Patterico's Pontifications

9/27/2013

Senator Obama Calls President Obama A Failed Leader

Filed under: General — JD @ 10:17 am

[guest post by JD]

Unprecedented! Historic!

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Hostage taking terrorist voting to make America default.

—JD

208 Responses to “Senator Obama Calls President Obama A Failed Leader”

  1. /snark

    JD (d1200f)

  2. Who better to describe his own failure.
    Extensive coverage by the Ministry of Propaganda in 10….9….8….7….(crickets)

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  3. Yes!! Who is this guy??!! He should be President.

    Oh….

    Sorry. Stand down.

    gramps (0c1532)

  4. Obumbles is a massive success…

    at creating failure: everything he touches turns to scheisse.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  5. Every single GOP Senator should quote this speech before casting his or her vote on the debt ceiling. It would be a powerful mini-filibuster which would probably take no longer than a couple of hours. Let that speech be read into the Senate record 45 times.

    Someone with cojones needs to ask Dear Leader: “So, were you a lousy Senator or are you a lousy President or is it a little bit of both?”

    JVW (93c84b)

  6. Signs, signs, everywhere a sign…

    Colonel Haiku (8a1837)

  7. If Senator Obama keeps crossing President Obama it’s entirely possible that questions surrounding the shady provenance of the Senator’s birth records may suddenly become highly interesting to media taking heads.

    ropelight (92432f)

  8. Why are you folks bashing the poor resident and the democrats? There’s still left over Romney bashing to be done over in the other thread. Priorities, people! Chop Chop.

    elissa (491145)

  9. *poor president*

    elissa (491145)

  10. Not only is Obama referring to himself as a “failed leader,” but Obama once even referred to himself as a Muslim on “This Week with George Stephanopolous” but thankfully, George intervened and reminded Obama of his devout Christianity !

    It could happen to anyone.
    I bet even Pope Francis has had days where he accidentally referred to himself as a Muslim…or a Presbyterian !
    Or something.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  11. elissa, if you take a public stand against continued Romney-bashing like those Daily Kos jerks Daleyrocks and Elephant Stone have done, then you’re probably a liberal. And if you’re probably a liberal, then you probably voted for Obama. Or whatever.

    Gotcha !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  12. How does Dan Pfieffer get to keep his job ?
    Can anyone imagine if, say, Bush White House aide Karl Rove had gone on CNN and said that House and Senate Democrats were suicide bombers ?

    Good Allah.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  13. Every single GOP Senator should quote this speech before casting his or her vote on the debt ceiling. (snip) Let that speech be read into the Senate record 45 times.

    as we’ve seen today, there aren’t 45 GOP Senators in DC…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  14. Well he does keep his promises,

    http://twitchy.com/2013/09/27/sally-kohn-easier-for-obama-to-deal-with-iranian-president-than-house-gop/

    maybe if Boehner imprisoned dissidents he would get somewhere,

    narciso (3fec35)

  15. The media needs to be stoned to death.

    mg (31009b)

  16. The media should be mindful, in the next outbreak of “urban tensions”, that they don’t get caught in any cross-fires. I don’t think they have friends on any side.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  17. I wonder what the North Koreans did with the real Barack Obama after they replaced him.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  18. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 9/27/2013 @ 1:14 pm

    Given the choice, I’d rather let people call me whatever they wanted as long as they didn’t lie about me.
    These folk have no qualms about lying, so what’s a little name calling.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  19. The President cannot be bothered with hypocrisy or double-speak or any such nonsense like that. He is very busy with very important things like talking to President Rouhani of Iran. And then tweeting about it . Of course, GOP senators can’t get a meeting with him over health care….

    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-77580406/

    Dana (6178d5)

  20. 0bama shows his true colors – yellow and baby sh*t green – when he partners with Syria, Russia and Iran.

    Colonel Haiku (abd362)

  21. as a side note, not relevant to the topic at hand, my IE is asking me to open or savean analytics.js from a.sitemeter is that normal? Never seen that before here.

    G (bbda88)

  22. 14. Well he does keep his promises,

    http://twitchy.com/2013/09/27/sally-kohn-easier-for-obama-to-deal-with-iranian-president-than-house-gop/

    maybe if Boehner imprisoned dissidents he would get somewhere,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 9/27/2013 @ 3:11 pm

    Maybe if Boehner converted to Islam the former Indonesian madrassa student would feel as comfortable around him as he does around the mullahs.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  23. This would be a solution that could work out: debt ceiling goes up, the ones against get to complaint.

    Dhar (d05934)

  24. “Maybe if Boehner converted to Islam the former Indonesian madrassa student would feel as comfortable around him as he does around the mullahs.”

    If the Iranian president threatened to shut down the US government, we wouldn’t be talking to him.

    Dhar (d05934)

  25. Why are you folks bashing the poor resident and the democrats? There’s still left over Romney bashing to be done over in the other thread. Priorities, people! Chop Chop.

    Comment by elissa (491145) — 9/27/2013 @ 12:27 pm

    Don’t tempt me!

    In all honesty, now that Romney’s out of politics I am happy to simply wish him well with the rest of his life and not worry too much about his record. Except if someone attacks me out of the blue about his record, at which point I’ll usually ignore it, but if I choose, I’ll explain how the criticism of me is mistaken (which is what happened in this thread).

    However, Romney was on CNN today criticizing the GOP. He’s the news today. I disagree with his view for the GOP attracting votes via amnesty on policy and logical grounds. I disagree with Romney’s criticism of Senator Cruz’s awesome speech.

    Romney and I have different views and sometimes it’s worthy of discussion

    Dustin (2b54d2)

  26. G at comment 21. See my comments at the end of the open thread. It’s a bot, maybe from Sitemeter maybe from Google, and it’s taking advantage of a flaw in IE. I disabled it on my site by disabling the Sitemeter script on my template but it followed me to every site that uses sitemeter. Anti-virus did not work, disabling all cookies (High Privacy, High Security) did not work. What worked was switching to Mozilla Firefox as the Browser. And it’s fine. I’ve even reinstalled the Sitemeter on my site with no problems. Wait a few days to see if any of the possible culprits, Microsoft, Google, or Sitemeter, fix it and you can use IE again if that’s what you like.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. “If the Iranian president threatened to shut down the US government, we wouldn’t be talking to him.”

    You are a moron, Dhar. And an especially offensive one usually found on the bottom of my shoe when I walk in the dog park. Iranian government has used its proxies to kill Americans.

    SPQR (768505)

  28. The Adorable Care Act is the law, make sure it’s implemented as it was written and let it fail. Let it exemplify liberalism and the failed policies of the Democrats. Elections have consequences, so let the supporters of liberal shi*theels own the MFer.

    Colonel Haiku (819c71)

  29. I guess it’s similar to the fawning over Andropov and his love of jazz, but back then Reagan wasn’t going for it,

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/27/don-t-cheer-yet-iran-s-opposition-activists-are-still-getting-crushed.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  30. Why are we saddled with leftwing, mental gimps like TaLaLa and dhar? If we have to suffer the occasional moonbat, why must it always be a halfwit!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (819c71)

  31. Well consider who their source material is, Yglesias, Klein, Sargent, you can’t rise above that mean,

    narciso (3fec35)

  32. Exactly.

    SPQR (768505)

  33. However, Romney was on CNN today criticizing the GOP.

    That in a nutshell illustrates to me just how leftwing this nation has become or is becoming. IOW, if Romney were a staunch conservative and lost last November because too many Americans perceived him to be a greedy, uncaring, let-them-eat-cake conservative, I’d still be disappointed but not quite as disgusted. The reason for my disgust is that the actual circumstances were one of far too many people foolishly applying the stereotype of greedy, heartless, uncaring, non-teary-eyed conservative onto a person who, in reality, is a rather squishy Republican, with plenty of glints of liberalism in his background.

    Last year truly was a test of how much feel-good liberalism has besotted the electorate — and which they passed with flying colors in November — since the vote for their president came on the heels of 4 years of (symbolically and attitudinally) ultra-liberal, “goddamn America” Obama.

    Mark (58ea35)

  34. So far, the only 2 people threatening to shut down the government are Hairy Reed and Teh One.

    JD (5c1832)

  35. narciso, if Seymour Hersh told me my fly was open, I would never even look down.

    SPQR (768505)

  36. “IOW, if Romney were a staunch conservative and lost last November because too many Americans perceived him to be a greedy, uncaring, let-them-eat-cake conservative, I’d still be disappointed but not quite as disgusted”

    The guy had to walk away from the most significant piece of governance that he did. And he knew that going in.

    “So far, the only 2 people threatening to shut down the government are Hairy Reed and Teh One”

    You’ve been paying very close attention, haven’t you?

    Dhar (d05934)

  37. I’m fully aware,

    http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-exposing-seymour-hersh.html

    however his point about how cursory journalism is in this age, is valid ‘from a certain point of view;

    narciso (3fec35)

  38. If the Iranian president threatened to shut down the US government, we wouldn’t be talking to him.

    So all the GOP has to do is stone adulteresses, hang gays, sponsor suicide bombers, and build nuclear weapons, and Obama will think that’s more reasonable than arguing over the size and duties of the federal government?

    Chuck Bartowski (e59278)

  39. Dhar, you couldn’t “pay attention” with a government, you troll.

    SPQR (85824a)

  40. Actually this tweet better illustrates what flaming asses Obama and Dhar are:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GayPatriot/status/383789145153626112/photo/1

    SPQR (768505)

  41. 24. If the Iranian president threatened to shut down the US government, we wouldn’t be talking to him.

    Comment by Dhar (d05934) — 9/27/2013 @ 6:59 pm

    Precisely why the GOP shouldn’t talk to the American president. He’s threatening to shutdown the government.

    Obama and Rouhani can talk to each other. Perhaps compare notes on their respective wars on Christians.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  42. The media needs to be stoned to death.
    Comment by mg (31009b) — 9/27/2013 @ 3:45 pm

    — Either that or it needs to be shocked back to life.
    Pick your poison.

    Icy (36c688)

  43. If the Iranian president threatened to shut down the US government, we wouldn’t be talking to him.
    Comment by Dhar (d05934) — 9/27/2013 @ 6:59 pm

    — And the part when John Boehner “threatened to shut down the US government” is WHERE?

    Icy (36c688)

  44. “Precisely why the GOP shouldn’t talk to the American president”

    Didn’t Boehner say something like last year that he was done talking to Obama? And that wasn’t even over taking a hostage.

    “– And the part when John Boehner “threatened to shut down the US government” is WHERE?”

    If you had been following the past week you would know it’s not really him in charge of this strategy. Eventually he’ll just have to let go and let the democrats vote in a CR.

    Dhar (d05934)

  45. This has to be aggressive ignorance. Did you simply not see Teh One bragging about he will not negotiate with Republicans?

    JD (95df54)

  46. like I say JD, it’s turtles all the way down,
    the irony of Sally Kohn going head over heals for this Chamberlain light deal, is specially ironic

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/28/Flushing-Critters-and-Retrieving-2014

    narciso (3fec35)

  47. If you had been following the past week you would know it’s not really him in charge of this strategy. Eventually he’ll just have to let go and let the democrats vote in a CR.
    Comment by Dhar (d05934) — 9/28/2013 @ 4:58 am

    — WHERE did John Boehner say “If the Senate votes to fund Obamacare, were going to shut down the government”? WHERE?

    Icy (36c688)

  48. I sure hope that dimwit and others remember all of this “blackmailing the president” and “extorting the Senate” talk the next time a law they don’t like gets passed.

    Icy (36c688)

  49. I sure hope that dimwit and others remember all of this “blackmailing the president” and “extorting the Senate” talk the next time a law they don’t like gets passed.

    Comment by Icy (36c688) — 9/28/2013 @ 6:47 am

    You mean like proposition 8 in California? Or the espionage law regarding listening to a type of cell phone terrorists were using? Or the first and second amendments of the constitution?

    Tanny O'Haley (ffc3bf)

  50. make it happen as it was written and let the American people kill it…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579097443230322758.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    Colonel Haiku (b673c9)

  51. It’s not him. He just has a minority of radicals, upon which he depends for his leadership position, that think that Obama represents the Great Satan, or some other irrational lunacy. That’s who’s taking the hostage.

    Dhar (d05934)

  52. perhaps he can join the prez in some funky victory mincing!

    Colonel Haiku (60474f)

  53. 53. “If ObamaCare fails, or seriously falters, the entitlement state will suffer a historic loss of credibility with the American people.”

    Yes, we tried that plan Nov. 6, how’d it go?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  54. They should have it so you can register to vote when you sign up for health coverage on the exchange. That will show ’em.

    Dhar (d05934)

  55. 57. Probe until you find resistance, why not?

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/how-crazy-are-the-democrats-this-crazy.php

    Evidently some of us have to consent to 20 years in the Gulag before this becomes an emergency.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  56. “They should have it so you can register to vote when you sign up for health coverage on the exchange.”

    Dhar – Have you ever looked at how racists in other countries suppress the black vote by demanding voter ID. Why don’t we ever hear about those comparisons from morons like you when we get comparisons on health care all the time. Is it too embarrassing?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  57. Dhar, as Dennis Miller has said, once you liberals figure out that signing up for ObamaCare exchanges will require the issue of a photo ID which can be used for voting, you guys will all of a sudden be against the ObamaCare exchanges !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  58. Dhar – That is an innovative idea, though. We could then exclude anyone from voting who cannot provide evidence of insurance coverage and proof of voting age. Two birds with one stone!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  59. 57. They should have it so you can register to vote when you sign up for health coverage on the exchange. That will show ‘em.

    Comment by Dhar (d05934) — 9/28/2013 @ 9:59 am

    Think we haven’t caught on yet?

    The last thing this abortion is about is delivering health care.

    You’ll spend more on the fictional insurance, sure. But the only thing written in stone is you’ll get tens of thousands more IRS agents.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  60. Hey, Dhar, what language exactly wasn’t in the ACA?

    You know, like you claimed when you falsely accused me of not knowing what I was talking about.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  61. “Did you simply not see Teh One bragging about he will not negotiate with Republicans?”

    JD – President Ultimatum and Harry Reid declaring they will not negotiate are pursuing an extremist strategy. The House passed a bill to continue funding the government. Declaring it DOA at the last minute after refusing to negotiate all year is the radical position. After voting to repeal Obamacare 41 times, the position of the House of Representatives should not be a surprise to the faux shocked democrat media industrial complex or president. The president refused to pay attention to budget and debt ceiling talks in 2011 as well as his bipartisan deficit reduction commission, cast his steely gaze upon the problem at the last minute, negotiated in bad faith, kicked the can down the road to a super committee creating the sequester, and blamed republicans for his own and senate democrats shirking of responsibilities.

    Deja vu all over again.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. If I were Boehner I’d give a speech about the Preezy hitting the golf course when the country needs to get back to work. Or something like that.

    Something about how like this jerk-off in the WH cares. Not.

    Because we all know Tiger Beat will hit the golf course. Prom Queen can’t help himself.

    Then King Putt can come back on Monday after his weekend off and claim Congress is the prob.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  63. Its just as well that Obama refuses to negotiate. He does not know how.

    It just speeds up the point at which Reid tells Obama to butt out. Like last time

    SPQR (85824a)

  64. Do teh funky victory mince!

    Colonel Haiku (aa8ee9)

  65. However, Romney was on CNN today criticizing the GOP.

    Mark – Meh, not so much if you actually watch or read interview. Says we need to get rid of Obamacare, gives props to Ted Cruz for talking for 21 hours to bring attention to issues, but believes delay is better than shutdown. That’s about only light criticism. Did say GOP can do a better job of Hispanic outreach and that GOP position on immigration was distorted by dems, both of which are true.

    Much more time spent taking shots at Obama and his lack of leadership or poor leadership.

    Love the rush to believe negative information.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  66. It was way nice of you to send me TWO jars. Your syrup is worth every penny, Gary!

    felipe (6100bc)

  67. “http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/how-crazy-are-the-democrats-this-crazy.php”

    Those ads are giving folks bad advice. Sure you can freeload and not get health care until you get sick, but you’ll be on the hook for everything until the next enrollment period.

    Dhar (d05934)

  68. I don’t agree with everything Romney said today but I’m glad he’s getting back into the political arena. He was the GOP’s Presidential nominee in 2012. I think it contributes to the idea that Republicans don’t care about anything but power when its most recent nominee simply disappears from view after a loss.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  69. Obama has demonstrated that he is without principles and without character.

    Using the IRS to attack his political opponents, accessing political opponents tax records, having LEO like the DEA use NSA intercepts for investigations and then be overtly instructed to lie in court about it …

    Why would anyone be stupid enough to think that Obamacare medical records won’t be used against them?

    Obama has moved us closer to a police state than any President since Woodrow Wilson.

    SPQR (61a935)

  70. ==I’m glad he’s getting back into the political arena. He was the GOP’s Presidential nominee in 2012. I think it contributes to the idea that Republicans don’t care about anything but power when its most recent nominee simply disappears from view after a loss.==

    DRJ- For similar reasons I wish W would get a little more engaged in certain issues from time to time. I know that right after his two term presidency ended and with his poll numbers so low, many on the right kind of wanted him to quietly disappear for a while. And he was never mentioned at the conventions. But people are starting to miss him and also remember some of the things he did well.

    Now that Obama’s numbers are in the toilet too, and people are more understanding of some of Bushes decisions especially in the arena of foreign affairs, I think he could and should start to raise his profile. Bill Clinton seems to know when to jump in on issues where he can make a difference and also knows when to avoid other issues and Dem mis-steps like the plague.

    elissa (491145)

  71. I think that if the true conservatives bash Romney, it proves they are true conservatives and that Romney is just a Mormon. Or something. Or whatever.

    After all, bashing Romney does a lot to move the ball down the field against the Democrats in this struggle regarding the debt ceiling, the budget, Syria, ObamaCare, and in the debate about whether or not Miley Cyrus has a weird haircut. Or something.

    Elephant Stone (ee2882)

  72. [Posted on an older thread before I noticed the theme continued here (still catching up).]

    Here is what I think many Independents/former Republicans/conservatives believe, and why they stayed home or refused to vote for McCain and Romney (possibly voting Zombie Reagan/Patterico instead, just guessing there though):

    McCain was not trustworthy as far as promoting or defending conservative interests. He was more interested in being Dem-lite instead of living up to his campaign rhetoric. These people saw him as a bitter old man, long past his (justifiable) glory days. They honored his service and sacrifice. They were saddened that courage and heroism ended upon his return.

    Romney was not trustworthy as far as promoting or defending conservative interests. He was more interested in being Dem-lite instead of living up to his campaign rhetoric. These people saw him as a businessman, working a new angle in an effort to make a profit. They respected his ability in the private sector. They were sickened that he pretended to have core principles that supported their positions when all he really wanted was a turn at the trough and a new enhancement to his CV on the road to easy, and very lucrative, speaking engagements.

    Now, how correct these people are is open to debate. But I believe these people exist in significant numbers and their views are real. Mocking them, attempting to shame or blame them, or otherwise attacking them and these very real beliefs… these are not the way to bring them around to trusting the GOP. I believe many of them are firmly convinced that having a President Obama is STILL better than having another Dem-lite Republican in office. Then, not only do Dems own what happens under their watch (except when Repubs let themselves get blamed… which is far too often,) but the general public doesn’t get confused about who is a conservative (Lindsey Graham, Karl Rove, et al.)

    They believe… “Screw Dem-lite!! Give us a conservative candidate! If we lose, we lose… But at least try it for a while, you might be surprised. We believe people are tired of the crime and corruption. We believe they no longer want it tolerated and excused, or rewarded. We believe that conservative values can win. Not “pure conservatives” as if there were such a thing, but conservatives in spirit who will stand up for a position. We respect Democrats with sincerely-held beliefs, even as we disagree with them and work against them. We will sometimes even vote for them, like Joe Lieberman, because we trust their basic goodness and fairness. We believe that Liberals will do the same if we give them honest, sincere conservative candidates. We would rather have someone we trust all the time than someone we agree with all the time.

    Give us a chance. We believe you will like the results.”

    That’s what they believe. Right now, they believe Ted Cruz is a rock star who should be applauded by every nominal Republican in the country. They are getting angry that he is being attacked for doing what every one of them would love to be able to do, if only half as well. And they have long memories, with an equal ability to hold long grudges.

    Just sayin’

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  73. Stashiu3 – Thank you for your comment. I have no problem with people disagreeing over Mitt Romney. What I have a problem with is people who smear the man based on falsehoods. To me that reveals commenters here who lack a functioning moral compass.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  74. I think Stashiu3 is right. When someone in politics does what he or she says they will do, people pay attention.

    Especially when the people who oppose you keep giving you advice that what you are doing will result in doom.

    I can’t say if they are right or wrong. But, I can say that when liberals start giving the right advice about how to act, the proper response is: Go jump in the lake.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  75. The problem is Stashiu, the leadership thinks pandering to those who don’t know what is stake,
    being imminently reasonable, while the Dems accuse you of murdering wifes of employees, tax evasion,
    this quarter works, they go for the jugular, we don’t even bother telling the truth.

    narciso (3fec35)

  76. I agree with Daleyrocks.
    Legitimate debate is good for the party, and in fact, that is the entire premise of a party’s primary process—allowing for a party debate over the course of time, in each of the states.

    But there are some here who not only lie about Romney, but they also lie about what other commenters write.

    But once the brawling and screaming is over and a nominee has been decided, we should all band together under one big tent to support the GOP nominee in order to fight against the Democrat nominee.

    Mitt Romney’s Supreme Court nominees would have been inherently preferable to Barack Obama’s.
    I don’t know how anyone who considers him or herself ‘right of center’ could argue otherwise.
    And Supreme Court nominees are for life.
    And, oh yeah, the Democrats have a working majority in the Senate, and only they get to confirm Supreme Court nominations.

    Elephant Stone (ee2882)

  77. Yes, and that was because they won the Florida, Wisconsin and Virginia races, but he has smaller coat tails since last time, they rallied their forces behind a fraud like Elizabeth Warren,

    narciso (3fec35)

  78. It doesn’t matter how they won the Senate races, only that they did.

    Elizabeth “Fake Indian” Warren is eligible to confirm Supreme Court nominations for the next 5 and a half years.

    That’s sickening.

    Elephant Stone (ee2882)

  79. I believe many of them are firmly convinced that having a President Obama is STILL better than having another Dem-lite Republican in office.

    Whether they agree with the description or not, I’d say that they’re therefore tilted to the left or are far squishier (or fall for the bilge that liberals/Democrats are kinder and gentler) than they care to admit to. I say that for one simple reason: Polls in 2013 that show a fairly large percentage of Americans still hold George W Bush — and not Barry Obama — responsible for current economic problems.

    If anything, I have a hunch that a good number of registered Republicans or independent non-liberals (ie, centrists or center-rightists) were far more bothered by their suspicion that Romney was a mean-hearted, greedy corporatist who liked making big bucks while waving to and smirking at stumbling middle-class Americans. IOW, the idiocy of a left-leaning stereotype of Romney probably hurt him far more among even a variety of Republicans and independents, particularly of the squishy type, than his being not conservative enough.

    I guess my perceptions are colored by a belief that left-leaning emotions — even more so in light of the growing numbers of Americans who are beholden to self-entitled, feel-good, lazy-do-gooder feelings — are such an intrinsic and idiotic facet of human nature, that nothing else is quite as influential as that.

    Mark (58ea35)

  80. And why was that, in part because Scott Brown forgot why he was sent to Washington, not to rubber stamp Dodd Frank, to give assent to unconstitutional ‘recess appointment,

    Twenty years pass, and the Dems never forget who stood in their way, be it Negroponte, or Reich or Bork,

    narciso (3fec35)

  81. Mark,

    Did you miss the reasons for the part you quoted? Not everything under the sun is confirmation that everyone except you is left-leaning or a squish. You’re a broken record sometimes. Relax.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  82. all the trolls, follow Susstein’s model, of disrupting communications, with vituperation, defamation, and misdirection, now matter how many times they are corrected,

    narciso (3fec35)

  83. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2013 @ 11:11 am

    President Ultimatum and Harry Reid declaring they will not negotiate are pursuing an extremist strategy.

    What they don’t want to negotiate over is the debt ceiling, not the continuing resolution. Not tghat they’re negotiating much about that. Right now the senate passed a continuing resolution that goes only up to November 15 (after the debt ceiling is resolved) because Sen Barbara Mikulski thought if they hadf to pass another continuing resolution by November 15, the Republicans would agree to more spending.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  84. ==Give us a conservative candidate! If we lose, we lose… But at least try it for a while, you might be surprised. ==

    With all due respect and I mean that to my very core–this statement drives me banshee crazy every time somebody says it and it is said a lot. Who specifically, by name is not “giving” the country a conservative candidate? Who is preventing one from prevailing in the primaries? Who–and again feel free to name names here– are you blaming? Because I just don’t get it. I see people saying “the GOP” this and “the GOP” that and “the GOP” had better do such and such or I’ll never vote for another Republican. Well who in bloody heck is this mysterious, influential, all powerful, faceless entity you call “the GOP” that physically forces helpless primary voters off the conservative track? The nominating process may be flawed as some have pointed out. But it’s not done with the mystical sorting hat like in Harry Potter, either.

    elissa (491145)

  85. Consider everyone who has been against Cruz, this week, where do they lie on balance, Rubin, Rove,
    Krauthammer,

    narciso (3fec35)

  86. Thank you, elissa. It used to get people quite angry when I called this approach a “purity of essence” test, right out of “Dr. Strangelove.”

    It is so very odd to me that people will actually claim that a “Democrat-lite Republican” is worse than the current group in power. But, of course, Obama, Reid, and folks like Pelosi (and Warren, and I could go on) are absolutely delighted that some people on the Right believe that way.

    Because that sentiment keep this bizarre crew in power.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  87. You’re a broken record sometimes. Relax.

    Stashiu3, I’d say the broken record is the assumption that Republicans like McCain and Romney went down to defeat because they weren’t conservative enough. Or I should say a belief that the percentage of the electorate that wanted a staunch rightist and would have been inspired to vote in 2008 and 2012 were the Republican ideologically ideal to them meant the difference between winning or losing.

    Yea, I wish. In my dreams.

    For example, when I see some rather down-to-earth forumers here at Patterico who I generally respect becoming indignant when I point out the absurdity of today’s LGBT agenda, and — most crucially of all — combine that with all the Americans who, again, in 2013 (and NOT in 2008, or 2009, or even 2012) believe Bush Jr is to blame for today’s economic anomie and not the guy now in the White House, I fully suspect that the problem isn’t that the Republican candidates have been either too squishy or liberal, but that more and more Americans are increasingly too squishy or liberal.

    Mark (58ea35)

  88. No elissa,

    It’s not some mystical sorting hat. It’s the backroom deals about who gets funded and promoted, along with how the primaries are run. I’m not invited to the backroom, so naming names is beyond me. I could have told you that McCain was going to be the nominee. I wouldn’t have guessed Romney, I didn’t know much about him really, but in retrospect he fits the pattern of picking who is “next”.

    Beyond that, I don’t care much what they do anymore. If they bring someone I like to the table, great. If they don’t, I will wait until they do or another way presents itself. Attacking me for this (and I know you weren’t) just makes me care less at this point. Get a Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz on the ticket, I’ll get excited and involved. Until then, I take care of my family and my patients. Work and home, that’s it, that’s all the energy I have right now. I’m rather ashamed to say I don’t even have the energy to keep up with friends these days, online or in real life. So I’m not angry at politics these days, just exhausted and disgusted.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  89. It is so very odd to me that people will actually claim that a “Democrat-lite Republican” is worse than the current group in power

    Personally, I think the folks who believe that are, in effect, closeted liberals. Either that or they are far, far less appalled by ongoing socio-economic trends in this nation than I am.

    Mark (58ea35)

  90. I would tell you elissa, but they would kick me out of the cabal (or is it ilk).

    JK.

    My guess is that it is first and foremost about money and winning. The more likely a candidate is to win, the more money he or she gets — no different than a short-term investment strategy. For whatever reason (and despite recent history), those with the money think a more moderate candidate will win the general election, so they get a large initial advantage. Once that happens, a lot of people (advisers, consultants, investors) have big vested interests in getting that candidate elected.

    Of course, if a conservative looks like he or she is going to win, the money shifts rapidly. It is just hard to get past the initial advantage.

    Also there is the vote splitting effect. If there are, say, 5 conservative candidates and 1 moderate — this all but statistically guarantees the moderate will get a plurality of votes in the primary, thus the perceived winner, thus more money…

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  91. That’s sort of a self fulfilling prophecy, you end up with a candidate who pulls his punches, while the opposing party, ‘nukes him from orbit’ just to be sure, Biden, Obama, opposed candidates not for their mediocrity but because of their skill,

    narciso (3fec35)

  92. Ah, Stashiu3, you beat me to the punch. I was busy with my stupid links (lol) and crossed-comments.

    Good to hear from you btw.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  93. 79. …Legitimate debate is good for the party, and in fact, that is the entire premise of a party’s primary process—allowing for a party debate over the course of time, in each of the states.

    But there are some here who not only lie about Romney, but they also lie about what other commenters write.

    What is legitimate debate?

    Apparently it’s not an analysis of what went right, and what went wrong, with the last candidate so you can do better next time. Because when someone talks about how the candidate was percieved by the people who should have voted for him but didn’t, that someone generates a s***storm for being “wrong” and “lying” about Romney.

    I honestly don’t understand this obsession with defending the minutiae of Romney’s gubernatorial record as opposed to learning a lesson from the 2012 campaign so as to not make the same mistakes next time.

    Romney did lose, right? Why is that? To retort that everybody was wrong about Romney and he really had a wonderful career isn’t helpful because that just leads to nominating the next guy who’s going to lose when he should have won if only everybody understood how wonderful he was.

    Honest post mortems aren’t fun but they are necessary.

    But once the brawling and screaming is over and a nominee has been decided, we should all band together under one big tent to support the GOP nominee in order to fight against the Democrat nominee…

    Comment by Elephant Stone (ee2882) — 9/28/2013 @ 6:55 pm

    Yes, we should all band together. And in fact we did. But we aren’t numerous enough to win an election. We who will vote for the GOP candidate come hell or high water need people who aren’t registered Republicans to vote for our candidate.

    Figuring out how to do that requires us to get past the happy talk about how the father of Romneycare really was a staunch conservative who vetoed the Democrats over 800 times. Is that possible?

    Or maybe that’s not our place. We should just leave the thinking up to the Karl Roves, Mike Murphys, and Steve Schmidts of the GOP.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  94. We are told we must not listen to the Tea PArty by our betters, and follow the footsteps of Christie and King, who seem intent on coming to the wrong conclusion again and again,

    narciso (3fec35)

  95. Simon Jester,

    I think I just take a longer view. We will survive President Obama. We will survive a President Hillary Clinton, if it comes to that. We live in dark times, but they’ve been darker and longer in the past. I think I was clear that being pure was not a requirement, or even possible. Just being honest and consistent would be enough.

    An example:

    I think President George W. Bush was one of the greatest presidents in our history. I disagreed with many of his policies and decisions, but I never doubted his sincerity or love of our country. His clarity of purpose after 9/11 was inspiring to me and I would vote for him again in a heartbeat, even as I worked against his amnesty plan and other policies I disagreed with.

    You know I have the greatest respect for you. I know you disagree with my views on this and it does not lessen that respect one bit. It’s just not something I can be argued, shamed, or bullied out of (and again, I know that’s not what you or elissa are doing now) at this point. The phrase that drives me crazy is “It is what it is.”

    Sometimes… it is.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  96. 85. Kinda seems its more than just the trolls, IMHO.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  97. Mark,

    You seem far too interested in closets. If I still worked in psych I might explore that with you. Instead, I’ll just skim and move past, thanks.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  98. Well I take the long view as well, but it’s not so reassuring, Clinton’s mishaps at best and malfeasance at worst, CRA revision, slashing the defense and intelligence budgets, have been whitewashed for 20 years, the consequences were for his successor to deal with, every blemish of W was magnified 100 fold, and every accomplishment obscured.

    narciso (3fec35)

  99. Thanks for your participation, Mr. Moderator. It might be one of our brighter lights is oft hidden under the basket.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  100. It is so very odd to me that people will actually claim that a “Democrat-lite Republican” is worse than the current group in power

    Personally, I think the folks who believe that are, in effect, closeted liberals. Either that or they are far, far less appalled by ongoing socio-economic trends in this nation than I am.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/28/2013 @ 8:18 pm

    C’mon now Mark 😉

    Is it not more likely that such a person is just frustrated with the party apparatus and genuinely wants a conservative candidate, and therefore will vote accordingly, to include withholding a vote?

    In any endeavor that requires strategy and tactics, people are going to disagree, even if they are on the same team:
    “throw the bomb, ”
    “no, run out the clock!”

    It does not mean that anyone is betraying their values or has less passion than, say, you or me in the cause.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  101. I’ll offer a practical suggestion, since I’ll inevitably get accused of gratuitously criticizing GOP with no plan of my own. So here it is.

    Quit ascribing wonderful motivations to people who do bad things. And by people who do bad things I mean leftists.

    Rand Paul, for instance, said the other day that the people who passed Obamacare had big hearts but were hurting the people they were trying to help.

    How the holy f*** does Rand Paul know how big their hearts are, and for that matter what they were trying to do?

    Don’t speculate about how nice somebody must be. Just point out how they’re hurting people, and say no decent person would do that.

    On a different level, the LIVs will vote based on “who cares about me more.”

    Right now, both the Dems and the Repubs say the Dems have big hearts.

    On the other hand, the GOP claims they have big hearts while the Dems say the GOP consists of terrorists, suicide bombers, klansmen, or robber barons who want mom and dad eating dog food and hope to push granny off a cliff.

    How’s that working out for the GOP, Republicans who want to attribute only noble motives to people who hate us?

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  102. Well Pons,

    All I can say is that I rarely beat anyone to the punch these days. It takes me significantly longer to compose a comment, edit, re-read for content again, and make the decision to submit it (usually the longest part of the process).

    Good to be here tonight and see you and so many others I like to hear from.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  103. 96. I voted for Romney, mostly because of Ryan, and I was pretty obviously wrong about him.

    How many times do I have to kick myself?

    I’m done. If I don’t actually like the guy, count me out. Do your calculus and remember to drop me and sicko for sure. If Rove(overtly or covertly) is behind the candidate he’s dead certain to lose.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  104. 100.
    Stashiu3, Heh. I assure you that I and a considerable number of other commenters here at PP are very, very much on the same page as you about this.

    elissa (491145)

  105. elissa,

    I know. I’d still take 10 of Mark over imdw under any name every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
    😉

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  106. Right now, both the Dems and the Repubs say the Dems have big hearts.

    That’s exactly why I often point out the various surveys and studies that illustrate the actual, real nature of many people on the left. Yea, my stating that may be a broken record to some, but how many folks in (most certainly) the media — and, in turn, throughout society — even understand or are aware of this?

    I admit to originally believing that liberals — including their biggest heroes (eg, FDR, JFK, pre-Monica Clinton, etc) at least were decent, compassionate, generous — or at least, at the very least, non-bigoted — people in private.

    Duh to me. I sure was damn wrong about that.

    If this epiphany came rather later in my life (eg, my reading a negative essay about FDR that was published in the LA Times just a few months ago), then how bad must it be for all those folks who tend to be steeped in liberalism or are surrounded by liberals? Or folks like George W Bush who believed conservatism needed to be qualified with the word “compassionate.” Or Ronald Reagan, whose biggest blunder was when he fell for the soft-hearted side of his nature (because he didn’t want to be a meanie to the families of hostages) and decided to secretly negotiate with hostage-taking Iran.

    I still think most people, even unconsciously, feel (again, feel) that liberals are analogous to “mommy,” and therefore evoke emotions of sympathy and benefit of the doubt, while conservatives are analogous to “dad.” So even if we respect dad, we don’t feel quite as warm and gooey towards him as we do towards “mom.” Hence, even a non-liberal like George W Bush felt he had to promote the idea of “compassionate conservatism.” Or all the Americans who find themselves increasingly big hearted about the righteous cause of GLBT.

    BTW, a few days ago I watched a well-researched documentary on Adolph Hitler who was undoubtedly, most certainly homosexual (and fully so, based on comments from his supposed wife, Eva Braun). So one of the most notorious, ruthless, bloody, bigoted figures in human history was ironically enough (or not?) pro-vegan, pro-animal-rights, pro-Socialist and flat-out gay.

    Mark (58ea35)

  107. I’d still take 10 of Mark over imdw under any name every

    I’m very flattered, Stashiu3!

    Mark (58ea35)

  108. 106. …I’m done. If I don’t actually like the guy, count me out. Do your calculus and remember to drop me and sicko for sure. If Rove(overtly or covertly) is behind the candidate he’s dead certain to lose.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2013 @ 8:56 pm

    It’s wonderful to have the right candidate. Always vote for the right candidate. But what if we don’t have the right candidate?

    What the GOP needs to do is address three questions in this order.

    1. How do we get a Mitt Romney elected.
    2. How do we make a Mitt Romney do what we told people he was going to do once elected.
    3. How do we get better candidates in the future.

    Accuse me of Romney bashing if you like. But Romney is beside the point. We have a candidate that people are unsatisfied with. How do we get him elected?

    Then, once he’s elected, how do we get him to actually advance the party’s platform? Suppose Chris Christie wins in 2016. Will this blue state moderate GOP pol do what the national GOP wants done, or what the Democrats with a splinter group of other liberal GOP pols want done?

    After 2016, how do we make sure we have better picks than Chris Christie? Because we may very well be stuck with him.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  109. Mark, I don’t dislike like you or think you’re a bad guy. Just a bit obsessed and repetitious at times. You can be POE all day long, but it sometimes bleeds over onto those of us just wanting someone to vote for without holding our nose while we do it.

    Be well.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  110. Stashiu @ 75 and 98,

    Excellent comments.

    Dana (6178d5)

  111. …and make the decision to submit it (usually the longest part of the process).

    @105 Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 9/28/2013 @ 8:50 pm

    Wow, Stashiu — I mean this truly, I think that makes you the wisest person here.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  112. I don’t dislike like you or think you’re a bad guy.

    Stashiu3, no need to qualify your posts, since I do take things in stride and also tend to be tongue-in-cheek (or glib) myself.

    Throughout all the debates here and elsewhere, I am both amused and bemused about human nature. I also admit to being obsessed and redundant about certain points (ie, the ones mentioned in my earlier post) because I really don’t hear them raised elsewhere, in most public settings.

    The reason for that?

    As one example, DRJ, who I greatly respect, said a few days ago that she didn’t think good ol’ Sammy Finkleman was a liberal, and that, anyway, it was best not to delve into that aspect of him. IOW, scrutinizing what makes people tick ideologically still strikes some folks as being analogous to talking about whether a person has bad breath and BO or not. So it makes people uncomfortable or awkward.

    That’s another reason why I believe the fallacy that liberalism originates from a good part of one’s nature is often never debated or challenged, with liberals themselves being the main beneficiaries of a “shhh, don’t talk about that!” reaction.

    Mark (58ea35)

  113. Romney and his ilk put me in chains with his health scare. I voted for the stinky turd, and wish I could take it back. The GOP sucks and will never recover. Republican care is on the way, thanks to all the low information voters on the right. Republicans have no guts and will never see glory. 3rd party PLEASE.

    mg (31009b)

  114. Pons @ 114,

    Just saw that. I agree. It’s a very good deliberation to make. I need to heed that.

    Dana (6178d5)

  115. You and me both Dana, can’t tell you the number of times I hit the submit key and then regretted it.

    …then do it AGAIN lol.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  116. 116. Romney and his ilk put me in chains with his health scare. I voted for the stinky turd, and wish I could take it back. The GOP sucks and will never recover…

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 9/28/2013 @ 10:16 pm

    In the here and now would informing you that Mitt Romney vetoed the Democratic legislature 800 plus times make you more inclined to vote GOP in the future?

    No, I think not.

    What to do? What to do?

    I know! Let’s talk of the wonderfulness of the hidden truth of Mitt Romney. The facts the MFM didn’t want you to know in 2012 are the key to victory in 2016.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  117. The facts the MFM didn’t want you to know in 2012 are the key to victory in 2016.
    Comment by Steve57 (52f0df) — 9/28/2013 @ 10:29 pm

    You know what? I just realized that they may put Romney up again. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. Anybody want to give me odds, right here/right now?

    10,000:1?

    1,000:1?

    Heck, 100:1 that Romney is the GOP nominee for 2016. If I put up $1.00 right now and Romney wins the nomination in 2016, I get $100.00 cash. I’ll go as high as $100.00 to one person, one time*. That’s 10 grand if I win. No way that’ll happen, right? Easy $100.00 for someone, right?

    Right. That’s how stupid I think the GOP elite (those nameless guys behind closed doors) are. I think the system they use to select who they want will not change. I think the system used for the primaries will not change. I also think that the voters in the early primaries, the MSM, and the Dem dirty tricks will not change. All leading to another Romney nomination. I honestly wouldn’t mind losing at all.

    *this offer expires at midnight Sunday, blog-time. A little over 24 hours from now.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  118. “In the here and now would informing you that Mitt Romney vetoed the Democratic legislature 800 plus times make you more inclined to vote GOP in the future?”

    Admiral – You mad bro?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  119. that’s a sucker bet Stashiu3…

    if they don’t send Mittens, it will be another cream puff designed to lose.

    the Jersey Whale, for instance…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  120. Their thinking will be that everyone already knows the dirt on Romney, so no surprises.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney-fanboy or Romney-hater at all. I’d work for him without a qualm. I think he’s a fine businessman who should stay with his strengths. Politically… not my cuppa tea. No offense meant to those who like his political views. They don’t need my blessing to support him. I’ve no desire at all to get in the middle of the recurring debate over anyone’s qualifications.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  121. The conservative people in the U.S. are being used and abused.
    No more. Mr. Nice Guy can go screw himself. Most people in the Arnold family enjoy 2nd place. This country is being trashed by the collectivist. I need a victory, so going along to get along is over. Time for team Benedict to take the panties off and fight.

    mg (31009b)

  122. 120.

    The facts the MFM didn’t want you to know in 2012 are the key to victory in 2016.
    Comment by Steve57 (52f0df) — 9/28/2013 @ 10:29 pm

    You know what? I just realized that they may put Romney up again. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. Anybody want to give me odds, right here/right now?…

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 9/28/2013 @ 11:36 pm

    Is everybody who comments here committed to avoiding the point at all costs?

    Just wondering. I’m fresh off an argument with daley based entirely on the fact that some words are adjectives and nouns, and if he insists I used a word as an adjective I’m moving the goalposts when I point out it was a noun.

    And now this. Is it really that hard to distinguish between enthusiastically endorsing the same mistakes as opposed to enthusiastically endorsing the same candidates? Really?

    Right. That’s how stupid I think the GOP elite (those nameless guys behind closed doors) are. I think the system they use to select who they want will not change. I think the system used for the primaries will not change. I also think that the voters in the early primaries, the MSM, and the Dem dirty tricks will not change.

    I am honestly wondering about these sacred texts that shall not be questioned. What and where are they.

    Seriously. The holy system will change when the anointed keepers of the system decide it needs to be changed. And I’m out of place for suggesting otherwise.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  123. why would it change, it works for them, the primaries, the conflicted moderators at the debates,
    we never hear the cacophany of voices telling us ‘not on this hill’ well which hill do we hold?

    narciso (3fec35)

  124. Stash,

    I think some Republicans would support Romney because he’s a known quantity, and Beltway advisers like that. The main reasons that won’t happen is because the public isn’t willing to give losing candidates a second chance, plus I doubt Romney would agree to another Presidential campaign at this point in his life. My gut says Christie will be the Beltway choice in 2016, especially if he loses some weight between now and then.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  125. ==Seriously. The holy system will change when the anointed keepers of the system decide it needs to be changed. ==

    ==why would it change, it works for them, ==

    Still waiting for the names of these secret villians. Or maybe, instead, we could actually do something about “changing” the system. Until then, we just look like whiny impotent victims. Victimism has never seemed like a very conservative trait to me.

    elissa (491145)

  126. I may be off the rails again, DRJ. But I kind of thought Stash was being clever and sarcastic re: his bet with people here who were voicing concern that Romney would be “annointed’ by the powers that be again for 2016. You are so right that it’s hard to pick up intent and tongue in cheek off of a printed page.

    elissa (491145)

  127. I would never describe influential Republican Beltway advisers and bundlers as secret villains, elissa, but they are and important part of how GOP nominees are selected. One of the reasons I like Ted Cruz is the way he’s trying to motivate the grassroots to play a bigger role in supporting ideas and potential candidates.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  128. Stash may have been sarcastic because he’s clever and that’s a good way to make a point. Fortunately I know he’ll understand and forgive me if, as usual, I missed it.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  129. Well consider one issue;

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/21/Romney-s-top-2012-donor-teams-with-Soros-front-group-to-push-amnesty

    although frankly Koch, Murdoch, Adelson are no help in fighting this issue,

    narciso (3fec35)

  130. I think having the NH primary as the second primary in an open primary is a mistake.

    And states like Ohio and Missouri which are strong indicators of how the nation goes should be earlier in the process.

    As far as candidates for 2016, a major requirement currently is the ability to stand up against lies, damned lies, statistics, and facts purposefully withheld;
    Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are two people who have been vilified about as much as one can be, short of a full palinization (or should I say borking?). (How about “borkalinazation”- too long, “borkinization”?).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  131. I think the problem is now an annex of Massachussetts’ it used to be a redoubt of liberty,
    but really no longer.

    narciso (3fec35)

  132. elissa,

    But the sarcasm point does raise something that matters to me, and that also relates to Mark’s comment about Sammy above. I like to address comments on their merits, instead of trying to find reasons to ignore or discount them — such as if the writer might be a liberal. I agree that beliefs matter and it’s helpful to know where political leaders and media pundits are coming from, but I still don’t don’t see why it matters in these comments where any of our beliefs fall on the political spectrum.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  133. I meant New Hampshire,

    narciso (3fec35)

  134. 128. …My gut says Christie will be the Beltway choice in 2016, especially if he loses some weight between now and then.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/29/2013 @ 7:06 am

    OK, say he is. According to the polls right now something like 4% of conservatives would vote for him. Conservatives are not a negligible portion of the electorate, but they’re not a majority either. Still I don’t see a pathway to victory without them.

    So if the choice is down to Christie and Hillary! in 2016 what’s the argument for voting for Christie? He doesn’t suck as much, agreed. But besides not sucking as much?

    Chris Christie could easily operate with a minority of GOP support. So with 60% of the Democrats and 30% of the Republicans he could make the whole country into New Jersey.

    Is that really better than the guy we have now who wants to turn the whole country into Chicago?

    Is our best alternative to the crack addicted gun grabbers in DC the fat gun grabber in Jersey?

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  135. So, you are saying narciso, that at one time the make up of the NH electorate made it a good choice for an early primary, but the times have changed, NH has changed, and the order of the primaries needs to change.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  136. if the choice is down to Christie and Hillary! in 2016

    That would be dire.
    Has Sec./Sen. Clinton ever done anything of note other than cover for and enable husband Bill to be a successful politician instead of being fired as any other male in America would have been?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  137. 129. …Still waiting for the names of these secret villians. Or maybe, instead, we could actually do something about “changing” the system. Until then, we just look like whiny impotent victims. Victimism has never seemed like a very conservative trait to me.

    Comment by elissa (491145) — 9/29/2013 @ 7:12 am

    No, you’re not. I’ve named some of them. Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt, Karl Rove. Now Elizabeth O’Bagy.

    At what point do you wake up?

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  138. maybe in 2014 and 2015 the conservatives need to work among themselves to find who are the weakest candidates to step aside and who are the stronger candidates to carry the banner.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  139. 140. …Has Sec./Sen. Clinton ever done anything of note other than cover for and enable husband Bill to be a successful politician instead of being fired as any other male in America would have been?

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/29/2013 @ 7:51 am

    She tried really, really hard. She spent lots of time on whatever. She travelled Oh so many miles tirelessly trying to do whatever. In fact I believe she even traveled to the Middle East to fall for the good cop/bad cop routine Egypt and Gaza were pulling on the world a couple of years back.

    So much were her travels.

    Now vote for her, sexists.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  140. Steve57,

    Ted Cruz is my choice. I was saying I think the Beltway advisers and money men will prefer Christie because he’s a centrist and a known quantity.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  141. 142. …maybe in 2014 and 2015 the conservatives need to work among themselves to find who are the weakest candidates to step aside and who are the stronger candidates to carry the banner.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/29/2013 @ 7:54 am

    Maybe. Could happen. Nobody has to do nothing. It could all just work out that way.

    It is what it is. So we should all be happy.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  142. 144. Steve57,

    Ted Cruz is my choice. I was saying I think the Beltway advisers and money men will prefer Christie because he’s a centrist and a known quantity.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/29/2013 @ 8:06 am

    I appreciate what you are saying. But one of the things I am saying is that we should plan for the day the money men win.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  143. but I still don’t don’t see why it matters in these comments where any of our beliefs fall on the political spectrum.

    DRJ, my point was aimed at people in general, and I know my own brother (who leans right) reacted in a manner similar to you several months ago when we were talking politics and I mentioned to him about why a relative and I had disagreed about some political issue and described to that person the source of our conflict. Again, I think this is a major reason why the stereotype that liberalism/liberals have big hearts (ie, “they mean well and at least are looking out for the little guy!”) is rarely refuted or analyzed for what it really is.

    In terms of you and Sammy F, I was responding to forumers who several days ago were puzzled at why Sammy was drawing certain conclusions and making certain comments. I continue to believe it’s because he generally is of the left, and I say that not to be derogatory but to be purely descriptive.

    I’ve said previously that I tend not to care for labeling contrarian (or generally left-leaning) opinions in this board as coming from a “troll” or a case of trolling, with a few exceptions, of course. “Troll” to me implies a person who really doesn’t believe what he or she is stating, and, in effect, it overlooks what is most greatly influencing such a person’s opinion. It sidesteps the fact that leftist sentiments can truly corrupt the thinking of an individual, so that up becomes down, good becomes bad, right becomes wrong, and visa versa. IOW, liberal biases can easily make a person only seem like he or she perhaps is a troll, when in reality what’s motivating that person is far worse than that.

    Mark (58ea35)

  144. The money men usually win, Steve57. That’s why the Tea Party and Cruz’s grassroots efforts matter.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  145. “I’m fresh off an argument with daley based entirely on the fact that some words are adjectives and nouns, and if he insists I used a word as an adjective I’m moving the goalposts when I point out it was a noun.”

    Admiral – Wrong. You’re in the middle of stretching out a childish overreaction to an argument that was a prima facie fail on your part that created Category % butt hurt. You tried repurposing the clear meaning of your words which dug the hole deeper, ran around the field with the goal posts, and attempted to distort what I said into something opposite or unrecognizable. It’s a frequent tactic of liberals, but also one you’ve demonstrated before on this blog rather than admit you were wrong. You have a pattern.

    With political acumen like yours I’m beginning to seriously wonder if you created that “You don’t have a heart” line for Rick Perry.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  146. Mark,

    It strikes me as counterproductive to psychoanalyze commenters’ motives. It needlessly personalizes the discussion so people are more likely to take offense, and any real discussion becomes less likely or even impossible.

    We all have biases but you can’t expect people not to react (let alone to address your arguments as earnestly or as seriously) if you repeatedly tell them why their biases make their opinions less valuable.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  147. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney-fanboy or Romney-hater at all.

    I realize that for purely tactical, and not ideological reasons, I do adjust my reaction towards certain politicians based on my sense of what is fueling a large percentage of the electorate.

    I’m irritated that so many Americans are leaning further and further left (eg, same-sex marriage not only isn’t objected to by a large majority as it was merely a few years ago, it’s becoming increasingly acceptable, even fashionable), and so I can’t be very confident that a Republican who’d I be totally happy with (ie, a candidate who’s truly of the right) will be seen the same way by many Americans, by enough voters in an election to prevent this society from falling through the rabbit hole (ie, liberalism gone berserk).

    I often raise the specter of a Mexico, Greece, Venezuela, France or Argentina — or cities like Detroit or Chicago — because I cringe at the very good possibility that a window into those places is a window into our future.

    Mark (58ea35)

  148. the specter of a Mexico, Greece, Venezuela, France or Argentina — or cities like Detroit or Chicago —

    And you just explained your “thinking process”, Mark, whether you know it or not.

    nk (dbc370)

  149. if you repeatedly tell them why their biases make their opinions less valuable.

    DRJ, I only disagree with such a conclusion if a person who’s stating a particular opinion is drawing blank stares from others (ie, people claiming they’re baffled why a conclusion or statement is being made) and — this really gets me the most — being dismissed as a “troll.”

    A “shhh!” type of reaction is the main source of why I believe someone like George W Bush felt he had to emphasize the compassionate credentials of conservatives/conservatism, because the nature of what liberals truly are all about is rarely viewed with the same type of suspicion (ie, that folks on the left are not necessarily compassionate souls).

    In regards to Sammy, the fact you don’t perceive him as being a generally liberal-leaning person surprised me because I would have thought you’d instead say, “yes, he seems to tilt left, and his viewpoints are affected by that, but I’d rather not cite that in debates with him.”

    Mark (58ea35)

  150. Hint: It’s often found on sweaters and some times in navels.

    nk (dbc370)

  151. Consider this, both Obama and Carter were launched by the Iowa caucus, they ran into trouble in New Hampshire and other states, but what happens after is superflous, with the GOP it’s reverse, Iowa and to a degree S. Carolina are dismissed because they lean right,

    narciso (3fec35)

  152. And you just explained your “thinking process”, Mark, whether you know it or not.

    nk, and that’s why I’m ironically enough (since I’d say I’m pretty much purely of the right) very ambivalent about just how much excoriation needs to be aimed at Republican Party insiders, unlike those folks in the electorate who are fully, totally POed at characters like Karl Rove or the overweight guy from Jersey.

    Mark (58ea35)

  153. Mark,

    I’ve told you repeatedly that I don’t think Sammy is liberal but he might lean left since he lives in a blue state, so it would be natural to identify with some liberal issues. I don’t know why you refuse to recognize I’ve said this before or to make that distinction. Moreover, I don’t know why you seem to think it matters so much.

    Further, I think Sammy specifically said in a comment he considers himself an independent living in a blue state who often votes in Democratic primaries –because those are where the choices are –but who has voted Republican in Presidential elections. Does that really sound like a liberal to you? Doesn’t that give you pause regarding how accurate your psychoanalytical powers are?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  154. but who has voted Republican in Presidential elections

    DRJ, I don’t believe Sammy stated that. He merely said he’s generally not voted for Democrat presidential candidates on the ballot. IOW, there’s a possibility he instead has favored third-party candidates.

    I too originally thought Sammy perhaps was a squishy Republican or independent, but his reaction towards what animates Obama (ie, that he really isn’t intrinsically leftwing but is merely affected by outside influences), and, in turn, the way he easily slammed what in his mind motivates Pat Buchanan (to paraphrase, pure hate—instead of outside influences) or Robert Welch (that his libertarian or rightwing opinions couldn’t possibly have been said sincerely) was the moment when I went “a-ha!” about Sammy.

    Mark (58ea35)

  155. Why do you need an “a-ha” moment about Sammy, Mark? Is it so you can ignore what he says?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  156. Steve57,

    I apologize for any misunderstanding. My post was not sarcasm at all and there was no intent to undermine any point you have made. Your comment just sparked the realization that Romney is a definite possibility. I actually agree with you around 82.4% of the time (a tongue-in-cheek estimate, but it is relatively high) based on the comments I’ve read.

    The bet is 100% real. What was taken as sarcasm was probably a healthy bit of residual disgust at how the selection is structured against more conservative candidates. DRJ knows me better than anyone here, with the possible exception of Machinist who I was honored to meet in real life. Although she claims to be snark-impaired at times, I’m certain DRJ would pick up if I was being sarcastic. She’s certainly been subjected to my attempts at humor far too often.

    elissa, I wouldn’t say “secret” nor “villains” at all. They’re just the GOP strategists who really control the early parts of the nomination process by deciding who to support with promotion and funding before candidates formally announce. The Karl Rove types in general. I know we disagree to the point of frustration for you on this issue, but please know that I respect your position and readily acknowledge you may be right. It just won’t affect my decision process until your position has been proven to my satisfaction. We’ve been burned too many times by politicians who say one thing while running and do the exact opposite once in office.

    I stand by the bet as long as any taker is subject to guarantees of payment. The ROI would be worth the risk on my part this early. People won’t start running in earnest for at least another month or so (that was sarcasm, based on my stated belief that the nomination process already starts far too early as it is. Two years out from the election is ridiculous IMHO.)

    Sorry for the wall-o-text folks. I never know when I will have the time/energy to comment. I can’t claim to read all the comments anymore, but I try to keep up with the current threads. When I do comment, it seems like I need to get a lot of thoughts out at once, hence the verbosity.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  157. …middle of stretching out a childish overreaction to an argument that was a prima facie fail on your part that created Category % butt hurt. You tried repurposing the clear meaning of your words which dug the hole deeper, ran around the field with the goal posts, and attempted to distort what I said into something opposite or unrecognizable. It’s a frequent tactic of liberals, but also one you’ve demonstrated before on this blog rather than admit you were wrong. You have a pattern.

    Yeah, I have a pattern. Of telling people when I use a word I intend it to mean something.

    con·stant
    [kon-stuhnt] Show IPA
    adjective
    1.
    not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable: All conditions during the three experiments were constant.
    2.
    continuing without pause or letup; unceasing: constant noise.
    3.
    regularly recurrent; continual; persistent: He found it impossible to work with constant interruption.
    4.
    faithful; unswerving in love, devotion, etc.: a constant lover.
    5.
    steadfast; firm in mind or purpose; resolute.

    noun
    7.
    something that does not or cannot change or vary.
    8.
    Physics. a number expressing a property, quantity, or relation that remains unchanged under specified conditions.
    9.
    Mathematics . a quantity assumed to be unchanged throughout a given discussion.

    daley has a pattern, too. Of wetting his pants when someone disagrees with his twisting of their words.

    Moving teh goalposts!

    You can be the pilot boresighted on the alarm light on the instrument panel of the plane you’re driving into the ocean as long as I’m not on the plane.

    I’d rather concentrate on flying the plane. Since you call me “admiral” let’s say driving the boat. If I have a flashing red light on a panel I don’t trust it when it conflicts with what I can see from the bridge.

    We will not win in 2016 unless we learn from 2012. Or 2008. The Democrats did learn after losing 3 election cycles to the GOP and came up with Billy Jeff. Aren’t we smarter than that?

    Apparently not if daley, “Thou shalt not question the wonderfulness of Mitt Romney,” is the example.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  158. Now Mexico was run by the centerright party, as I;ve pointed out to Mark, for a dozen years, Argentina was that way as well with the right faction of the Peronists, for almost as long, till the crisis of 2001, which led to the Kirschners.

    narciso (3fec35)

  159. 147. The money men usually win, Steve57. That’s why the Tea Party and Cruz’s grassroots efforts matter.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/29/2013 @ 8:27 am

    Shouldn’t we have a plan in case they do win? Shouldn’t we at least think about what happens after Jeb Bush or Chris Christie gets elected?

    Ted Cruz is scaring the sweet bejeebus out of people because of the fact he’s not just talking about Obamacare. The money men’s picks will lie to us. Ok. Some of them will win.

    Then what?

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  160. Why do you need an “a-ha” moment about Sammy, Mark? Is it so you can ignore what he says?

    DRJ, come on now! That’s not fair. I said it was to figure out why Sammy was drawing a certain conclusion about Obama (or regarding a certain issue—forget precisely which one right now) that was contradictory or loaded with excuse-making or rationalization, which some other forumers claimed to be puzzled by.

    Narciso, I have to ask whether the “centerright” you refer to in such instances is analogous to, for example, California’s state government when it was under the oversight of Arnold Schwarzenegger. IOW, a place still enveloped in plenty of liberalism — residual or otherwise — but with the addition of a bit more squishy (ie, non-uber-liberal) politics.

    BTW, I do admit that Governor “Moonbeam” did something drastic and dramatic to the state’s budget when he axed redevelopment agencies throughout the state and in one fell swoop saved hundreds of millions of dollars. Not even a Republican or most other Democrats in the role of governor would have gone that far.

    Mark (58ea35)

  161. No both Calderon/Fox and Menem, were relatively orthodox in their orientation, the latter was undermined by the overspending among the governors
    particularly of the Radical party, which is the small l liberal persuasion,

    narciso (3fec35)

  162. Stashiu3, I appreciate the considerate response.

    I’m especially nasty of late due to the amount of Deladier moments I’ve been forced into.

    Who after being cornered into signing the Munich agreement said upon his return to Paris, “Ah, the fools! Why are they cheering?”

    I have a hard time looking my nieces and nephews in the eye, knowing what I’m leaving them with.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  163. R.I.P. LC Greenwood, member of the Steel Curtain defense

    Icy (30cc9d)

  164. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/29/2013 @ 6:10 pm

    In unwinding the great Redevelopment scandal, Moonbeam also granted the state all the funds these agencies were sitting on.
    It was, at its heart, a raid by the state to decrease its deficit – not to say that these agencies hadn’t overstayed their welcome.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  165. There has been an exceptionally lot of nastiness, miscommunication and dissension on this thread. But this chain of comments is why I’ll be taking a break for a while from here:

    129. …Still waiting for the names of these secret villians. Or maybe, instead, we could actually do something about “changing” the system. Until then, we just look like whiny impotent victims. Victimism has never seemed like a very conservative trait to me.
    Comment by elissa (491145) — 9/29/2013 @ 7:12 am

    141. No, you’re not. I’ve named some of them. Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt, Karl Rove. Now Elizabeth O’Bagy. At what point do you wake up?
    Comment by Steve57 (52f0df) — 9/29/2013 @ 7:51 am

    I asked people who I believe are capable of intelligent discussion to talk about the whos and whys of “the GOP” that they say regularly rob Conservative candidates of the ability to achieve the nomination or win primaries. I suggested that the establishment is not nearly as invincible or powerful as some seem to think, and that we can and should work to change the system. This commenter responds with the names of three has-been political strategists as his big establishment “money men” and influencers. Then he adds the name of Elizabeth O’Bagy– 26 year old ELIZABETH O’BAGY to his list of people that he claims have kept Conservatives from winning elections. Really, Steve? I will overlook the gratuitous insult that capped it off.

    Some people can’t seem to move past 2012 and continue to unfairly evicerate Romney. How is it even possible to carry on a sane or productive discussion with this kind of unserious reasoning and all this blog infighting going on?

    DRJ–FWIW I agree with you that Cruz’ strength is that he is fearless and is taking his cause and energy directly to the people. He is building a constituency that will neither rely on the old bulls or be easily thwarted by them. I think he’s a very talented and promising politician. Reagan did the same thing.

    MD., your idea for Conservatives themselves to cull the weaker candidates and push only the very strongest so as not to dilute the primary field and maximize conservative campaign donations is also spot on, I think.

    I’ll check in from time to time to see how things are going.

    elissa (491145)

  166. Mark:

    DRJ, come on now! That’s not fair.

    I’m sorry and I wasn’t trying to be unfair. I thought you were trying to find a reason to ignore or discount Sammy’s comments because you view him as a liberal.

    Let’s assume you are right and Sammy is a liberal or leans left. Explain to me why that’s important for you to know when you read his comments. Does it give you a frame of reference to better understand what he’s trying to say? Or is it something else?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  167. It helps me to take a break now and then, elissa. I hope it helps you come back even sooner.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  168. Elissa,

    don’t go

    EPWJ (c3dbb4)

  169. if only

    if only somebody would start a revolution of love

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  170. I’ll be taking a break for a while from here:

    I hope not since this board needs all the people it can get (eg, the liberal Huffington Post generates a million postings to some of its most minor blog entries imaginable), and I’m always glad to see a wide variety of comments, particularly from women interested in politics, and better yet, who also lean right.

    BTW, the written word often tends to make people come off harsher than they really are or than intended. I’ll post something and realize after the fact that I unintentionally (yea, my — as you say — incessant psychoanalyzing notwithstanding) put a negative spin or tone on it. So the way people communicate back and forth in an online forum like this can easily end up misinterpreted.

    Mark (58ea35)

  171. Does it give you a frame of reference to better understand what he’s trying to say?

    DRJ, most certainly. If I didn’t realize that Sammy leaned left (as originally was the case) I’d be more curious as to why he was making certain assertions or drawing certain conclusions.

    Plus, as I mentioned previously, I’m bothered when people who are true-blue liberals and are saying things that to various right-leaning forumers in this message board sound like insincere BS are discounted by those forumers as trolls. In a way that label implies the opinions of such a person aren’t inspired from deeply held biases and therefore can be changed with countervailing facts and figures, and rebuttals. IOW, I wish reality were that simple and easy.

    All of this is another reason why when, for example, nominees to the Supreme Court are being considered I definitely want to know what their innate ideological biases are like. A desire to not delve into that aspect of a nominee in the past — because it was perceived by some movers and shakers as an overly sensitive and unseemly way to scrutinize a person — is one reason why “stealth” candidates were more likely to squeak through the vetting process (eg, George Bush Sr’s selection of David Souter).

    Mark (58ea35)

  172. Mittens fan club is broke, but can be replenished by Rove.
    Can’t wait!

    mg (31009b)

  173. Elissa,

    I look forward to seeing you comment in the future, as you bring an intelligent perspective that is quite different from my own.

    See ya later!

    Dustin (303dca)

  174. elissa, you can’t go! My cabal needs you!

    SPQR (768505)

  175. …I’ll be taking a break for a while from here

    @169 Comment by elissa (491145) — 9/29/2013 @ 8:55 pm

    Shoot.

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  176. Dear elissa:

    I’m sorry to find you concluding what I have for some time around here. I have a basic rule: if it makes David Axelrod smile, I don’t think it is a great strategy. But I’m afraid I hold a minority opinion these days.

    I am reminded of what a college president told me several years ago. We were talking about some of the people agitating for diversity on campus, and I pointed out that their complexions were, um, paler than their rhetoric would imply.

    The college president smiled gently, and said: “Some people would rather have a cause than an effect.”

    It’s not an insult. As you and I have both pointed out, working to improve the system from within is thankless and dirty. Some folks (and I am not pointing fingers) really enjoy playing the part of the “speak truth to power rebel.” It’s far more dramatic and romantic than the nuts and bolts problems that we face as a Party and a nation.

    There are commenters who agree with us. There are commenters who do not, elissa. And there are kind people in each group. And, um, not so nice people in each group. It’s true here in this comments section, as in life.

    And you know that as well as I do, of course.

    I feel your own weariness, and it (and a fair number of personal issues) makes it tough for me to comment here a lot. But there are many people who openly agree with you, and some who agree with you who do not post. So your voice is appreciated.

    Particularly by me.

    I think highly of your posts, and I look forward to seeing them again when you feel like it. If you want to touch base for any reason, Patterico knows me, as do JD and Stashiu3.

    Best wishes to you and your family.

    Simon Jester (173a90)

  177. Comment by Elephant Stone (ee2882) — 9/28/2013 @ 6:55 pm

    Mitt Romney’s Supreme Court nominees would have been inherently preferable to Barack Obama’s.

    Or you’d say, even though he might name another Stevens or Souter, the odds are better. But he might have gotten a vacancy or two Obama won’t get.

    And, oh yeah, the Democrats have a working majority in the Senate, and only they get to confirm Supreme Court nominations. </i

    Which brings up it is hard to confirm a Scalia, Bork, Thomas, Alito, or McConnell.

    Scalia was confirmed by a Senate that had a majority of Republicaan members, as was Roberts and Alito. Thomas was somewhat difficult to oppose, since he was black, and he was succeedng Thurgood Marshall, and it would have been somewhat difficult for GHWB to nominate anyone not black since he was succeedng Thurgood Marshall, but that applied only to his first choice, and they hadn't yet gotten to the point of being openly willing to oppose almost any nominee a president might be willing to name.

    Sammy Finkelman (e24bc2)

  178. Oops, italics not ended in time.

    157. 158.

    DRJ: Further, I think Sammy specifically said in a comment he considers himself an independent living in a blue state who often votes in Democratic primaries

    Always. Even next Tuesday. Maybe especially next Tuesday, (October 1) – it’s a very obvious choice – even though the candidate I favor in the runoff is endorsed by Charles Schumer.

    I even got a (form) letter from him, noting that I voted “in almost every election in the past four years” (I guess that was the criteria for getting the letter. Maybe they even checked who voted in the first primary.)

    I’m getting mail every day from both candidates, although more from Squadron. I don’t like much of his appeal. I’m not a “progressive” or don’t agree with much of what is called “progressive” His later mailings have avoided it. I guess they found out not everybody was the same. His mailings are still “positive” mostly about housing. Letitia James (who, it turns out is the person who succeeded the assassinated City Councilman who was killed in the chamber after avoiding the metal detector because Councilman Davis let him go in. They’d come from his office. And David was a former policeman who always boasted of carrying a gun. He could have killed him in his office. Some police later thought he did it in the City Council to get him off his guard. My feeling is the killer probably had to get up his nerve, and he knew he would die.

    Anyway Letitia James talks about fixing schools, rather than closing them. And says that Squadrom is alllied and friendly to Bloomberg.

    And it also turns out (per the editorials) that when she first was elected, she was elected on as a 3rd party candidate on the Working Families [municipal union] Party line. (I suspect that means she lost the primary)

    But if I didn’t know all that, it probably would be enouhh to know she was black, and not hated by other black politicians, because that’s probably enough, in this universe, to tell what she was, which is a hack, and a hack allied with the wrong people, but I like to have some confirmation of suspicions…I seek out more information to confirm it, or possibly modify it. And indeed it modifies it, and makes it clearer.

    I still don’t completely comprehend what’s going on, but it’s more than enough to make very clear whom to vote for. Squadron’s ahack, too. I did not vote for him in the first primary.

    Sammy Finkelman (514375)

  179. 174 – revolution of love – you mean how the rethuglicans love the base conservative?

    mg (31009b)

  180. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/29/2013 @ 9:04 am

    Further, I think Sammy specifically said in a comment he considers himself an independent living in a blue state who often votes in Democratic primaries – because those are where the choices are

    There isn’t even a Republican candoidate for Public Advocate. It’s rarely quite that bad for major offices.

    but who has voted Republican in Presidential elections

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/29/2013 @ 9:13 am

    DRJ, I don’t believe Sammy stated that. He merely said he’s generally not voted for Democrat presidential candidates on the ballot.

    No no. I said I never voted for a Democrat for president. I explained later I voted for Perot in 1992. When I voted for a Democrat in a general election it wasn’t because I thought of them as the best that could be offered, or agrreed with the default or that there weren’t serious things to worry about, or worry that they existed, but there could be counterervailing considerations, or hopes, and it was usually because I thought (sometimes wrongly) there was something badly wrong with the Republican, like Giuliani in 1989..

    IOW, there’s a possibility he instead has favored third-party candidates.

    I did, in 1992, and I do that a lot actually in local elections, especially for Governor. But I never voted for Golisano. I think I voted for Andrew Cuomo as a protest in 2002 and to keep the Liberal Party on the ballot. Not because I wanted him. Or liked the Liberal party 90% of the time.

    But I didn’t like the way he’d agreed to withdraw from the primary (not campaign that is) at the behest of Bill Clinton.

    I too originally thought Sammy perhaps was a squishy Republican or independent, but his reaction towards what animates Obama (ie, that he really isn’t intrinsically leftwing but is merely affected by outside influences),

    I don’t know what it is with people that they want to see him as sincere, especially, on things that very few people would support. And besides that there was even proof, in the judgmenet (which turned out to be correct) of the people who elected him as president of the harvard Law review in 1990, where he was a compromise candidate. Enough radicals were moved away from the radicalk candidate for him to get elected on the upteenth ballot. (it’s all secret, the whole thing treated as a papal conclave, but it is pretty clear what happened)

    and, in turn, the way he easily slammed what in his mind motivates Pat Buchanan (to paraphrase, pure hate—instead of outside influences)

    No, no no. Buchanan does indeed have strong sadistic feelings, which are not all that common.
    But he wasn’t sincere in most of his arguments.

    He supported Israel in 1967 because he perceived that to be the cruel thing to do. Then, when Israel seemedd interested in getting peace, and was definitely not militaristic, which it never was, he took a different point of view.

    Obama was more sincere at first, but he knew some people he associated with were bad, and he even tried to modify what some of those people were doing. I don’t Obama ever cared about most ideas, but he didn’t know how bad, or out of the mainstream, some of them were.

    or Robert Welch (that his libertarian or rightwing opinions couldn’t possibly have been said sincerely)

    Welch is not noted for right-wing opinions, but of implausibly accusing people of being Communist, or trying to help Communists. The opinions he enunciated could not possibly have been sincerely held by anyone and that goes too for some of the material Pat Buchanan wrote.

    Robert Welch accused President Eisenhower of favoring Communism in some way. This is not reasonable. Now he was a ffriend of Joseph P. Kennedy. So it is reasonable to suppose that old Joe Kennedy put him up to it.

    Sammy Finkelman (514375)

  181. Time to quit trying to reason with d.c. as the two parties are one.
    3rd party would bring people out of the woodwork, and onto the playing field, to fight for liberty. Tell me where I’m wrong, elissa.

    mg (31009b)

  182. SF: “The opinions he enunciated could not possibly have been sincerely held by anyone.

    Correction. They could not have sincerely been conceived by anyone (e.g. that Dwight David and Milton Eisenhower were Communists)

    Once somebody came up with the idea, others could maybe have been convinced of it.

    Sammy Finkelman (514375)

  183. What was probably a good candidate for Kings County District Attorney withdrew before the primary to give another person a better chance (who turned out to be associated with bad people, and we don’t know how that’s going to wrk out.)

    I do not like candidates withdrawing to give some other candidate a better chance.

    Sammy Finkelman (514375)

  184. No, Sammy, it was the right thing to do regardless,
    as part turned away from support for intervention generally, this tick happened, but back when he was at graduate school, he even supported Tsombe’s secesssion,

    narciso (3fec35)

  185. I hope you don’t need to stay away too long, elissa.

    I’m just ignoring the Romney kerfuffle for the most part,
    but sometimes it is easier for each of us to ignore some things more than others.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  186. elissa, trust me, never decide anything unless you sleep on it first. Sleep always puts everything in better perspective. Suppose the neighbor’s dog digs up your roses and you say “That’s it, I’m going to shoot him”. Well, that could get you into a lot of trouble. Take a nap. When you’ll wake up, you’ll feel better, and you won’t shoot him, you’ll only shoot the dog.

    nk (dbc370)

  187. 188 @narciso What are you referring to? What was the right thing to do? part? tick? Who supported Tsombe’s secesssion? Barack Obama Sr.?

    Sammy Finkelman (514375)

  188. Oh, mg… Hey, that’s funny!

    What have third parties brought us so far in Presidential politics? C’mon, say it with me.

    Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.

    Just like your third party will give us Hillary Clinton. And probably Chelsea Clinton in 2024.

    Simon Jester (da358a)

  189. I would rather be a loser trying something new than repeat and rinse my life away, Simon.

    mg (31009b)

  190. So…you would rather keep losing, and hurting people. Got it.

    Look, you have a right to believe and do what you want. But historically, your attitude has led to horrific results; quite the opposite of what was intended by those Third Parties.

    I think a lot of people think like you do.

    And then—this is what gets elissa and I irritable—many of these same people complain about the results they knowingly brought about…in the name of purity.

    Sure, lots of people don’t think like I do.

    But I notice conservatives don’t think it was great that Wilson became President. And I know they didn’t like Clinton becoming President.

    So do as you please. But I won’t listen to you complain about the results that you helped to bring about…knowing what had happened multiple times in the past.

    Why not just a get a check from Axelrod and the DNC?

    OR…you could fight at the grassroots for candidates you do like. I don’t know you, but the majority of Third Party fans I know (and I know quite a few) think of themselves as ideologically pure “lone wolves.” They won’t do the messy and unpleasant work of making things better.

    You could be different.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  191. And then—this is what gets elissa and I irritable—many of these same people complain about the results they knowingly brought about…in the name of purity.

    It’s not about purity. How do you defend “it is what is is?”

    Which is the response I get when I say the GOP needs to change.

    Which is, by the way, what Ted Cruz was saying during his filibuster.

    If doing the same s*** on different days leads to Obamacare, what’s the point of pretending that the people who are for doing the same s*** are against Obamacare?

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  192. I am not trying to bash anyone. I think you and elissa are good people who honestly want the best outcomes.

    But I’m also not bashing Romney when I attempt to describe the nature of the problem we have to deal with if we’re going to have different outcomes than we’ve experienced.

    I may be wrong, but it’s a good faith effort.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  193. Let me get this right Simon, if I don’t do as you do I should become a paid hack by axeldick? I have done my share of political work for people I don’t always agree with, you know, Simon, for the cause. I would work my tail off for the right individual. I just happen to think a 3rd party would bring a working class politician to the table. Enough of the 2 party lawyer, lying big business festival. carnival. freak show.

    mg (31009b)

  194. 194. I think there’s fertile enough ground in any Acacemic Institution for renewal of the fossilized coprolite GOP.

    You’re clearly wasting your breath with us knuckledragging Luddites.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  195. 194. “you would rather keep losing”

    Everyone here would dearly love to be represented. I’ve had the privilege for some years now by my Congressperson.

    Being represented entails winning. The GOP is downright sh*tty in part and in sum.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  196. Are you not entertained?

    Apparently the Preezy was diverted from making his 4:35 mark to bloviate about a gub’mint shutdown because he was concentrating on the critical issue of the 2014 March Madness issue.

    We used to say that more than half of success in the Navy amounted to showing up on time with a haircut.

    President Doofus can’t even show up.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  197. 200. LOL.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  198. Oh, goodie. The Preezy who can’t show up within a quarter of an hour of when he says he will is now speaking.

    What the hell was he doing.

    “NASA will shut down almost entirely”

    Who the f*** cares.

    Now he’s reminding everyone that the feds are America’s largest employer.

    So the parasite is now threatening its host about the negative threat of the shutdown.

    This is an assploding speech I’m listening to. The guy who is proud that the USG has grown into the monster that is the country’s largest employer is talking of shrinking deficits.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  199. Oh, holy Allah, he just mentioned contraceptives and teh War on Women!

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  200. Tens of thousands of Amurrhicans die every single year because of no Obamacare!!?!!

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  201. Funding his vacations is something we do for the military and small businesses and our economy and somethint we do to serve people with PTSD.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  202. “The American people sent us here to govern.”

    Which apparently means fulfilling Barack Obama’s dictates.

    Actually doing something different from what Barack Obama demands is obstructionism.

    Then the great deliverer of what the people want left the press conference without taking any questions.

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  203. I loved how the prez just walked out without taking any questions.

    felipe (6100bc)

  204. This isn’t 1995, felipe. I don’t see this as a hard sale. President Chelsea Bradley is holding the federal budget hostage because while the GOP will fund every other function of government, they won’t fund the database full of blackmail quality details about your sex life.

    How hard of a pitch is that?

    Steve57 (52f0df)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5751 secs.