Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2012

Santorum to Fight Fire with Fire

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:08 pm

From Hot Air’s quotes of the day:

Whether Mitt Romney wins or loses the Michigan and Arizona primaries on Tuesday, his advisers are warning donors and other supporters to prepare for a longer, more bruising and more expensive fight for the Republican presidential nomination that may not be settled until at least May…

Mr. Santorum is likewise preparing to fight on for weeks or months, enticed by new party rules that award delegates in early primaries and caucuses based on each candidate’s share of the votes. “The race is going to go a long time,” he said as he left the stage, promising to “fight fire with fire.”…

Which reminded me of something my daughter said tonight, apropos of nothing. She said: “Why do people say you should fight fire with fire? You just get more fire.”

Indeed, Lauren. Indeed.

76 Comments

  1. Teaching moment. Fire breaks. Deprive the uncontrolled fire of fuel, with controlled smaller fires.

    I presume your daughter is a year older than mine. She knows what metaphors are but not each one’s meaning or origin?

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/26/2012 @ 11:26 pm

  2. Which does not mean that if your neighbor sets fire to your house, you set fire to his.

    You wait until he goes to the bar and you beat him up, and then you both sue the bar under the Dram Shop Act.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/26/2012 @ 11:29 pm

  3. “She said: “Why do people say you should fight fire with fire? You just get more fire.””

    Smart girl. When Satan’s coming for America, you gotta burn that devil back!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/26/2012 @ 11:37 pm

  4. The best defense is a great offense. Just ask the San Diego Chargers… Maybe that was a bad example?

    Comment by MSL (f060a0) — 2/27/2012 @ 12:11 am

  5. Fighting fire with gasoline. Futility.

    David Bowie and Stevie Ray Vaughn. What a great album.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/27/2012 @ 12:39 am

  6. fire cleanses, purifies and removes the ash and trash, not to mention the dross, leaving either the pure quill or nothing but ashes.

    either way, you know where you stand.

    Palin/West 2012

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 2/27/2012 @ 1:00 am

  7. Santorium, should have said, I will fight b.s. with b.s.

    Comment by sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/27/2012 @ 2:09 am

  8. My understanding is a back-fire can be risky but is also a valuable firefighting tool in extreme cases. As nk notes, the goal is to eliminate the fuel so there is no fire.

    But it does seem there is no love for Romney by the Not Romneys.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/27/2012 @ 5:55 am

  9. Both candidates are simply out-of-touch with the general public.

    Comment by tadcf (ead2bd) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:06 am

  10. Ok, so Santorum says he’s going to fight fire with fire. I assume that this means he’s going to continue the scorched earth campaign that Romney has been waging since day one? The problem with this strategy is that no matter who wins, all the winner is left with is a field of devastation and scorched earth. The reason everyone keeps saying that all these candidates are “flawed,” is because of the constant negative campainging.

    So, after the battered nominee eventually secures the nomination, he will be dizzily standing there trying to regroup and focus on the main fight; meanwhile “The One” will finally begin to pour his own billion dollar campaign war-chest into a barrage of negative advertizing the likes of which the world has likely never before even imagined.

    And if you want a metaphor, that is going to be like fighting fire with an H-bomb!

    Comment by Jack (fb2efa) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:17 am

  11. The issue here is that we have different goals. Some have a long term goal of a balanced budget and a sustainable government. We are thinking 50 years down the road. We know there is very little hope of this ever happening if the GOP is too liberal yet is a major political party, because they are going to establish the rightmost point on the mainstream spectrum.

    So what we see with Romney is a roadblock.

    We actually also are demanding more from the GOP ever since they promised in 2010 to earn their second chance. Let’s just say I do not think that promise has been kept, and I do think they had a sufficient chance to keep their promise.

    Others see this as a short term issue. They note how devastating it would be if Obama picked another Supreme Court justice (not that Romney has any record of picking good judges, but they hopefully would be just lame rather than bad). They note that Obama has trampled on the Constitution and reelecting him would release any inhibition as well as cement some unacceptable abuses. So they want Obama gone, and they prioritize that above the long term game. For some reason, they think Romney is more electable (they are wrong).

    The problem is that both these general views make a lot of sense. Neither side really should be angry the other, except insofar as some of those promoting each view has been dishonorable. I’ve seen one Romney fanatic reply to accurate criticism by condemning comments I’ve made, and then back that up with links to comments showing I took the opposite view, for example.

    I’ve seen Romney personally go overboard in his attacks in a short term bridge-burning fashion, such as his demagoguery of Perry’s excellent point about Social Security. That combined with his inability to compete with much less funded and organized candidates, with a terrible spending discipline suggest he is not prepared for Obama. I also think Republicans who leap to the center just look weak. I think a lot of independents are more turned off by insincerity and pandering than they are by a bold and confident conservative, because they are not that ideological.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:26 am

  12. “The One” will finally begin to pour his own billion dollar campaign war-chest into a barrage of negative advertizing the likes of which the world has likely never before even imagined.

    It’s going to be awful.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:26 am

  13. No, he’s going to have a fraction of that, and we’re not going to fall for the ‘public financing’ trick again,

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:46 am

  14. More Sourpuss Rick-YEAH!

    Comment by Bugg (34ad0e) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:16 am

  15. Looks like the delegates hold the cards:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/the-g-o-p-s-fuzzy-delegate-math/

    McBain has feet of clay with middle Amerikkka. Latest–he has friends in NASCAR, team owners.

    Delegates will certainly feel the pain even if they can grant him a nomination on the first ballot. My bet is they won’t, preferring to see what else might bubble up.

    Comment by gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:24 am

  16. I don’t get why you would call Rick a “sourpuss” for simply saying he will fight fire with fire.

    Even Romney has justified his negativity by saying he’ll be attacked and lose if he doesn’t do that.

    Why do folks hold liberals to lower standards than conservatives? Why do Newt and Rick have to keep it all 100% nice and clean and never complain, but if Mitt does it, it’s a sign he’s a sophisticated hardcore politician who can take Obama?

    Anyway, it has been very consistent that whoever is being attacked by the Romney campaign, to include Rubin and Drudge, who are just as coordinated as the NYT and ABC are with Obama, will be called a whiner by folks who will be displeased if someone attacks Romney harshly.

    One of the commenters here has explained that their basis for especially defending Romney is that they figure he’s going to be the nominee anyway, so he needs more shielding earlier. I think this is misguided. He needs more vetting earlier, and the electability vetting is returning a very bad answer.

    I love this idea.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:25 am

  17. For those who think that the act of *purifying* the GOP for the long haul is worth getting four (more) years of Obama & Co., please consider how much can be either “accomplished” or “lost forever” (depending on one’s cultural viewpoint) in a mere 4 years. Then seriously contemplate whether the United States as she was conceived by our founders– and also if your own family– can survive it if President Obama is re-elected.

    To lots of people any given four years probably does not seem very long or feel ultimately significant in the great arc of history. But untold havoc can be wreaked upon a society in only four short years’ time when there are determined zealots using corrupt methods in charge. There are many examples, but one needs to look only as far back as the four years between 1938 and 1942 in Europe. Or maybe home in on the four years of world cataclysm between 1941 and 1945 to see how dangerous just four short years can be to ordinary citizens who had naively thought their world was secure.

    Comment by elissa (04bcac) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:25 am

  18. One own goal on tap, FL, AZ and VA have delegate seating issues ready made for first day of convention.

    The GOP is a disaster.

    Comment by gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:28 am

  19. For those who think that the act of *purifying* the GOP for the long haul is worth getting four (more) years of Obama & Co., please consider how much can be either “accomplished” or “lost forever” (depending on one’s cultural viewpoint) in a mere 4 years.

    It is a difficult thing to balance out. I think it’s only fair to acknowledge both sides of this argument have a very good point. But if we always fall into the fear trap… folks warning us how bad the democrat will be ever single election, such that the GOP never takes spending reform seriously… well, that might be really nice for baby boomers, but the mess they leave behind is actually hundreds of times worse than Obama. Yes, it’s much worse than Obama. It’s easily and obviously worse than Obama. One reason is that it will lead to many more liberal ideas succeeding. The GOP in its present state is ineffective just as Romney was in MA.

    But the main reason is that spending is an existential threat to the country. We’re actually destabilizing. It has to be fixed. So yeah, Obama is particularly bad. But they say that every time and the big picture problem is actually worse.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:29 am

  20. 17. “17.For those who think that the act of *purifying* the GOP for the long haul is worth getting four (more) years of Obama & Co., please consider how much can be either “accomplished” or “lost forever””

    Fear mongerer. The next term will see global financial reset, guaranteed. A weak, flaccid, vacillating executive owned by the world that is passing away will set back Amerikkka and the life she holds dear a generation or more.

    If civil war must come, let it be with the Marxists as the tyrants.

    Comment by gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:33 am

  21. But even though the big picture problem is worse than Obama, I do think any of the GOP nominees would be better than Obama and I don’t see why we shouldn’t support them. I’m only arguing for fighting this out in the primary. If there is a reasonable third party option, yeah, I’ll vote for them. I doubt that will happen, but if I do, it’s not my fault that the GOP was part of the problem so I didn’t support them. The candidates need to earn support by having good records. It’s as simple as that.

    Also, it is a false choice to say those who reject Romney now are OK with another four years of Obama. It continues this meme that only Romney is electable, or that he is particularly electable. I think that is the opposite of reality.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:38 am

  22. Well that was the Mike Castle paradox, which the likes of Tom Ross and Karl Rove, made inevitable,
    an in kind contribution to the ‘bearded Marxist’

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:42 am

  23. Ace and minions have been pushing the ‘purist’ smear versus first the Teabaggers and now the Moralist Neanderthals.

    So the 30% of the Right that comprise the loyal GOP regulars and the inconstant 10% that comprise the libertarian backbone get their way in a so-lib moral righteousness compact with the Democrat’s Evil Empire.

    What a steaming pile.

    Comment by gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:51 am

  24. “tadcf” is nothing if not consistent.

    Comment by JD (448fa8) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:57 am

  25. I think folks who are very sick of Republicans like Romney can at least appreciate that the ‘it’s a desperate bid to get rid of Obama’ is a good faith and reasonable POV. Even if I disagree.

    It’s very important, though, that the bridge burners who value electability grant the long term issue that needs to be addressed even more than Obama needs to go. Both need to happen.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:04 am

  26. Well that was the Mike Castle paradox

    Yep. Some people just draw that line and insist the party needs to stand for something. It makes a lot of sense. Even when it doesn’t win an election, it makes some sense, long term. I would hate to see a GOP where every governor saw Romney’s path as the way to succeed.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:05 am

  27. a frothy frothy conflagration awaits

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:27 am

  28. ==a frothy frothy conflagration awaits==

    Oh geez. Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz involved?

    Comment by elissa (04bcac) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:34 am

  29. http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/02/27/poll-obamas-approval-rating-up-nine-points-in-four-months-as-gop-candidates-battle/

    Only 33 percent of independents view [Romney] favorably, compared with 51 percent who see him in an unfavorable light. In a head-to-head match-up against Obama among independents, Romney now trails 49 percent to 27 percent.

    [...]

    Among independents, Santorum fares better than Romney: He is viewed favorably by 40 percent and unfavorably by 32 percent. But he remains largely undefined: 28 percent of independents either have no opinion of the ex-senator or have never heard of him. Even among Republicans, that number is 17 percent.

    So why didn’t all the people chanting ‘electability’ switch from Romney? Because it wasn’t always about electability?

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 11:36 am

  30. In the end, Romney rings hollow, like one of those matryoska dolls, Santorum does have some core beliefs he is willing to go to the mat for, One of
    the unintended?? corollaries of that wretched ‘game
    change’ is the notion spread by Schmidt and Wallace,
    that if one actually saw through the ‘razzle dazzle’
    behind Obama, there had to be something wrong with
    you.

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 11:41 am

  31. “So why didn’t all the people chanting ‘electability’ switch from Romney? Because it wasn’t always about electability?”

    Dustin – People have seen the GOP polls move all over the map this election season. People remember Karl’s caution that polls at this point mean nothing about electability.

    Some people want to seize the poll of the day, which will change in two days, to score momentary point, yet call other bridge burners, trolls and worse.

    Why? Who knows. Some commenters have been on an anti-Romney crusade since the summer of 2010 before the entrance of other candidates, yet call others bridge burners, trolls and worse. Let’s hear it for epistemic closure!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/27/2012 @ 12:28 pm

  32. Comment by sickofrinos — 2/27/2012 @ 2:09 am

    Santorium, [sic] should have said, I will fight b.s. with b.s.

    Newt Gingrich tried that.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d2951c) — 2/27/2012 @ 12:31 pm

  33. Comment by gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:28 am

    One own goal on tap, FL, AZ and VA have delegate seating issues ready made for first day of convention.

    Are there any actual challenges in the works? To make a challenge, you have to have an alternative delegation (unless you just want to exclude the state)

    If anything is going, it hasn’t made it into the New York Times or anything I read. Gingrich and Santorum seem to be almost ready to concede Virginia.

    The GOP is a disaster.

    More often than not, both parties are – or a half decent candidate manages to win the nomination. But they’ve got to be in it, to win it. Or is there a way?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d2951c) — 2/27/2012 @ 12:42 pm

  34. But they’ve got to be in it, to win it.

    Yep. And that’s fair. But fair is not a very high priority when the GOP has a slew of flawed candidates, the one everyone is telling me is most electable looking like he couldn’t be elected dog catcher.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 1:06 pm

  35. http://youtu.be/fpSdRWGoR5k

    MSNBC report about the Mitt Romney-Ron Paul alliance. Mentions that Romney even offereed his plane to Ron paul when Ron Paul’s plane broke down, and that their two wives are friends.

    I actually got the link from here:

    http://www.dailypaul.com/215861/jesse-benton-interview-on-msnbc-on-the-cordial-relationship-between-dr-ron-paul-and-mitt-romney

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/27/2012 @ 2:35 pm

  36. That’s not really so bad. I mean, that’s politics. Wives being friends? Smart and probably makes life less unbearable.

    But Ron Paul has no credibility even on the issues he prefers if he has screwed one tenth amendment fan after another to help his buddy.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 2:45 pm

  37. it’s nice Ron Paul is being useful I think

    good for him

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/27/2012 @ 3:21 pm

  38. “the one everyone is telling me is most electable looking like he couldn’t be elected dog catcher.”

    As opposed to the guy who quietly walked home to Texas with his tail on fire and between his legs…

    Romney 45% Obama 43%…
    Paul 43% Obama 41%
    Obama 45% Santorum 43%
    Obama 49% Gingrich 39%…

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 3:27 pm

  39. Why? Who knows. Some commenters have been on an anti-Romney crusade since the summer of 2010 before the entrance of other candidates, yet call others bridge burners, trolls and worse. Let’s hear it for epistemic closure!

    Comment by daleyrocks

    but of course, my pet
    trés insouciant, coyote
    my leetle cabbage

    Comment by Colonel LePew (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 3:31 pm

  40. Mr. Governor Romney just gets better and better and more presidenty the more support Santorum gets

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/27/2012 @ 3:35 pm

  41. Better than shooting coyotes!

    http://t.co/uwUzZZnN

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 3:45 pm

  42. 31. “Some commenters have been on an anti-Romney crusade since the summer of 2010 before the entrance of other candidates, yet call others bridge burners, trolls and worse.”

    I’ve been against McBain since he began running, say 2005. But if the shoe fits, monomaniacal one, do wear same.

    Comment by gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477) — 2/27/2012 @ 3:57 pm

  43. Daleyrocks has repeatedly lied about my comments, his whining about my point about his bridge burning is simply crying because I justifiably criticized his comments that Perry is chicago level corrupt and a pervert, which Daleyrocks was unable to justify the way I have been able to explain my view that Romney is not conservative.

    For example, Daley listed four things he claimed I had supported. Each of them were the opposite of what I supported.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:11 pm

  44. And his friend Colonel Haiku is a racist.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:12 pm

  45. Only a dishonest person would say it’s out of line to call Haiku a troll at this point.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:13 pm

  46. If Daleyrocks wishes to continue whining about arguments he has lost, I can start showing what I said, and how Daleyrocks manipulated what I said into the opposite, over and over.

    It’s too bad there appears to be a bit of a clique of pals who have behaved like they do not want the GOP to be successful.

    It’s not personal. I just think if you’re going to suggest Perry is a pervert, and you don’t have any evidence, that’s totally unjustified. Even if you have some weird shrieking match with some other commenter.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:16 pm

  47. Tony Stewart wouldn’t whine.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:18 pm

  48. It’s too bad there appears to be a bit of a clique of pals who have behaved like they do not want the GOP to be successful.

    That is laugh out loud funny!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:19 pm

  49. The lesson apparently is stand for nothing or little that is conservative,1), then there will a conservative landslide, the second step was lost to the underpants gnome, however.

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:19 pm

  50. Tony Stewart wouldn’t whine.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku

    Says the guy who said of me

    Always remember to never forget, sock, that even though he hails from Texas, his real heritage is Middle Eastern. And if they’re not kept under your boot, they’re at your throat.

    Right?

    And Daleyrocks is complaining that I called you a troll for comments like that. That shows I’m a bridge burner.

    Not sure what the Tony Stewart jokes are about. It’s Icy who had the strong opinion about him, not me. Mitt Romney seems to like Nascar a lot more than I do.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:23 pm

  51. The lesson apparently is stand for nothing or little that is conservative,1), then there will a conservative landslide, the second step was lost to the underpants gnome, however.

    Comment by narciso —

    Yeah, I think that’s the reason for all the bridge burning, actually. The case for Romney as a centrist will be pretty good, actually, but the case for him as a conservative? It’s terrible. So the primary has to be fought very aggressively. It’s got to be an irrational contest. The last thing that they would want is a calm discussion of which of these candidates will do the best job promoting social security reform or balancing the budget, so the talk has to be about Tiffany’s shopping and killing social security. It burns bridges, but is there any alternative?

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:27 pm

  52. “There’s just something about him… I can’t put my finger on it, but I like him.”

    Something in the way he drives, attracted you like no other?

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:27 pm

  53. Math geek doing delegate arithmetic, Nor Laup supporter:

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

    Comment by gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:27 pm

  54. Just let the primaries play out and trust that the voters will pick and nominate the most conservative fellow who has a chance of beating Obama.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:28 pm

  55. persian puddy tat
    catches Pepé Le Pew’s eye
    “my leetle cabbage”

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:33 pm

  56. btw, Haiku, when you’re crying that I’m the spawn or prawn of arab loins (whatever that screed was), you kinda forfeit the whine card. How someone gets that upset about an internet discussion… even with my ghastly non-WASPiness … I frankly don’t even think it’s possible.

    As I noted at the time, you seem to get more and more nasty as you’re ignored. You didn’t say that in response to anything I’d said… in fact, I hadn’t said much to you in a week when you started worrying that my heritage is all wrong.

    That’s troll behavior. Normal people get angrier during an argument… trolls get angrier until they cause one.

    Daley I know is sincere, at least. You, however, I can’t distinguish from a moby. Whether you are one is something I can’t know, but you sure aren’t doing Romney any favors worrying what race I am, troll.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:34 pm

  57. Just let the primaries play out and trust that the voters will pick and nominate the most conservative fellow who has a chance of beating Obama.

    Comment by Colonel Haik

    Like John Mccain and Bob Dole?
    =

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:37 pm

  58. I don’t know or care what race, creed or color you are, Dustin. You’re just a garden-variety sh*tbird.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:40 pm

  59. Something in the way he drives, attracted you like no other?

    Comment by Colonel Haiku

    Actually, I like that he part owns a team and built it from obscurity into success. Though I don’t follow Nascar very much, I think that harkens back to when I was more of a fan of Alan Kulwicki when I was very young.

    Of course, to you and Daley, that I said something favorable about a male means I am homosexual. And Daleyrocks complains that I call this trolling and thus cannot complain about bridge burning comments like ‘Rick Perry wants to Kill social security’.

    I just want a discussion of political issues, rooted in reality. You want to explain for the 500th time what you imagine about my sexually. I think that says more about you than it does about me. You shouldn’t automatically think about homosexuality every time you lose an argument with a man.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:41 pm

  60. Just sayin’…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:41 pm

  61. I don’t know or care what race, creed or color you are, Dustin. You’re just a garden-variety sh*tbird.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku

    You have referenced my race multiple times, bigot. Like every bigot, when you’re called out, you whine that you don’t actually care and how awful the person you are bigoted against is.

    Remember when you said I was dead to you? Why do you get so emotional about political disagreements? Remember when you said I was lying, and would explain “tomorrow”, and kept saying that for over 24 hours as I asked you to put up or shut up?

    You are simply unrealistically hateful.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:43 pm

  62. You shouldn’t automatically think about homosexuality every time you lose an argument with a man.

    I shall only point out the typical liberal victory mincing and then say no more. Good evening!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:44 pm

  63. Always remember to never forget, sock, that even though he hails from Texas, his real heritage is Middle Eastern. And if they’re not kept under your boot, they’re at your throat.

    Explain why you said this, and apologize, and I’ll drop it. Be a man.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:44 pm

  64. I shall only point out the typical liberal victory mincing and then say no more. Good evening!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku —

    I think I won the argument. When I say Romney proposed a 10% increase to an entire budget in a single year, and you reply that I’m gay, I think I won the argument.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 4:46 pm

  65. “Of course, to [ColonelHaiku] and Daley, that I said something favorable about a male means I am homosexual.”

    - Dustin

    You would think that someone so willing to grab ankles for the Robot Overlord would be sensitive about jumping to such conclusions… but you’d be wrong, apparently.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/27/2012 @ 5:39 pm

  66. Dustin/Zombie Eisenhower 2012

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/27/2012 @ 5:42 pm

  67. I’d vote for that ticket. Especially if you delegated interaction with the Republicans in Congress to Zombie Eisenhower. It would be easier for you to stomach, and they could use the exercise.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/27/2012 @ 5:45 pm

  68. Ye shall sow your seed
    in vain, for your enemies
    yea they shall eat me

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 5:54 pm

  69. Dustin/Zombie Eisenhower 2012

    No Brains and Eats Brains!

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 5:57 pm

  70. Well you were in Korea, and he promised to go there, so it fits in a way.

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:01 pm

  71. It’s all making sense now!

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:02 pm

  72. Although Zombie Coolidge will chip in at the ‘brokered convention’

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:04 pm

  73. Iranian dogs
    must not get away with the
    killing of Christian

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:07 pm

  74. If Calvin Coolidge was an option, I would be doing cartwheels.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:08 pm

  75. No comment.

    Comment by calvin coolidge (2d88a8) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:47 pm

  76. Excitable Boy once again demonstrates overexuberance of youth.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7763 secs.