a Robot Overlord.
Now I’ve got this image in my head of Mitt Romney sitting in the Darth Vader chair; and his hair-helmet descends from above and seals to the top of his head with a hermetic hiss…
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:08 amNo they fixed the positronic feeds, everythings copacetic now.
narciso (87e966) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:09 am“Well, leviticus, I’ll compare the support Romney has from respected conservatives with all of his competition combined.”
– Colonel Haiku
Knock yourself out. That says more about the bankrupt nature of the modern conservative movement than it does about Mitt Romney.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:10 amRomney supporters are classless idiots who think Palin and Bachmann are white trash.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:11 amThomas Sowell, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry (as poor as he is at politics, he’s a hell of a successful conservative governor), most conservative bloggers, the ghost of Ronald Reagan vs Christine O’Donnell, Meghan Mccain, Donald Frum, and trolls on the internet.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:13 amMy support goes to the guy who stands and fights for free-market capitalism, Adam Smith and against the crony-capitalism and class warfare practiced by Barack Hussein Obama and some of the folks who claim to be “conservatives”.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:15 ambtw, most of these endorsements are negotiated and BS. The voters don’t agree, which explains why Mccain beat the guy with most of the endorsements and most of the fundraising with a huge stake in Clear Channel in 2008.
Romney has always been the establishment guy the beltway and K Street and progressives want the GOP to nominate. That Romney gets the most endorsements proves this. There’s a reason Meghan Mccain and Donald Frum want us to nominate Romney, but if we don’t, hope Obama wins.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:16 amclaims the Texas Bull-sh*t Artist, formerly known as Dustin.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:18 amIf I had to pinpoint the single weirdest thing about this primary so far, it would be that a transparently manipulative robot like Mitt Romney had actually found a passionate supporter. Albeit a lone one.
Make that two!
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:19 am“My support goes to the guy who stands and fights for free-market capitalism, Adam Smith and against the crony-capitalism and class warfare practiced by Barack Hussein Obama and some of the folks who claim to be “conservatives”.”
– Colonel Haiku
Man, that’s good. Romney should incorporate that into a stump speech or something oh wait.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:19 amStand tall, MayBee!… so that we may yet see the forest, for the fleas…
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:20 ambtw, I believe a ton of Romney’s ‘endorsements’ aren’t. They are ‘advisers’. In other words, some of them took a check and were added to a list to prove how conservative Romney is.
Why did Romney need to go to such trouble and such a ridiculous list?
Because his record is liberal.
So don’t think for yourself… there’s a list of people who are smarter than you, like John Sununu, to explain that Romney and tax hikes are conservative.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:20 amRomney killed the Keystone Pipeline Project. Operation Chaos.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:21 ampost #42… hark… the voice of disaffected yute!
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:21 amProof Romney has praised tax hikes.
Note at the bottom one of Romney’s stooges insists Romney never raised taxes. No, he just forced subjects of the commonwealth to pay enormously higher fees, lose “tax loopholes”, and of course, pay for Romneycare (which is a tax hike even if they arrange it specifically so the money goes from subject to insurance company, or subject to federal government first). So the citizens were paying enormously more for enormous government growth, but they made sure never to call it a tax.
This is not conservatism. It’s exactly how Obama operates. I mean exactly.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:23 amI’ll take disaffection over collaboration with the aspiring Robot Overlord any day. Long live the Human Resistance!
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:23 amSomewhere in Texas
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:23 amthe flea-bit peanut monkey
stalks the coyote
Long live the Human Resistance!
but not on the federal/state teat.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:24 amDon’t try to change the subject, which is that you think we should just submit to the impending robot rule without a fight.
What have they promised you? Whatever it is, you have to know that they’ll just extract your organs for synthetic lubricant as soon as you’ve served your lever-pulling purpose…
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:29 amObamacare: sure, the citizens have to pony up $10,000 for health insurance because the government “mandates” it or will fine you, but it’s not technically a tax increase if you are forced to fund a government program and we don’t call it a tax.
Romneycare: what Obamacare said.
And yet Romney has the most hostile supporters out there. I think Leviticus is quite mistaken. It’s actually predictable that the guy with the least merit would require the most personal and aggressive defenders.
Ronald Reagan didn’t need such ugly defenders (from Mitt Romney, btw, who campaigned against “trying to return to Reagan” when it benefited him in MA).
We have this constant ‘how dare you criticize the man’s true record!’ from those who go 100X further with untrue and actually often disgusting ‘joke’ criticisms of a politician’s sexuality, his wife’s ‘daddy issues’, his religious conversion, being p****-whipped, etc etc.
It’s actually not nearly as bad here as it is at other blogs. I’ve dealt with Romney fanatics who have insisted they would knock my teeth out if they could.
Newt Gingrich doesn’t need (or frankly deserve) such blind rage loyalty. What he wants is a mere decent discussion of policy and the real issues.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:29 am“What he wants is a mere decent discussion of policy and the real issues.”
– Dustin
Bullsh*t. What he wants is everyone to acknowledge his supreme awesomeness while (somehow, impossibly) looking past the fact that he’s a thin-skinned, spineless little cretin.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:32 amOK, maybe. I admit that we’re left with some rather lame choices and Newt does have a hell of an ego on him.
I didn’t interpret his debate bombast as thin skinned or spineless, but I don’t mind if you do.
By all means, have no respect for any of these people. But I do think Newt discusses policy quite a bit, and his agenda is the best one.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:33 amWhat he wants is everyone to be positive, as long it ultimately benefits him.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:34 am“By all means, have no respect for any of these people. But I do think Newt discusses policy quite a bit, and his agenda is the best one.”
– Dustin
Fair enough. I’m sure our idea of the “best” agenda is leagues apart, but fair enough. I’m mostly just fixated on having no respect for any of these people.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:36 amSure. Because a positive debate does benefit the guy with the best record (remaining) and the best agenda.
And it’s also better for our country. Sure, each of these guys craves power first, but I think Newt is a good man trying to accomplish something very good for the country.
Don’t get me wrong, btw. Newt wants to Be The One who turned America back around towards Laffer/Kemp/Reagan ideas. He badly wants to fulfill his potential by beating back the growth of government.
That’s ego, sure. But it’s ego I can rely on when the going gets rough.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:36 amI don’t blame you one bit. I’ve become far, far more jaded in the past year or so, seeing folks I used to respect become basically animals.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:37 amAt least Gingrich won’t force us to build solar panels to power his robot minions…
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:38 amI seem to recall it is on many issues, but I suspect we both want a much less consequential federal government that costs a lot less.
It’s unfortunate that things didn’t work out the way I wanted. I wanted the Tea Party and this presidential race to be about leaders saying ‘we need to put aside EVERYTHING but reforming the spending and power of this federal government. We need to put aside EVERYTHING else for a little while.’
The guy who championed that decided the presidency wasn’t worth putting his family through hell. Go figure.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:39 amI like Mitt, but so far I’ve managed not to threaten to beat up any of his critics.
Oh wait! That’s not true. I told SarahW we might end up in a girl fight.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:40 am“Newt wants to Be The One who turned America back around towards Laffer/Kemp/Reagan ideas. He badly wants to fulfill his potential by beating back the growth of government.”
– Dustin
Bah. A thousand times, bah. What Gingrich wants is to be President, so he can show all those bastards who had the temerity to chase his sorry hypocritical ass out of D.C. who’s really in charge.
I say these things with great respect for your body of work here, but geez louise.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:41 amAnd a chance to show the h8rs how super-duper-smart he is.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:43 amI freely grant I get caught up in hoping one of these bozos is up to the task and am frequently left admitting I was mistaken.
Sure. But he wants to be very important historically. I totally believe the way he intends to do it is to facilitate some reforms and fight big government. There are plenty of indicators I am mistaken, though. He’s not as consistent as I want, but I am a beggar and I’m not choosy.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:43 amor in mom n’dad’s basement
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:44 amSince gun ownership rates in Massachusetts were less than a third of those of Texas even before Romney’s inhuman registration fee increase, those howling about are merely imposing the values of residents of another state or region where an issue is less important.
It’s similar with the criticism of Romney not cutting education spending. Obviously with a balanced budget he would not have gotten that through a Democrat legislature and education was a priority for the state.
The most consistently conservative governor who dropped out of the race also relied on increasing fees to balance his budgets, but did not call them tax increases. He also voted for a $5.7 billion tax increase while a Democrat in the legislature and imposed a flawed $3 billion tax increase on businesses in 2006, but you never hear anything about that. And yes, his crony capitalism is objectively legendary. Pay to play in Austin.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:44 amI need to be really careful about how I complain about it.
I know a lot of Romney supporters personally and 100% of them are people I genuinely respect.
I notice the ugly ones online, but they are obviously exceptional. I think if someone tries to prove Romney is something he’s not, they have to go overboard.
If, on the other hand, they think Romney isn’t really particularly conservative but do think he’s a better politician and just want Obama out… they don’t need to go overboard to argue that.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:46 am________________________________________________
I’m mostly just fixated on having no respect for any of these people.
If you don’t — or won’t — say that with as much passion when it comes to President “Goddamn America” or most of his ilk, what does that imply about various folks on the left? That such people are so comfortable with ultra-liberals similar to Jeremiah Wright’s buddy, that even squishes like Romney and Gingrich are too conservative for them?
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:48 amor in mom n’dad’s basement, true. Although the basements may be highly effective staging areas for the Robot Overlord’s Hovertron Eradicators, providing that we can camouflage them well enough.
Too bad there aren’t enough basements out here in the West. Looks like we’ll have to center the Human Resistance in the Rust Belt.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:50 amokay maybe but
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:50 ami’m the heartfelt guy who’s lies
are just innocent
Mark, I think a lot of patriots who don’t respect the eventual GOP nominee particularly will be willing to vote for him anyway on an argument that Obama’s abuse of office has simply crossed a line.
Even if I think Romney and Obama are ideologically identical (and I don’t) then I would vote Romney just because it would be atrocious if Obama were reelected, basically showing the voters consent to Fast and Furious, the recess appointments, the IG firing, the Libyan invasion, and frankly, on and on and on like that.
I think a lot of people can just put ideology aside and vote on protest grounds entirely.
But of course, I think it’s too early for that conversation because there is a real ideological difference between the remaining GOP candidates so we should pick the best (or least bad).
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:51 amyou can call ’em lies
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:52 ambut I’m innocent, heartfelt
texan so there’s that
“If you don’t — or won’t — say that with as much passion when it comes to President “Goddamn America” or most of his ilk, what does that imply about various folks on the left?”
– Mark
I do say that with as much passion when it comes to Obama – sometimes more, because he purports to represent me. It’s just harder right now because he’s keeping such a low profile; and these guys are out front.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:53 amLeviticus, just curious, do you have a preference left in the GOP primary? Did any of these guys or gal appeal you you? What did you think of Huntsman?
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:54 am_____________________________________________
Even if I think Romney and Obama are ideologically identical (and I don’t)
Dustin, both Romney and Gingrich lack a history and background replete with ultra-conservatism, whereas Barry’s lifetime is full of “goddamn America” ultra-liberalism. That’s why the part of the electorate willing to give the current president more benefit of the doubt than he deserves, or will ever deserve, and, in turn, is skittish about the squishes that likely will be running against him, has to be loaded down with lots of leftwing sentiments.
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 8:59 amI’m on the verge of thinking that anyone who would actively seek political office is woefully unworthy of it. Our political leaders should be conscripted.
But to answer your question more directly, the only GOP candidate I have any respect for is Ron Paul, because he’s consistent and honest. But he’s consistently and honestly wacko in a lot of ways, so the respect is limited and highly qualified.
To be fair, I couldn’t pinpoint a Democratic politician I have any real respect for either. In the last election, I wrote in Wendell Berry and (if I recall correctly) Aldo Leopold.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:02 am__________________________________________
I do say that with as much passion when it comes to Obama
Leviticus, because of your younger age, you at least deserve some leeway, regardless of how you voted in 2008 or how you’ll vote this year. OTOH, when I observe people much older than typical teenagers or college-aged individuals, or far beyond their 40th birthdays waxing poetic about Obama or other liberals who aren’t much better than he is, I really do think there’s something lacking there. Call it an innate, intrinsic lack of common sense. Call it a form of stunted maturity.
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:05 amRe: post #66… there you go again, daley. Let the filtering return!
Texas Ministry of Truth (Minitruth) forbids you to speak ill of the dead.
Obama – and liberals in general – need their agenda shoved up their collective ass. They’re nothing more than piggish leftwing activists feeding at the public trough, demanding more.
They’ve had their Revolution of Corruption and Greed and have extended their tentacles throughout our education system, media, government and institutions. To rid the country of this insidious menace will require hard work, determination and a belief in a better tomorrow.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:07 amObama’s been keeping a low profile?
He just nixed a major pipeline construction project for no valid reason.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:07 amThe amount of degradation you have to put yourself through to be a political leader in this country is not something a man of character should accept. And that should be to the great shame of the American populace.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:08 amWith Romney, that’s a lot like saying water has a lack of history with being ultra dry.
But yes, that’s true.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:10 amIt’s getting to the point where you can’t even list out all the outrageous and stupid decisions that make no sense and hurt the economy or even the rule of law.
Obama simply has got to go. Even if the GOP nominates Jimmy Carter.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:11 am“Call it a form of stunted maturity.”
– Mark
Call it having different values than your own and leave it at that. As long as you are supporting any Republican politician, you’re nothing but the mirror image of those people. The idea that there’s a natural progression from liberalism to conservatism is one of the more grating pretensions of the Republican faithful.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:12 amDustin, can I answer the question you posed to Leviticus?
My husband donated to both Governor Johnson and Governor Huntsman.
I particularly liked Johnson; I’d been leaning towards him from the start, but when he talked about using cost-benefit analysis to help decide who we should imprison, my respect for him soared.
I was OK with Huntsman. I think he got a raw deal from people who didn’t like him because he worked for the Obama administration (in my worldview, if the President asks you to serve your country, you do, regardless of his party). He seemed to be a peculiarly ineffective politician, though – a combination of conservative policies with a liberal (or, perhaps, old school upper middle class northeastern Republican) self-image. He tried to win over Republicans by insulting them, which seemed like a bad plan.
I agree with those who say that Governor Romney appears to have no soul. He might be an OK president, he might not; it’s hard to have any clue what he will actually do, because it’s hard to tell what he actually believes. So how can I know if I support him or not?
I generally think Speaker Gingrich is the best of the lot. He has interesting ideas – but some of his ideas are also, quite frankly, crazy and terrifying. (He talked, in one of the debates, about making all federal employees take a loyalty oath. What would this achieve, other than to create an inquisitorial atmosphere in government agencies?) Still, he shows signs of having thought more deeply about things than his opponents, and he’s unusually willing to admit to unpopular realities (his point about how Americans just aren’t going to deport people who’ve been in the country for 25 years and have strong community ties is dead on, for example).
I find myself reluctantly liking Senator Santorum. He’s a big-government conservative, and he’s a government-should-support-his-view-of-social-relations conservative, which I generally have trouble with, and he’s shown signs in the past of being particularly hostile to gay people.
And yet … he’s *earnest*. He’s deeply wrong on almost everything, but he’s not pandering; he comes across as though he deeply believes everything he’s saying and that he’s a normal guy. He definitely wins the “who would you most like to have a beer with” test, for me.
I have a love-hate relationship with Representative Paul. I like a lot of the things he says; but a lot of the things he says are also crazy. (The notion that the federal reserve is what causes the business cycle, for example, is just absurd; the boom-and-bust business cycle existed well before the federal reserve did. There were business cycle panics throughout the nineteenth century, and there’s some evidence of business cycle panics in eighteenth century england).
He’s also … and there’s no good way to put this … not the man he was in 2004. He’s aged in a way that causes him to stumble over his words and is becoming borderline incoherent; there have been many debates where the only reason Jared and I understood what he was getting at is that we’re generally familiar with libertarian theory and his incoherent ramblings hinted at it enough that we could figure it out. If he’s doing this poorly *now*, what’s he going to be like in three years?
So … if I had to pick, it would be Gingrich. And then I’d vote for President Obama in the fall. 🙂
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:17 amThe amount of degradation you have to put yourself through to be a political leader in this country is not something a man of character should accept. And that should be to the great shame of the American populace.
Comment by Leviticus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s the politics of personal destruction, leviticus… and most of us know which side of the aisle degraded the process. Debasement is part of the Left’s nature… unacceptable, personally-destructive behavior is what they actively preach, let alone facilitate and greasing the way for an ever-increasing number of people to be wholly dependent on the State is their objective.
They seek the consent of the lowest common denominator tribe of people, which they have largely created.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:18 amBut to answer your question more directly, the only GOP candidate I have any respect for is Ron Paul, because he’s consistent and honest
There’s something to that. I realized during the debate Thursday night that I don’t care what Rep. Paul’s tax returns say, because the notion of him being corrupt is simply so implausible as to be laughable.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:20 amSure thing, Colonel.
The reflexive impulse is highly overrated, right?
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:21 am____________________________________________
The idea that there’s a natural progression from liberalism to conservatism is one of the more grating pretensions of the Republican faithful.
By the same token, the assumption among most on the left that their ideology is somehow imbued with (and instills in its adherents) lots of compassion, tolerance, humaneness and generosity — far beyond what lies on the other side of the political spectrum — is the ultimate of pretensions.
As a salute to such liberals, recent and past, I hereby post the following:
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:22 amIt’s the Left’s caring, mutual death-clench embrace, as they accept everything except that which promotes the healthy, well-adjusted Man, demand nothing but blind obedience to the State, and program the next generation to continue the cycle.
Parasitism, infused with Marxism, with a sprinkling of nuts and a cherry on top.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:25 am_______________________________________________
Comment by Leviticus — 1/21/2012 @ 9:12 am
FWIW, I replied to your post but it apparently went into moderation. I realize that’s due to a certain word contained in my text, taken straight from the writings of Harry Truman, the Democrat president who in the 1940s promoted the idea of a national healthcare program. Truman said things behind closed doors that would make even a Klu Klux Klanner blush.
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:26 amenjoy your sundae, leviticus.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:27 amand you talk of robots…
oh, the irony.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:28 am> demand nothing but blind obedience to the State
remarks like that lead me to believe that you don’t know any actual leftists.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:28 amObama’s been keeping a low profile?
Not really. He’s been quite visible at $35,000/plate fundraisers. Priorities, Maybee, priorities…
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:29 amOh, I know plenty, aphrael, better than they know themselves.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:30 am___________________________________________
he’s shown signs in the past of being particularly hostile to gay people.
Not trying to be flippant, but since surveys do indicate that around 80-plus percent of gays are liberals/Democrats, I wonder if the quirks in the mind that lead to that ideological preference are a major factor in homosexuality? IOW, does leftism affect behavior in general?
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:30 amThanks much for that insightful comment, Aphrael. It’s helpful to understand how other views look at these guys.
you’re right about Huntsman, and I admit I shouldn’t have held it against him for serving Obama’s administration. Great point.
I’m amazed you show respect to Santorum. It says a lot about what you’re looking for, which is authenticity rather than agreement (I’m sure you would prefer both).
I am in the Austin area, so I know a lot of Ron Paul fans (this is Ron Paul central). They support Paul because they think he is a positive argument for something, rather than just instinctive rejection of the other party (for example, support Romney because you are really fearful of Obama’s second term). Paul says so many things that are hard truths Americans need to absorb. I wind up nodding my head, and then putting my hands up in frustration when he takes it to kookyland. Ron Paul is at least keeping a few issues alive… he’s not really running for President, though… just using the platform to promote some views. BTW, I do not think there’s anything wrong with that, but I am glad he won’t be the next president.
Also, Leviticus is 100% right that anyone running for the presidency these days automatically suspect. I hate to say that, but our system is horrible, and a normal man who loved his family would not want the tradeoff, in my opinion. It is bittersweet that this confirmed my respect for Mitch Daniels.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:31 amHe recently had a fundraiser at the Apollo (about six blocks from my flat) which, as Presidential events do, totally hosed traffic in the area. Occupy Wall Street came out to protest against him.
But … fundraising dinners are sort of standard fare for politicians and are hardly high-profile events.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:31 amaphrael,
I might’ve said Johnson as well, if he were really running as a GOP candidate – but he’s not. Beyond that, I have vague memories of my Dad being pissed off at Johnson for overuse of the veto during his time as governor, and for whoring vouchers at the expense of properly funding public schools.
And I kind of know what you mean about Santorum. There’s a genuine sadness and seriousness to him that makes me think he genuinely cares about what happens to the people of this country; but he represents what I believe to be a highly misguided strain of Christianity, and as a Christian I would have a hard time electing him to an office where he would have the opportunity to give a lot of people the wrong impression about what being a follower of Christ is really about.
If his private faith could be what people saw, I think he could be a very positive example of a Christian man – but that’s the conundrum, isn’t it? It’s only the public faith that we’re ever able to see, and the public faith must be forced through the filter of political policies which are, in Santorum’s case, immensely wrongheaded. It’s puzzling to me.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:32 amTee Times seem to be the critical time for obama.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:36 amIt might indicate that folks who are willing to discuss their private lives to surveys are more likely to view that issue as highly relevant to their political support. And the democrats try a lot harder to win over on gay issues. The best the GOP often tries is usually more along the lines of ‘your gayness is not as important politically as a federalist system, reforms to spending, bla bla bla, so gays can be conservative too’.
I mean, what did you expect? For folks who go out of their way to identify as one of the interest groups (black, gay, woman, etc) the party that plays these groups off eachother will naturally have quite an advantage.
That’s generalizing. I know Romney used to explain he was a champion of gay rights, though I haven’t heard him discuss it in a long time.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:36 am“Oh, I know plenty, aphrael, better than they know themselves.”
– Colonel Haiku
What a burden you bear, Oh Noble Transcendent…
You remind me of Holly Hunter in “Broadcast News”:
William Hurt: “It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you’re the smartest person in the room.”
Holly Hunter: “No, it’s awful.”
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:37 amThe clarity of youth. We’ve all been there.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:38 amHowever you mean that, DRJ, and I know you mean it well, it comes across as contempt. Fond contempt, perhaps, but still.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:42 amHe’s not running as a GOP candidate now, but he was last summer. He’s since dropped out and decided to run as a libertarian.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:42 amYeah, I know. But I figured that Dustin was asking about the remaining crop.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:44 amDustin, the fact that in 2008, every Democratic party presidential candidate was in favor of repealing DADT, while every Republican candidate (except possibly Rep. Paul, I don’t remember where he stood) was opposed to it, spoke volumes to the gay community. So too does the fact that the legislative supporters of gay marriage are overwhelmingly Democrats. Or, for that matter, that in CA, the Republicans in the legislature overwhelmingly opposed domestic partnership legislation.
There are individual exceptions. But by and large, Republican politicians just aren’t supportive of the gay community; so it’s hardly surprise that the gay community is, by and large, not supportive of Republicans.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:46 amI’m on the verge of thinking that anyone who would actively seek political office is woefully unworthy of it. Our political leaders should be conscripted.
There is truth to this: There mere fact that one seriously believes himself/herself the very best candidate- out of millions of other citizens – to capably and wisely lead our country, indicates an ego problem right there.
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:46 am69. “Looks like we’ll have to center the Human Resistance in the Rust Belt.”
We’re ready, call it Poinatowski, WI where the 45ths intersect, east of Wausau.
Waiting for orders, Subcommandante.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:48 amis authenticity rather than agreement (I’m sure you would prefer both).
Yeah, pretty much. 🙂
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:48 amSorry, leviticus, but the people who place a much higher value on good intentions than actual, documented results are a bane on our society.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:49 amWell, aphrael, let’s not too hastily discount Mark’s argument that once people decide that Democratic political ideas appeal to them, they decide that they might as well be gay too.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:49 am108. Correction, about 11 miles west of Wausau and Rib Mountain the high ground.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:49 amIt wasn’t contempt at all, Leviticus. We’ve all had times in our lives where the answers seem so obvious that we can’t fathom why others don’t see things the same way we do. That’s usually true when we’re young but, on second thought, it would probably be more accurate to blame inexperience than youth.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:49 amIf you count yourself among that kind, you still have some growing to do… ya young whippersnapper, ya.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:51 amDRJ, the thing that I find odd about this interchange is that to my mind, it’s Colonel Haiku who is guilty of finding the answers so obvious that he can’t fathom why others see things differently.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:52 amaphrael- I agree completely with you about Huntsman, Santorum, and Paul. I would have liked Johnson to have been invited to more debates.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:52 amSupport who you will, aphrael… it all comes out in the wash.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:53 amMajor gulrud,
The Robot Overlord’s questionable gun control policies suddenly fall into stark and ominous contrast. We can only thank our lucky stars that good men like yourself so effectively resisted the dulcet yet suspiciously repetitive platitudes of the Great Mitt-Bot for so long. You have preserved the last hope of the Resistance by your diligence.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:54 am… now Ben Dover.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:55 amColonel Haiku: I unfortunately now live in a jurisdiction where my vote is almost completely irrelevant. If President Obama is in danger of losing New York State, he’s lost the election. Representative Rangel (for whom I will not vote) could not be defeated if he’d sodomized a dozen Congressional pages. Senator Gillibrand is about the only electoral contest I can vote on this year which is even remotely competitive.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:57 amSo Romney ducked Neuter at the Ham House.
Saw Sununu on the spit and figured the better part of valor..
Bring out the next surrogate, here’s my scarf.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:57 amWe’ve all had times in our lives where the answers seem so obvious that we can’t fathom why others don’t see things the same way we do. That’s usually true when we’re young but, on second thought, it would probably be more accurate to blame inexperience than youth.
On the other hand, when one has experience and age, their views become even more solidified, assured and fleshed-out, thus an even stronger sense of believing others to be wrong.
Most of us who are conservatives here are middle-age and while we understand and accept there are differing points of view, it’s still difficult to see why others don’t see what’s as plain as the nose on their face.
IOW, with age and experience comes a fuller understanding of why others think differently, however, I still wonder why President Obama cannot see why Keystone would benefit our country immensely.
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:57 amMy hope for the GOP is that it puts this issue aside in a way that is calculated to show support for gays in a particular way. That is, the GOP should say that it supports classic liberalism where everyone is equal before the law, and the federal government should not intrude or control or shape any issue it doesn’t absolutely have to worry about. The vision should be for California and Massachusetts to be different from Oklahoma and South Carolina.
That leads to a mess! A mess where your marriage might not be valid everywhere, or you get treated differently. And I think that mess is a healthy thing, long term, which will lead to progress. That progress might not always be in the direction I want, as different results provoke states to emulate accordingly.
I think this argument can extend far beyond gay rights, which I admit is not a major concern to me, pro or con. It’s Barry Goldwater explaining that the ‘civil rights act’ is actually opposed to civil rights and freedom. Yes, freedom to do what others don’t think is good (Which is the only kind of freedom that is real, since we don’t really need legal rights to do what others already want us to do).
Anyway, when Rick Perry took his campaign in a direction of negativity about gays in uniform, it was very disappointing. Not because I am worried about DADT, but because I wanted him to appeal to a broad group of folks on tenth amendment grounds… folks who disagree on a million things, but want the freedom from the federal government to live their lives.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:58 amDRJ,
I think I know how young I am, but I know how very very little I know. It’s struck me quite often of late.
Let me pose the question in the abstract, to demonstrate any lack of personal animus: if the young do not assume that their elders have Sold Out, then why must the elders so invariably assume that the youngsters have Bought In?
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 9:59 amYeah, I actually thought she was referring to him.
But no matter. I must try not to feud again while so many great commenters are hanging around.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:03 amLeviticus,
I was referring to your Broadcast News’ excerpt, not you. It’s been awhile since I saw that movie but I thought that was one of the movie’s themes.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:03 am> The vision should be for California and Massachusetts to be different from Oklahoma and South Carolina.
I would actually be ok with this, provided that the federal government went back to the old rule of recognizing (for immigration/taxation/etc) purposes any marriage which was valid in the domicile of the purportedly married couple.
I mean, my ultimate preference would be nationwide recognition. But I understand that this will take a generation or more, and that it’s currently acceptable in NY but not in TX, and I don’t think TX should be forced to recognize it. But it pisses me off that the federal government is now taking sides in a dispute between TX and NY when *for generations* it was happy to recognize interracial marriages from states that recognized them and not require them in states which didn’t recognize them.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:06 amI’m sorry. I wouldn’t have thought that, just because Holly Hunter isn’t really a young person person in that movie.
Plus, I’m oversensitive to that argument because it gets leveled at me a lot. But I should’ve considered the speaker. My sincere apologies.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:08 amI think that’s fair. What I think you’re saying is that for federal purposes, it would accept the state’s saying a marriage exists. Taxes, immigration, etc. I think it would be better if it didn’t force other states to do the same. That leads to an obvious problem of a confusing set of legal problems and folks who feel they are second class citizens now. That’s too bad, but it’s not something I want the feds to attempt to fix.
I feel the same way about the federal legislation to force reciprocity on concealed carry. Sure, it would be damned convenient to know I can carry almost anywhere, but it’s not the fed’s business to mandate state law.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:09 amAlthough upon inspection she was only 29 when it was made, so I guess she kinda was portrayed as a young person after all.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:10 amRight, i’m not asking that the feds mandate state law. So, for example, imagine I were legally married in NY; NY would let me file as married. What I’m saying is the feds should let me file as married, but the feds should not compel NJ, where I actually earn all of my income, to let me file as married.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:12 amPeople who are legally married (but gay) in NY can’t file as married?
How does the IRS know what gender you are?
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:15 amDana,
I agree in part. There are definitely some things I believe without hesitation that I was uncertain about when I was younger. But there are many issues that I see as more complex today than I did when I was younger. I guess you could say I have stronger feelings, but on a much smaller group of issues.
aphrael #115,
I agree.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:15 amAlso, it wasn’t even William Hurt she was talking to. It was Peter Hackes. Dammit.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:20 amI’m sick of gays demanding you kiss their ring and when you do they still have a problem with you.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:20 amMayBee: people in a legal same sex marriage in NY are allowed to file as married when they file their NYS taxes but not when they file their federal taxes because they don’t meet the federal definition of spouses.
See http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=245869,00.html for the IRS’ official statement on the matter.
—
DOMA has two parts, one which allows states to not recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. (Frankly, it was probably unncessary, because case law has always allowed state X to not recognize a marriage performed in another state if that marriage violated fundamental public policy of state X).
The other part requires IRS results like this one. When I talk about wanting to undo DOMA, this is the part which offends me.
—–
You’re right, of course, that the IRS can’t tell the gender of my spouse. But that doesn’t matter; the fact that the IRS might encounter practical difficulties detecting a violation of federal tax law hardly gives me, or anyone else, license to violate it.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:20 amLeviticus,
Holly Hunter wasn’t young in Broadcast News? Now I really do feel old!
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:22 amThe line between young and old notoriously depends on the age of the speaker. 🙂
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:24 am118. We are honored to serve, Sir, and pledge our lives. Death to the Fed and onward to coercive default.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:24 am“Holly Hunter wasn’t young in Broadcast News? Now I really do feel old!”
– DRJ
No no, she was! I corrected myself! She was only 29! Young by any standard!
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:28 amaphrael- I admit I did not know that. I expect Obama to ask for repeal of that part of DOMA as part of his campaign.
(ps. I adore you. Why would you let yourself be defined as part of a -community? I find that one of the more embarrassing constructs of current American politics)
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:30 amDustin,
I agree with you about Perry and the Tenth Amendment, and I wish more conservatives would consider that.
However, I don’t worry much that good people will be turned off by politics and refuse to run for office, any more than I worry people will refuse to study medicine or become mechanics. People gravitate to careers for all kinds of reasons, but I do worry when politicians try to use identity politics. I think that’s what Perry did in Iowa and it was disappointing.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:31 amFlat tax regiment forward. Damn the deductions. Full RESET.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:32 amLeviticus,
That’s a good point about selling out and buying in. I need to think about it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:35 amOTOH, if you are married and you have to split your income in half and each file as an individual, and you make between $200,000-$400,000/year, maybe you’ll be better off if Obama has his way.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:37 amRiflemen, don’t shoot until you see Direct Popular Election in their eyes. Don’t stop until Repeal of the 17th Amendment carries the day.
Term limits for the survivors.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:39 amInterestingly, I worry about the latter as well, though for unrelated reasons. There isn’t a whole lot I can do about it, so my worry is not constructive.
But I do think we should take every penny used to insure loans for degrees that aren’t in great need, and require every high school graduate have a skill (like mechanic, professional driver, computer technician, etc).
Let a class of high school grads who already have what they need to earn a living then decide if they want to invest in a history degree. That way, those who do are probably those who really have something to contribute (no, I don’t think most liberal arts majors will contribute as much as they would have if they were laborers, which I think is a great contribution).
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:39 amRight flank, Return All Federal Lands, make ready.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:43 amgary,
Have you heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? Very, very interesting stuff.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:44 amLeviticus, you’re the guy who likes proportional representation, right? Pretty sure I like the idea more now than I used to.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:47 amDustin,
I think President Obama’s economy has inadvertently succeeded in steering students away from colleges and into vocations. People respond to tax incentives and government programs, but in the long run they respond more to skills and training that lead to stable jobs.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:51 amDustin,
I am the guy who likes proportional representation very much. Particularly in an American setting, where the separation of powers is maintained.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:54 amRepresentative Rangel (for whom I will not vote) could not be defeated if he’d sodomized a dozen Congressional pages.
Hey, it’s legal in Puerto Rico, chico.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:55 amCharlie Rangel could be a disfigured guy in a wheelchair who had his pet boars chew off a guys face and he’d still win.
Nice hannibal reference.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:01 amNo, Sir, I was given an impromtu orientation at muster.
I’ll reconnoiter and report.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:01 amSpeaking of the very silly;
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/mitt-romney-south-carolina-primary-6642382?hootPostID=03d48f5ffb01764a12f883cea99a1d54
narciso (87e966) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:02 amTrue. The invisible hand works even under the challenges of today. The solution I had in mind was not a federal requirement, just to be clear. It’s just what I think high schools should do in order to improve the product they provide.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:02 am149. Impromptu
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:03 amMaybee, *blush*
The question about group membership is difficult to answer.
I am a member of many communities. I’m a member of the gay community. I’m a member of the software engineer community, and of the strategy and RPG gaming communities, and of the california expatriate community, and of the legal community, and of the morningside heights community, and of the NYC commuter community, and of the ultimate frisbee players community, and the EDM community, etc.
I consider myself to be a member of multiple communities as well as an individual because I believe it is through my interactions with the people around me that I have the most impact, and that those interactions are actually more important than anything else I would do; and because I tend to naturally surround myself with groups of people who think of themselves as communities and who are emotionally supportive of one another.
In my younger days, I tried to be an island; it was a mistake. Maybe it works for some people, it doesn’t for me.
That said, while i’m a member of all of these communities, my interests and beliefs are in no case co-extensive with any one of those communities. But because I’m a member of them, and talk to people in them, and more importantly *listen* to people in them, I tend to understand what the community’s interests and concerns are, and often share the *concerns* even if I don’t share the preference for the preferred solutions.
So I wouldn’t say I define myself as a member of the gay community exclusively; but membership in that community is part of who I am.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:05 amWith proportional representation, wouldn’t someone like Ron Paul be much more important than he is now? I’m not saying that would be entirely bad — I like Paul’s fiscal responsibility — but I’m worried that proportional representation would legitimize the more extreme political ideologies. I think it’s had that impact in Europe.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:06 amLeviticus – I can’t support the NPV compact unless every state which adopts it adopts it by constitutional amendment unbreakable by anything except a vote of the people.
MY reason for this is simple: in its current form, in a close election, it would encourage a state whose legislature had signed on, but whose voters voted for a candidate other than the national popular vote winner, to defect at the last minute, switching its electoral votes to the state winner rather than the national winner. Unless such action is procedurally impossible, in a close election, NPV basically converts the month of November into a national game of chicken.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:07 amaphrael,,
I’m a member of communities, too: my family, religion, and country/state. You just have a more modern version.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:10 amIt would. We would probably have a few racial supremacists and socialists and even perhaps some Dearborn Michigan craziness. This is why I’ve usually disliked the idea.
But what he have now is suffocating reform because most voters are resorting to the lesser of two lame parties. I don’t think we’d have radical results from these more legitimized extreme parties because they would have to form coalitions. I think the Tea Party would be much more viable a movement, as would libertarians on social issues. A lot of common ground is not leading to popular reforms because of how things are arranged today.
I at least am much more sympathetic to the idea than I used to be, entirely because I have given up on the GOP since it has not stood up for much of anything… not even a refusal to increase the debt ceiling.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:11 am156. Summary execution for collaborators.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:11 amDRJ, at 162: absolutely. I would go further and say that, for human happiness, the *existence* of communities is more important than the *nature of the binding agent*.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:12 amCommunities are important. It’s the -community being represented as speaking with one political voice that really irks.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:16 amTrue, MayBee.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:19 amRangel is a corrupt tub of lard.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:24 amNot just the usual Democrat dirty trick, but a crime…
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/not-just-a-democrat-dirty-trick-but-a-crime.php
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:24 amI think it’s fairly rare for a community to speak with one political voice. Even the gay community isn’t 100% united on the subject of gay marriage, for example.
But I think there’s a useful 80% rule here: in cases where 80% of a community will line up behind a particular position, especially if that particular position is integral to the cohesive bond underlying the community, then “the community thinks [x]” is a useful shorthand. As long as everyone understands that it’s a shorthand, I don’t see a problem. 🙂
Going back to the gay community – I think that it’s fair to say that at least 80% of self-identified gay people notice the behavior I described in #106 and, as a result, believe (or feel, depending on the degree of thought involved) that Republicans are generally to be found standing against things which large sections – maybe not 80%, but clearly a majority – of the gay community consider to be important.
There are individual gay people who don’t feel that way, certainly. And there are individual Republicans (see, eg, Gary Johnson, or Steve Litzow, or Steve Saland) who stand out as exceptions to the perceived rule that Republicans generally stand against the interest of the gay community.
But both generalizations seem to me to be as good as generalizations can be.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:25 am“With proportional representation, wouldn’t someone like Ron Paul be much more important than he is now? I’m not saying that would be entirely bad — I like Paul’s fiscal responsibility — but I’m worried that proportional representation would legitimize the more extreme political ideologies. I think it’s had that impact in Europe.”
– DRJ
He would be more relevant, certainly, because he’d have a segment of the Congress planted firmly behind him. (What I’m talking about is proportional representation at a Congressional level, just to clarify). And yeah, in some sense proportional representation does make the more extreme political ideologies more politically relevant, because it gives them seats in the House; but a) I think they’re basically entitled to those seats, regardless of what I think of their ideas, and entitled to a measure of relevance proportionate to their numbers, and b) I’m very comforted by the fact that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances would prevent extremist groups from enacting unconstitutional extremist policies. I think a written Constitution is a great boon in that regard.
At the end of the day, I think that we need a lot more political groups at the table if we’re going to keep calling ourselves a republic. I support proportional representation because I want to open the door for more political parties, and proportional representation is the surest way to do that.
I think the sentiment Dustin is expressing is exactly right and becoming increasingly widespread.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:25 amIsn’t that a somewhat selfish calculation, look at
narciso (87e966) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:29 amthe damage that Obama has exacerbated on the economy, just with shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, the Gulf moratorium, the rise of Salafism
in North Africa, QE 2’s effect on basic staples
Maybee, to continue the thought, I think the problem is not with the generalization, but with the belief, particularly the belief in the presence of contrary evidence, that the generalization actually describes a specific individual.
Stereotypes are first-order approximations which usually should be discarded as soon as actual knowledge is acquired.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:30 amCongratulations, Newt Gingrich, on the 15th anniversary of your House Ethics Violation Reprimand!
You were the first, but probably not the last.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:35 amMaybee, to continue the thought, I think the problem is not with the generalization, but with the belief, particularly the belief in the presence of contrary evidence, that the generalization actually describes a specific individual.
Perhaps, and thanks for all your thoughts.
I think what really started my irritation is/has been the constant reference to “women’s issues” (we’ve never gotten the female community tag, for some reason) that have nothing to do with what my issues are. Or what the issues of my friends are. They are most decidedly women-who-are-Democrats issues.
ISTM the -community desires are always actually Democratic party platforms. Anybody who has a different thought is then painted as being outside the -community.
I mean, sure gay people (many or most) want at least domestic partnership. But you can’t tell me a huge number of gay people can’t also see what a big fail Obama has been.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:39 amallahpundit: “Bashing Fox now RT @mediaite: Gingrich Explodes At Fox & Friends: ‘Isn’t ‘Fair And Balanced’ Part Of Fox News?’ http://t.co/EzUztlKS ”
Newt Unplugged. Angry Newt… Newt “Karen Finley” Gingrich… Newt “with chocolate sauce all over his chubby body Maudie Frickert” Gingrich.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:39 amhttp://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/01/20/a-crack-in-marianne-gingrichs-credibility/
narciso (87e966) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:41 amAbolish Department of Education form behind me and prepare to advance.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:43 am“You have to ask yourself”, what is performance art? and what is real? with Newt.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:46 amSome one forget to tell Mittens coat holders at Fox and Friends that report is confidential,
narciso (87e966) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:52 am177. “Whoever the GOP nominee is, he MUST be able to go toe to toe with Obama”
Soldier, what do you mean you have to have TP?
Break ranks.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:55 amPart of what I like about Newt is his theater. Running for President has become like a reality show. Bush, Obama, Hillary, and Newt have developed larger-than-life personas so they can deal with this, but most candidates are so bland they almost seem to melt in the media glare.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:06 pmMayBee,
I like your comparison of gay rights and feminism. Women may generally agree on equal pay for equal work, but that doesn’t mean they all agree on abortion or teachers’ union benefits. Similarly, why treat gays as if they all agree on immigration/amnesty and abortion?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:10 pmDRJ- I agree. It’s part of why I think finding the best candidate is sooooo different than finding the best president.
If we could have let Obama remain in his President Elect role, and have someone else actually run the country, we’d be so much better off.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:11 pmOr, for that matter, that in CA, the Republicans in the legislature overwhelmingly opposed domestic partnership legislation.
aphrael, where do I fit it? I support gay marriage and oppose all domestic partnerships as an affront to marriage. If you really want to hurt the institution of marriage, create a lesser form.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:13 pmObama is proof positive we have a really stupid system. Out of the entire country, this was the best candidate to run our three trillion dollar operation with over two million employees? Seriously?
Those foam columns did their trick.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:14 pmKevin M,
Would you be in favor of taking government out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to religion, or would that also undermine marriage? I can see an argument for both.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:22 pm🙄 congratulations on being a romney worshipping nutjob.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:24 pmPart of what I like about Newt is his theater. Running for President has become like a reality show. Bush, Obama, Hillary, and Newt have developed larger-than-life personas so they can deal with this, but most candidates are so bland they almost seem to melt in the media glare.
I agree, DRJ. Not that running for President should be like a reality show but it is what it is and the public, to a great degree, has made it such.
Newt is not only capable of dealing with this, but thrives on it and feeds off it, thus increasing his confidence and surety. He is captivating and compelling.
Then there’s Rick Santorum…
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:34 pmI think what really started my irritation is/has been the constant reference to “women’s issues” (we’ve never gotten the female community tag, for some reason) that have nothing to do with what my issues are. Or what the issues of my friends are. They are most decidedly women-who-are-Democrats issues.
It is interesting that this is true even when there is a conservative in office. The feminists have determined the litmus test of what qualifies as women’s issues and no one else is allowed to. Of course if everyone really agreed with their determinations, there wouldn’t be 61-35% rate of women who want to see abortion legal under only a few specific circumstances.
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:41 pmLeviticus,
It sounds like what you like about proportional representation is that it brings more voices to the table — which I agree is a plus. But it also sounds like it will do this by increasing the voices of fringe groups. I worry that will result in increasingly onerous rules or barriers to get on the ballot. If so, won’t that eventually reduce the diversity of ideas instead of expand them?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:44 pmThe left will lambaste whoever we put up even if he calls for raising taxes on the rich by 500% they will call him a liar.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:46 pmDRJ, Dana and Maybee you are on fire today! Also, I am appreciating the give and take of ideas involving commenters aphrael and Leviticus. Reading down this particular thread has been reminiscent of the thoughtful and respectful exchanges which used to be more frequent on Patterico.com– and for which I (and I suspect others) used to come around more often in hopes there’d be a good discussion going on as opposed to one of the nasty and juvenile food fights.
elissa (28c05d) — 1/21/2012 @ 12:59 pmTrue, Elissa.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:06 pmThe left are brazen isn’t it funny how the right never trot out the cheating democraps wives.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:08 pmDRJ,
I think the pros vastly outweigh the cons. It does increase the voice of fringe groups, provided that they can muster around a half million votes (by the current rates) – but it increases their voice marginally, and what’s a fringe group anymore anyway?
I believe that the number of rational, thoughtful people going without representation under this system far outweighs the number of irrational, thoughtless people who will achieve some measure of previously-lacking representation under a new one. More fundamentally than that, I can’t say that those people shouldn’t have a voice in a self-governing nation because I don’t want them saying that I shouldn’t have a voice when they wind up at the wheel. The crazy voices give us reference points for our own perceptions of sanity.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:16 pmThe nanny state left want to ban cigarettes and drinking.
The republicans should point out that the nanny state brings about suffering.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:18 pmelissa,
I was thinking the same thing. This thread has been old school in a very refreshing way.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:19 pmxoxox, elissa. It is a wonderful day at Patterico!
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:24 pmI’m in favor of more voices so you don’t have to convince me on that count. My interest is in trying to think through where this would take us. Can you discuss the pros and cons or point us to links that discuss them? How would it impact the “one man, one vote” principle?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:28 pmIt would validate it for the first time in our country’s history. Right now, a conservative vote in a liberal district is nothing; a liberal vote in a conservative district is nothing. How does that comport with “one man, one vote”? It’s “one man, and maybe one vote depending on whether or not you live in a swing district.” Strict proportionality is, in my opinion, as close to “one man, one vote” as you can get.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:37 pmI don’t really have links to anything, because I don’t really know who else is advocating for new parties via implementation of proportional representation. I know there’s a well-respected political scientist named Theodore Lowi who’s made the argument, but beyond that I’m not sure.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:40 pmOr a conservative vote in a very conservative district, too.
It eliminates the need for a lot of the shenanigans that go on into drawing district lines. but I imagine DRJ’s right that it would lead to some changes in ballot access. I hadn’t thought of that, but I can see a ton of well intentioned attempts to keep the marginalized off the map.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:41 pmI could email you my thesis, for whatever that’s worth 🙂
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:42 pmWhat MayBee said.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:43 pmYeah, that’s the other thing Dustin. The difference is that the conservative in the very conservative district actually ends up represented, albeit accidentally.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:44 pmThat would be great, Leviticus. I’m sure Patterico will agree to send you my email address when he finishes his trial. Or, if you’d be more comfortable with it, send it to Patterico-at-gmail.com and ask him to forward it to me.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:46 pm_______________________________________________
But by and large, Republican politicians just aren’t supportive of the gay community; so it’s hardly surprise that the gay community is, by and large, not supportive of Republicans.
But that should be qualified with the phrase of the “liberal/Democrat gay community.” The perhaps 10% of self-identified homosexuals (or bisexuals) who are truly conservative, and the possibly additional 5 to 10% that’s moderate/centrist must sense the complex nature of human nature and the many instances when leftism attempts to deny or disavow the obvious.
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:49 pmPS to Leviticus:
I’m confident your thesis is well done, which is why I want to read it. Nevertheless, rest assured I won’t share it with anyone without your permission.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:56 pm______________________________________________
Anyway, when Rick Perry took his campaign in a direction of negativity about gays in uniform, it was very disappointing.
Not disappointing when political correctness has corrupted no less than the US military to such a great degree that an Islamic fanatic (ie, Nidal Hasan) could spout off virulent anti-US, anti-Western rhetoric in front of his colleagues without anyone of them being alarmed enough to do something about it. IOW, if a situation as radical as that can slip through under the wire, who knows what other forms of PC-run amok will start manifesting in the military? Again, we’re talking about a situation in modern society that involves the context of the military, and NOT the context of an organization like the ACLU, Acorn, NAACP, PETA, NOW, etc.
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:59 pmSure thing, DRJ.
I’ll send them to Patterico, just to speed things along.
The opening section is a little… all over the place, I’ve been told (and recognized). But the latter sections talk more about proportionality and the good fit of PR with the Constitutional structure and the goals of the Framers.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 1:59 pmMark, I totally agree that the Nidal Hasan incident proves our military is crippled with a stupid degree of PC mentality.
It’s a critical problem every candidate should address. It’s tough having a frank fighting force dedicated to fighting islamofascism that also wants to welcome Muslims, many of which are critical to the fight. It takes leadership to make it work. What we have now is paralysis and denial.
But, that said, the gay man in uniform is trying to do his duty. Images in an ad matter so much. Don’t show a soldier as an icon of what’s wrong. Anyway, what really irked me wasn’t the stance on DADT… it was the choice to focus on it. What I liked about Perry was the tenth amendment stance. He was even saying Romneycare is OK… so long as it’s in MA and not the USA. When the going got rough, I feel Perry chose to pander to so-cons, which is completely legitimate politics, but wasn’t my personal reason to support him.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:03 pm“I’m confident your thesis is well done, which is why I want to read it. Nevertheless, rest assured I won’t share it with anyone without your permission.”
– DRJ
Oh, goodness. By all means, share it with whoever you want – the more people introduced to its notions the better, to my mind. I’m just all jittery all of the sudden, at the thought of someone I respect so much reading the thing. I hope it’s aged well…
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:04 pmI recall a conversation with a journalist who was part of a critical series on Reagan. They included tons of imagery of Reagan, but where criticizing him. An image would show A, and the criticism would question of the administration lived up to that or even contradicted it.
They actually got a call from someone in the Reagan admin thanking them… because the imagery was much more powerful than anything being said. Or at least that’s how the story was told.
/CSB
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:06 pmWhat I liked about Perry was the tenth amendment stance.
he ran from this stance like a frightened little bunny every time a lifeydoodle jumped out of the bushes and went boo
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:07 pmAnd Crappyfeet runs like a frightened little bunny every time he acts like a douscheydoodle and is calle dout on it.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:10 pmGrim news for Sweater Vest knitters:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:10 pmeven if the execrable Santorum took every single one of Ron Paul’s voters he’d still lose to Mr. Newt in SC it looks like Mr. gary
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:13 pmSantorum did well, considering his experience and recent political loss.
It’s amazing he’s managed to hang in there at all. I mean, he beat the heck out of a very established and conservative governor who probably raised twenty times as much cash.
But he won’t be the next president. I don’t think he has any reason to drop out, though. There’s a non-trivial chance one of the other guys will implode, and neither of them really capture much of Santorum’s vision for America (the way Newt and Perry share at least a fair amount of common ground).
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:14 pmhe ran from this stance like a frightened little
bunnycoyote every time a lifeydoodle jumped out of the bushes and went booComment by happyfeet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIFY, happydude.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:14 pmI’m till snickering about Karl Rove’s op ed noting that no GOP candidate has won both New Hampshire and Iowa until Mitt Romney. They are going to have to run a little correction for that one.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:15 pmDon’t worry about that, Leviticus. Our son said virtually the same thing when he sent me his thesis to read a few years ago. I’ll tell you what I told him: I’m not reading your thesis to be a critic. I’m reading it to understand and learn from it … and to proofread, although that doesn’t apply in your case.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:16 pmhttp://dailycaller.com/2012/01/21/larry-kudlow-newt-gingrich-is-not-a-free-market-capitalist/
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:17 pmif even Newt’s crazy bitter adulterous bimbo ex-wife isn’t moving the dial I think the odds of implosion are over-stated Mr. Dustin
we’ve been at this for a LONG time already
the writing is on the wall and it says bye bye Santorum
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:17 pmJust feeling a lot of relief. Probably how that setter felt when it got off the roof.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:17 pm219. Unfortunately, it won’t stop him from attempting to cover FL by Greyhound and thumbing.
Predict he won’t make it south of Kissimmee in ten.
At least T-Paw could read the TEA.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:17 pm225. Snicker, in argyles and deck shoes.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:19 pmyup Mr. Colonel Newt’s attacks on Bain are extremely silly and he should shut up about that cause as a reamed-out fannie mae whore himself he has no credibility when it comes to attacking Wall Street Romney’s success
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:20 pmSure. But he’s a true believer in his message and there is no gain to him in leaving because there’s no one to endorse who will make his message work better if they join forces.
I wish he would, of course.
It’s not Newt would would implode. I mean, as Sarah W has noted a few times… we already heard it all about Newt a million times already. He is fairly bulletproof to scandal.
The other guy… Mr Slick and Electable… he is not. I could see this being a Newt vs Santorum fight more easily than a Santorum vs Romney fight.
WHAT A SHAME it’s not Daniels vs Pawlenty vs Perry with perhaps Rudy or Paul Ryan. We have been robbed of a great primary by our party’s ugly ways.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:21 pmJimPethokoukis: “I don’t think Newt is a socialist, but lent validation to the left’s 30-year critique of pro-market Reagan Era.”
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:22 pmyes this has been a tawdry and pitiful primary obsessed with immigrants and social con blitherings whilst our brutally obamaraped little country writhes in the gutter of history, emaciated and unkempt and bleeding
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:25 pmHe should have done a better job. In fact, I hope he rekindles that in a better way. It’s hard to argue that going on the offensive was a bad idea. For some reason, and this was really clear when Cain was doing so well, this is what people really want.
When Newt was being Mr Nice Guy, people were saying ‘good for him, but I support _____ (who was fighting more aggressively)’.
Romney has presented Bain as something we should look at carefully as his primary credential for the presidency, with the other argument being sheer electability. I think things like his FDIC bailout and outsourcing are major political liabilities to that electability.
But you’re right that Newt’s own baggage makes it tricky, at best. The best way to do this is the way Romney has done it. Via Rubins and Frums and Meghan Mccains, only a different set of surrogates, obviously.
I think Newt’s figuring it out.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:26 pm224. The article Costa reported on at NRO:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vrpEAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jrYMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1383,6021695&dq=marianne+gingrich+furniture&hl=en
A little hard to get around with the micofische thingy in the upper right.
Anyway, the separation in ’87 wasn’t court ordered, Marianne just pulled an Irsay moving sundry and all back to OH.
Why these people waited to ’99 to euthanize the thing is most curious.
Bet Atlantans are more clued in than the rest of us.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:34 pmoutsourcing is how you stay competitive in a little country what is as scornful of free enterprise as our one
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:36 pmJimPethokoukis: “Kudlow had been overjoyed at Newt’s supply-side talk. Now says that’s all it was, talk.”
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:39 pm_____________________________________________
the damage that Obama has exacerbated on the economy, just with shutting down the Keystone Pipeline
Some pundits on the right have theorized that Obama, because of his ultra-liberal background, has a hidden agenda to destroy the US. After all, he apparently cheered (or at least smiled) for 20 years at the sermons of Jeremiah Wright, and now more recently, he pulls stunts like the following. Responses to issues that are so foolish, they defy logic—IOW, it may not be a stretch to think he really does have an ulterior motive to do to this nation what Iran, North Korea or Venezuela would love to see occur:
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:40 pmxoxox, elissa. It is a wonderful day at Patterico!
What MayBee said.
Comment by DRJ
Ditto May Bee, elissa & DRJ!
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:40 pmshe got all the housewares plus later she got the T-bird and some walking around money
yeah she’s no Guy Ritchie but she did pretty good
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:41 pmYeah, that’s true. But is it patriotic to build China’s economy, given their human rights record? I know many say ‘whatever makes the most money is automatically the best answer’, and I disagree in extreme cases like that. It’s a clear indication of what’s wrong with America, of course. I’d love to hear a politician discuss why their firm makes more money by manufacturing in China than it would in the USA. That would be bold, indeed. But would it be electable? If that candidate’s real case is just electability, rather than consistent principled leadership, does that make sense for them?
It’s a complex issue, but it is better to discuss it before nominating someone.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:48 pmI would rather employ hapless godless Chinese commies with my monies than overpay for crappy American goods just for so piggy piggy American union whores can have sweet sweet pensions
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:50 pm236. “Some pundits on the right have theorized that Obama, because of his ultra-liberal background, has a hidden agenda to destroy the US.”
Define ‘hidden’. Does that mean not tatooed on his forehead?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:51 pmAmerica clearly agrees with you, union or not. We want those cheap, cheap Chinese goods. Nothing beats price. I think, long term, it’s made us poorer, but we haven’t noticed because coffee makers cost an hour’s wage. Yet they are crappy.
And business leaders who are not concerned with things like human rights have a duty to give customers what they want, right? So it’s OK.
I think it’s simply a complex issue worthy of some bold leaders speaking frankly. Only it’s apparently a lightning rod so we’ll likely not get it for the same reason there were ads declaring “Rick Perry will Kill Social Security”. That’s just how it works now. Newt figured it out, and so he’ll win a primary. Don’t hate a player.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 2:56 pmNow I’ve got this image in my head of Mitt Romney sitting in the Darth Vader chair; and his hair-helmet descends from above and seals to the top of his head with a hermetic hiss…
Comment by Leviticus — 1/21/2012 @ 8:08 am
— Are you kidding? NOTHING MUST MUSS “THE HAIR”!
Icy (fe5e20) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:00 pmI switched to french press after my coffee consumption declined after I quit smoking
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:02 pmAnyway, when Rick Perry took his campaign in a direction of negativity about gays in uniform, it was very disappointing.
Governor Perry really frustrated me. You know, I am not a Texan and was not overly familiar with him, other than his more significant stands. However, I felt like he came out campaigning assuming we all already knew what he was about and therefore allowed himself to get caught up into his more unfortunate stances (Gardasil nonsense, gays in uniform, and how heartless we are re illegal immigration). He didn’t take the time to try to capture and cultivate voters like me who have spent scant time in Texas and knew little about the inner workings of Texan political culture, therefore, I think he may have lost voters as a result. His base was not secured before engaging in the more controversial issues. It was a big misstep.
It’s a shame because the more I understood his platform and where he was coming from and saw him flesh out his conservatism for us, the more I supported him. Unfortunately, too little too late for both of us. This is aside from his inability to articulately debate, but then again that wasn’t a make or break for me. Somehow I felt disappointment when he withdrew from the race. And this from a lifelong Californian.
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:02 pmHow dare he state his opinion on gays.
Your a nice person but c’mon.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:04 pmAnn Barnhardt doesn’t care for Willard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARnzBOkKAiE
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:04 pmI notice the ugly ones online, but they are obviously exceptional. I think if someone tries to prove Romney is something he’s not, they have to go overboard.
— Did you hear that, amigos? We’re exceptional!
Icy (fe5e20) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:07 pmThe paper filter actually helps reduce the cafestol, not that you were planning to live forever.
Dana, I agree with you 100%. The going got really, really rough for Perry and perhaps he would have been crushed anyway if he had focused like a laser on limited government, but at least he could have gone down fighting with his head held high. And frankly, I think he would have made a comeback actually.
I was frustrated that Palin held back endorsing him (we need some kind of unity among conservatives or the beltway always wins), but I think she knew more about his chops than I did.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:09 pmhmm I should get my cholesterols checked but I don’t want to go back to the quack I went to for the quitting smoking drugs and I haven’t found a new one yet
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:13 pmThe more I think about it, Dustin, the more I wonder if he didn’t fully grasp that being embedded in Texas for so long would require him to start first and foremost with the wider conservative principal of limited government which would play to all conservatives from west coast to east coast? I think that didn’t may have revealed just how insular he was.
I’m going to be in Texas next month and want to spend some time becoming a bit more familiar with it. More than other states, it seems Texas has one of the strongest cultural/political identities in the country, but one that doesn’t necessarily translate to the rest of the nation. Perhaps post-Bush exhaustion, but maybe not.
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:14 pmI guess we’ll find out where inbred knuckledraggers stand within the southern contingent:
“6:00 p.m. ET – According to CNN exit polling: 64% of voters said they were born again or Evangelical Christians. Sixty-six percent said they support the tea party, 25% said they were neutral and 8% opposed the grassroots movement.”
I haven’t scratched in maybe an hour, I so nervous.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:16 pmDRJ (i’ve been out wandering central park enjoying the snow, so here’s the delay), i’d note that my reference to ‘immigration’ above was narrow: i think gay people in general would agree that legally married noncitizen gay partners should be treated just like legally married noncitizen straight partners, for immigration purposes.
That is, if I marry a dude from Germany and NY solemnizes the marriage, that dude should be entitled to the same spousal visa that he would be entitled to if I were a woman.
I by no means want to assert that the ‘gay community’ has an opinion on broader immigration issues.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:18 pmI think you’re probably right. I just assume certain things about government, such as a very limited notion of respecting anyone in it. But I think Perry firstly came out failing in debates, and then kept confirming that first impression. By the time he got better at it, it was too late. I do think a more basic argument, explaining the general case for his policies, would have been very helpful.
It’s amazing how closely I’ll wind up agreeing with people who happen to be from here.
Enjoy your visit, btw.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:19 pmKevin, at 185, that’s a good question. I should note that there are very few Republican politicians who will take that position, though; most are opposed to both gay marriage *and* domestic partnerships.
I also think you have a good point – CA’s domestic partnership law also applies to elderly couples who want to get sorta-married but don’t want to deal with the tax/pension consequences of remarriage.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:21 pmWith the way the economy is going Obesity will be a problem that goes the way of the dodo.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:23 pmDana, I’d also say that California has a very strong political culture. And, oddly, Wisconsin.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:25 pmPeople who are legally married (but gay) in NY can’t file as married?
How does the IRS know what gender you are?
Comment by MayBee — 1/21/2012 @ 10:15 am
— They don’t necessarily know . . . but they will definitely be none too happy to find out they’ve been lied to.
Icy (fe5e20) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:26 pmWisconsin’s strong political culture dates all the way back to its role in the emergence of the Progressive movement.
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:28 pmI’d also say that California has a very strong political culture.
Yes, I agree. However, living and breathing the Cali political culture, one just gets used to its unique stench.
I would certainly say Wisconsin’s has become more of a known quantity in the past two years…
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:29 pmBTW, there’s a new SC thread up for those who want to focus on breaking news.
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:29 pm“– Did you hear that, amigos? We’re exceptional!”
Comment by Icy
Yay! He acts as if he didn’t contribute 75% of the nastiness and bad blood around these parts. He is absolutely the only person at this site that I have an issue with, the rest are good people.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:30 pmDana: one of the things that I’m finding odd about my current life (after 28 years in California) is that i suddenly no longer even remotely understand local politics.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:33 pm“6:35 p.m. ET – @AriFleischer: In SC ’08, 34% of voters made up their minds on election day or last 3 days; this year 53%. Late deciders big boost for Newt”
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:37 pm262. Baghdad Hai has the pipples fooled.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:41 pm> Right now, a conservative vote in a liberal district is nothing; a liberal vote in a conservative district is nothing.
A problem which is seriously exacerbated by the primary system. This is why I voted for CA’s ballot measure for an open primary, back in 1996, and why I voted for the system going into place this year.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:45 pmAbsolutely.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:47 pmYOU WILL VOTE FOR A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF CANDIDATES AND YOU WILL LIKE IT
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 1/21/2012 @ 3:48 pm_____________________________________________
living and breathing the Cali political culture, one just gets used to its unique stench.
That could explain, or certainly doesn’t help turn around, the following:
^ I don’t think I’m being too cynical when I theorize this part of the country in the next several decades will increasingly reflect both the social-cultural traits (indefinite forms of stagnation and anomie?) and political nature (ie, mostly leftist in tilt) of a country like Mexico.
So I’m not sure if more of the following found south of the border is eventually going to be found on this side of the border:
^ Even without such turmoil, Mexico has long been rather notorious for containing a lot of never-ending poverty and pervasive corruption. IOW, if the past is a window into the future, that future ain’t gonna be full of sunshine and lollipops.
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2012 @ 4:04 pmIs it possible that the checks and balances that the Founders built into the Constitution will both allow and require an individual like former Speaker Gingrich to be an effective leader in ways supported by the majority of of Congressional Representatives while controlling potential extreme positions ?
As a not-yet-citizen, I see Gingrich as potentially being a good and *human* person, not perfect, with human flaws as well as human strengths … and I also see that this country and its citizens and residents have prospered significantly more often under non-Progressive leadership … and have prospered significantly better with human rather than elite/intellectual Presidents …
I suspect that Carter may have been one of this country’s most intelligent Presidents while also being one of its more disastrous ones … I don’t perceive Reagan as being amongst the Presidents with the highest IQs, yet he was a good and human and not-arrogant President …
Our current incumbent may or may not have a high IQ – but he definitively personifies a leader in the arrogance ratings …
aphrael #106 – it is a sad historical fact that DADT was brought in (in 1993) by a Democrat President who had a Democrat majority in both House and Senate … Senator Sam Nunn (guess which party ?) “In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays.” made sure that gays would continue to be unwelcome in the US military …
Leviticus (various) – the problem with “Proportional Representation” is why wise Founders chose not to make this country a simple democracy … instead, they made it a Representative Republic and required that it would take more than a simple democratic majority to make a lot of the more important decisions …
The “Tyranny of the Majority” is well-understood as the result of having 4 Wolves and 3 Sheep voting on what to have for the next meal … three votes later, 4 Wolves are left to vote …
Alasdair (1b11af) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:00 pmBut he wishes to retain the checks and balances already in place as well as constitutional limitations on what legislation can be passed. And it’s not like our wise founders intended the two party system either.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/21/2012 @ 6:05 pmI went to hear him about a year ago when he spoke to the Junto in NY. He was fine on domestic policy, but seemed totally naive about foreign policy. Said he couldn’t understand why we were still in Afghanistan 10 years after the attack on us, and we should pull out because of how much it was costing us. Afterwards I put it to him that we were there because the last time we turned our backs on Afghanistan we got bit in the behind, and it’s cheaper to keep troops there than to have to reinvade after the next 11-Sep, and it seemed like the idea had never crossed his mind. He still said it couldn’t possibly be worth all the money we’re spending there. It seems to me that a cost-benefit analysis has to actually take benefit into account, and that he was simply doing a cost analysis without even considering the benefit.
He also seemed generally slick, and when someone tried to ask him about drugs other than marijuana he just wouldn’t be pinned down. I got the impression that he was at least partly rehearsed and this wasn’t covered by his practise materials.
Yes. It’s no different from military service.
Exactly. I decided from his announcement that I didn’t like him and wouldn’t support him, and then later I couldn’t remember why. It was his attitude.
I don’t think that’s at all crazy. Too many workers in the executive branch think they work for “the people” and not for the president The constitution puts the executive power exclusively in the president’s hands, and federal employees whether they are appointed or career must recognise that they work for him and their job is to advance his policies and not to undermine them. And since the career civil service is dominated by Democrats, this has always been a major problem for Republican administrations. If I were president I would demand that every federal employee pledge to get behind my policies or resign.
On the contrary, he has not done that, much as a naive observer might have predicted that someone with his politics might. I recall a few years ago when one of his staffers was outed as gay, and he stood by him as loyally as one could wish an employer to stand by his employee. And reports I’ve read of the atmosphere in his office are consistent in saying it’s one of tolerance for differences.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:13 pmNot really. Most of those millions who are not in politics aren’t likely to be good presidents, if they were parachuted into the position. They don’t know enough, they haven’t had the right experience, and they’d make lousy presidents for at least their first year. The universe of people capable of being good presidents from their first day is fairly small, and it’s possible for someone to know most of the likely ones on their side of politics and to decide that, for one reason or another, they are not as good as one.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:38 pmI refuse to vote for a republican who spends like a drunken sailor.
And no tax cuts don’t cost money tools.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:39 pmObama is not trying to clean up Clinton’s economy.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:49 pmhttp://dailycaller.com/2012/01/21/wapos-jennifer-rubin-not-happy-about-newt-win-romney-defeat-in-sc/
narciso (87e966) — 1/21/2012 @ 10:58 pmThe useful idiots think Obama cares about them just because they voted for him.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:05 pmThere’s a huge difference between forcing a state to recognise a marriage that’s against its public policy, and forcing it to recognise a carry license. For one thing, all the latter means is that a state is forbidden to arrest a visitor and charge him with a criminal offense and throw him in prison for doing what he’s legally entitled to in his home state, and for doing it in a manner that is by definition private (that’s what “concealed” means, after all). Recognising a marriage is much more than that; if all you want is for a couple married in their home state not to be arrested for fornication in state they’re visiting, then I’d agree that this should not happen, and Congress may assure that it doesn’t happen. But fornication laws are all thrown out the window by Lawrence, if they weren’t earlier, so the point is moot.
For another, it cannot be against the public policy of any state to carry a gun; the second amendment prohibits such a policy. States may merely make reasonable regulations to ensure that guns are carried in a safe manner, by safe people. If a person’s state of residence has affirmed that this is a safe person who has been trained in safe carry, and that state’s standards are at least comparable to those of the state he’s visiting, then the full faith and credit clause ought to make the second state accept the first state’s affirmation. Marriage is a whole different story, because there’s nothing in the constitution that prevents a state from declaring certain marriages to be against public policy. (BTW I think the Supreme Court should have told VA that it didn’t have to recognise the Lovings’ marriage, but that it had no right to arrest them for having contracted it, or to molest them in any way.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:07 pmThat’s right, they can’t file federal taxes as married. DOMA assures this (and it’s the part of DOMA that I didn’t agree with. How is this surprising to you?
Because you told them when you applied for a soc sec card.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:11 pmWhy would you be allowed to split your income in half? If you’re not married you’re not married, and you each file for your own income.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:15 pmI support proportional representation within each state, both for the House and for the Electoral College. That way there’s no such thing as a gerrymander. But the allocation of state representation should remain the same, except that the census should only count people eligible to vote under state law. Then the states should be free to make whatever eligibility laws they like.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:19 pmWhy is that a bad thing? If they have support then they are legitimate.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:22 pmWhy would you be allowed to split your income in half? If you’re not married you’re not married, and you each file for your own income.
That’s how I read the link aphrael gave, but it was just a quick perusal. I really only want to deal with my own tax information this time of year. Blech.
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:29 pmHow do you feel about eurogames? If you like them, you might be interested in this and this.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:30 pmThis is what I read, Millhouse:
MayBee (081489) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:32 pmQ-1: How do registered domestic partners determine their gross income for 2010?
A-1: Registered domestic partners must each report half the combined community income earned by the partners. In addition to half of the community income, a partner who has income that is not community income must report that separate income.
Colonel, do you think he actually did anything wrong? If so, what, and why was it wrong?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:39 pmWhich would be what? Unless they’re in business together, it would be zero.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:40 pm188, 256:
Two sides of the same coin. You are either married or you are not. All the half-way ideas suffer from the same questions (generally of the how far? form).
As far as getting the government out of it, suppose I suggested getting religion out of it? That marriage is primarily a contractual arrangement, with the expectation of a lifelong two-as-one partnership.
Perhaps this is just semantics, and there could be two things that represent the same partnership, one spiritual, one contractual. If “domestic partnership” (God how I hate that inelegant term) covered all the non-spiritual aspects of marriage, and “matrimony” covered the spiritual, and nobody gets to use “marriage”, maybe the problem is solved. A couple could be joined in the eyes of the church, or the state, or both.
But then some mixed-sex couple would demand to have the rites of the First Church of the Gay Jesus, and it would all fall apart.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/21/2012 @ 11:54 pmMilhouse,
I agree we want more voices in government, so in that sense proportional representation is good. What I fear is giving some groups a disproportionate influence as Alasdair suggests in his wolf-sheep example.
Also, regarding domestic partners’ taxes, taxpayers don’t have to be in business to have combined community income in a community property state. There are 9 community property states plus Alaska, which offers an election. The IRS and TurboTax both address filing by domestic/same-sex partners in community property states.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 6:19 amKevin M,
I tend to favor separating marriage and government, even if same-sex couples can be married in some churches. It’s already happening in denominations like the Episcopal Church.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 6:24 amDRJ, PR is the only system that gives people exactly a proportionate share of influence. It’s the current system that gives large groups disproportionate influence, since they get all the seats between them. Our current system favours small groups that happen to be geographically concentrated over larger groups that are spread out. If the Libertarian Party gets 10% of the vote across the country it gets no seats in the House; but if it gets only 1% of the vote but that 10% is concentrated in 10 districts, with about 43% in each, it will get most of those 10 seats. How is that fair or reasonable?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/22/2012 @ 6:53 amThose are the operative words. Those are a small minority of states. And NY is not one of that small minority. So they’re irrelevant to the discussion.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/22/2012 @ 6:54 amIt’s not irrelevant to people who live in those 10 states.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 7:08 amAnd I’m not sure I care about being fair in results, just in opportunities. But I’m still thinking about proportional representation so count me as undecided.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 7:13 amBut it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that a few states have some peculiar law doesn’t affect the discussion unless we were talking about one of those states, which we weren’t.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/22/2012 @ 7:34 amI view online comments as different than a private conversation that only interests a couple of people, but clearly that’s not your view and that’s fine. Just follow Justice Scalia’s advice and disregard my comments.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 7:40 amIt’s ok, Millhouse. I don’t mind saying I was wrong. I’m not a tax attorney or an accountant, and I only know enough to handle my own taxes.
MayBee (081489) — 1/22/2012 @ 7:42 amYou think community property laws are “peculiar”? Why is that?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 7:49 amAlso, Milhouse, didn’t aphrael recently move fom California to New York? I’m not a tax lawyer or accountant either but California is a community property state so it could be relevant to last year’s taxes.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 7:56 amOh, now I see the title of the information on that link was specifically about community property states.
I have to say I was ignorant of the fact that people who are gay who are legally married cannot file joint federal taxes. I don’t like that.
MayBee (081489) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:03 amThere is no gay marriage at the federal level.
Not till they redefine it anyway
Typical Snow White person (b0e533) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:09 am______________________________________________
But then some mixed-sex couple would demand to have the rites of the First Church of the Gay Jesus,
That points to the irony of what I imagine is a great desire on the part of many in the pro-SSM crowd to force society into recognizing not just the purely legal aspects of same-sex marriage, but to also recognize and respect it from a purely symbolic standpoint. IOW, if altering the government to accommodate SSM somehow resulted in more “homophobia” throughout society, I bet a lot of liberals would yell “legal documents and contracts modified to fit the needs of the LGBT community?!! Not that important!”
Mark (411533) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:32 amDRJ, at 300, yes, I was in California until August 31 of last year. I am, as a result, filing in three states this year.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:36 amBecause I wasn’t legally married in California (and am not in New York, either; we have not chosen to have our marriage recognized by the state), I haven’t looked into this. But if we had been, then my understanding is my husband and I would have to join and split that part of our income which was earned in California, and then not join and split that part of our income earned in NY and NJ. As a result, our total federal AGI would be different than our total state AGIs, etc.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:39 amYikes. You have my sympathy, aphrael.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:39 amNot sympathy for the relationship or the earnings because those are good things, but definitely for the taxes and tax returns.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:40 amOh good. I’m not such an idiot then.
I really hate what moving to another state or country does to tax filing.
MayBee (081489) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:55 amThank you, DRJ. I think it says something that my immediate reaction to 306 was to assume you were talking about the taxes.
To some degree it’s no worse than any married couple who moved from a community property state to a non community property state. one year of extremely complicated taxes is the price you pay for moving.
(and we might get to do it again in 4.5 years! whee!)
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/22/2012 @ 8:57 amToo bad you can’t move at Midnight on December 31st.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2012 @ 9:03 amTo some degree it’s no worse than any married couple who moved from a community property state to a non community property state.
If you’re married filing jointly, community property state to non-community proper state means very little as far as tax filing complications go. So a domestic partnership would definitely have the worst of it.
MayBee (081489) — 1/22/2012 @ 10:17 amBut moving always complicates things. I am so grateful for TurboTax.