Patterico's Pontifications

4/24/2014

Hey, How About Another Bush in the Oval Office?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:42 am

Jeb Bush says he’s thinking of running.

This is likely to start yet another round in the giant match between Establishment Conservatives and Tea Partiers.

Look, I’m not a professional politico, and (like the Republican party, evidently) I have been torn over the years on the proper balance to strike between uncompromising demands and trying to get things done. To the extent I can manage to do so, I am going to try to get out of that business, because I’m not particularly good at it. It’s always satisfying (and easy) for a conservative blogger sitting at his kitchen table to say damn the torpedoes and try for the moon; we don’t have to actually do anything. The problem there: I think it’s stupid to simply hand over the reins of government to the other side for 40 years and let them appoint 9 justices who will shred what’s left of the Constitution. But at the same time, the fiscal problems we have demand action of the sort almost no “regular” politician is likely to take.

Argue it out. Be polite. I’m just going to point out that Business As Usual isn’t going to cut it. And a third Bush sure feels like Business As Usual.

243 Responses to “Hey, How About Another Bush in the Oval Office?”

  1. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

    nk (dbc370)

  2. No more Bush. The brand has been tarnished.

    Colonel Haiku (c1bfa3)

  3. Let’s give Perry a chance. Why, his use of tortoise shell specs has raised his IQ by 25 points +\-

    Colonel Haiku (c1bfa3)

  4. I don’t care about Establishment, Tea Party, whatever. I just want to win. Who might give me the best chance of winning. If we are just talking about the Bush name, and not experience, record, positions, etc., here’s how I look at it. Since 1980:

    GOP tickets with a Bush: 5 wins in 6 elections.
    GOP tickets without a Bush: 0 wins in 3 elections.

    A.S. (23bc66)

  5. #4 LOL!!!!!!!!!

    More like GOP ticket with Reagan 3 for 3.

    GOP ticket without Reagan 2 for 6

    And yes 1988 was a Reagan victory regardless of the Bush name.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ca9e04)

  6. Establishment Republicans kill the Conservative baby in the crib then talk about how the kids never grow up.

    Luckily Reagan was Moses ….

    But sorry, winning is not everything and certainly when driving off the same cliff under the speed limit as opposed to over it.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ca9e04)

  7. A.S. has a point, but so does the Colonel. The Bush brand is tarnished and I don’t think it makes political sense to think he is electable. (Though what do I know).
    And he is not known as an outstanding candidate that will fire up the conservatives and pull along some folk like “Reagan Democrats”.

    I guess he could get nominated as there is no strong other individual candidate at this moment. One could get a reply of 2012 in which many candidates split the more conservative base and leaving someone like Jeb to win a plurality, especially in the early going that then snowballs.

    But about anything can happen.

    How’s this for a prediction:
    The NYT, WaPo and other media outlets sound the praises of Jeb being a good choice, “not like his brother”, until after he wins the nomination, then goes into another episode of BDS with a vengeance.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  8. RKS has an even better point.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  9. Jeb Bush is probably the best hope for the Republican Party to win the 2016 Presidential election – if he can manuever through a minefield or two.

    The reason it is someone named Bush is that there are so few people who have a relistic possibility of making a serious run for president, and because he does come out of a slightly different political background.

    Paul Ryan might also be good, but I think he would have more trouble clarifying his thinking.

    A Presidential candidate pays a high price for inconsistencies, absurdities and incompletely reasoned out proposals.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  10. The path has been cleared for the long-rumored “uberConservaMensch” to finally rub the sleep from His eyes, don armor, take cudgel in hand and wow the country. His acolytes breathlessly await His arrival on the scene!!!

    Colonel Haiku (fdf771)

  11. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/24/2014 @ 8:10 am

    The NYT, WaPo and other media outlets sound the praises of Jeb being a good choice, “not like his brother”, until after he wins the nomination, then goes into another episode of BDS with a vengeance.

    They already attempted a hit job – which kind of fizzles out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  12. Jeb Bush is out pushing hard for immigration reform, (or amnesty by another name) as if he can ride that piebald horse to the White House. Up against Hillary, Bush is counting on boxing in Conservatives so they have no real option but to hold their noses, abandon principle again, and vote for another closet liberal. Well, not just no, but hell no.

    Of course, we’ll have to see how the primaries play out. However, I’ve been a reliable GOP vote for nearly 50 years, and I’m through with the stupid party. I’ll vote for a Conservative, but I won’t sit still for being stabbed in the back yet again.

    ropelight (2644f4)

  13. I don’t think Jeb Bush will be much affected by any opinion about his brother’s record as president. He will stand on his own merits.

    Well, except maybe by some prejudiced Democrats,
    but they’ll react worse to anyone associated with Republican politics in the most recent years.

    In a general election, there might also be an attempt to say he did something wrong in the 2000 election, but it won’t swing many votes because there’s nothing there, and you can’t make something that’s plausible and reasonable appear there.

    Discussing it, if the discussion is not dropped as soon as it starts to backfire, will actually help.

    The name could also give him some trouble in the Republican primaries, but mostly among people inclined to vote for Rand Paul, who aren’t his people anyway, for the most part.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  14. 12. Comment by ropelight (2644f4) — 4/24/2014 @ 8:23 am

    Jeb Bush is out pushing hard for immigration reform, (or amnesty by another name) as if he can ride that piebald horse to the White House.

    Actually, I think he thinks that’s a problem.

    The real “third rail” of American politics.

    I don’t think his position is cynical – it’s rather, if he can’t say what he feels, it is not worth doing. This is the right approach. His only problem may be that he just doesn’t understand what’s going on.

    Can he ride that to the White House? Probably yes. He won’t lose very many conservatives, and a candidate running against him on the immigration issue would give him more Democratic votes than republican votes he would lose.

    Without getting right on this issue, he couldn’t carry Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and maybe Nevada, and it could give a Republican candidate trouble in Virginia and North Carolina. He may have to do some reconceptualizing. He would be fighting a monster.

    A big problem will be what would he do if the law is not changed. He has to ratify everything that Obama does, at a minimum. (Romney sort of tried to argue that question was hypothetical)

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  15. There is no strategy here. In a democracy the majority wins, and the majority of people in this country are low-information moochers who hate freedom and love gimmes that the government steals from other people.

    Voting for the most liberal Republican just so we can say there’s a Republican in the White House, or so we can fool liberals into voting for a guy who is “secretly” a conservative, is horseshit.

    America is finished. Depressing but true.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  16. I like Jeb, and I think if his name were Smith he’d be a leading contender. But for right now I’m still backing Scott Walker.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  17. 4,5. Over at HotAir Allah notes Jeb is as popular with women as with Dhimmis. Not.

    Everyone who is a pol on the Right has expressed interest.

    Republicans should remember that they were not for Reagan, that kicking and screaming they we’re dragged into the booths to re-elect.

    Personally, I find Rand, the only candidate we can agree to vote for, a very weak option, a fine spokesman for Libertarianism but downright inadequate on Conservatism.

    I’m not confident he can win the the nomination versus the Machine.

    McVain, Romany, Boosh(or Romany, again) leads me to suspect that the Whigs are intent on taking a dive.

    gary gulrud (384f70)

  18. I’m not sure who will be the nominee or if the GOP can win in 2016. If Hillary decides not to run, it will mean the polls are bad (America is coming to its senses) or she is sick. I fear we will have to see another crisis, either domestic (bubble pops) or foreign (Ukraine or Baltics) before reality will intrude on the texting generation.

    The coming confrontation between Texas and the feds will be an interesting indicator. I have been pessimistic since Romney lost.

    Mike K (d85405)

  19. The best reason to elect Jeb Bush: because another Bush in the White House would make the liberals’ heads absolutely explode! It would be hilarious.

    The Dana who'd love to see it happen (3e4784)

  20. I don’t really have a dog in an intra-conservative fight like this, but I am frustrated that it looks like there’s a good chance that the presidential race next year will be between one member of a prominent, well-connected, politically powerful family with a former president in the family, and a member of a different prominent, well-connected, politically powerful family with a former president in the family.

    I know we’ve always had political dynasties (Adams, for example), but there’s something that feels profoundly undemocratic about this reflexive resort to prominent political aristocrats.

    aphrael (db1491)

  21. I’m not thrilled with the idea of Jeb running. I don’t know his policies too well, but assuming that he’s not a lot different than his father or brother I just doesn’t see him winning.

    Even if he’s a lot smarter that W, he will spend his time fending off the comparison. Half the people STILL blame Bush for the current mess, and there is no indication they’ll start paying attention any time soon.

    Besides, we need someone more willing to make big changes and Jeb seems more the steady-as-she-goes type.

    Oh, I don’t dislike him, or W, or nearly any Republican except Huckaberry or Santorum (aka the angry Forrest Gump). But we can do better. ROMNEY would be better, and probably more electable.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  22. Not that I particularly want Romney. If there was such a thing as Rand Cruz, I’d go for that.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  23. I loved jeb as governor and voted for him twice, but, some of the positions he’s taken since he left office (common core, amnesty) I am strongly opposed to and I will not vote for him again.

    Jim (72cbc5)

  24. Romney was already a burnout the last time. Too bad. I like him. I wish he had won in 2000. The world would be in a lot better shape.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. RAND PAUL RAND PAUL RAND PAUL

    He’s the only sensible candidate out there. But I know people foam at the mouth when they see his last name.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ea3541)

  26. Jeb Bush is a good man, but by 2016 he will have been out of office for almost a decade, on top of the disadvantages that his family pedigree brings him. I think the future of the GOP is with the Bobby Jindals, Scott Walkers, and even to a degree the Chris Christies of the world.

    Maybe Jeb Bush would make an excellent White House Chief of Staff.

    JVW (9946b6)

  27. Jeb talks/act/thinks like a Liberal. Elect him and it’s more illegal immigration more voter fraud more of the same old same old. Not this time hoss!

    TheHat (58d08b)

  28. No more Bush’s. No more Clinton’s. No more Kennedy’s.

    This is the United States of America. We don’t have ruling families. Those darn Adam’s set a bad precedent, and the Bush’s also reinforced it. The Roosevelt’s were pretty darn close too.

    Loren (1e34f2)

  29. Sure Jeb can run.

    I recommend due West until his feet get wet then hang a right until it gets foggy. You’ll be home then Jeb. Right. At. Home.

    With all the other Fruits and nuts and if you go inland you’ll be surrounded by your latest loves.

    Who’ll be asking for a job. Paid in cash with no deductions.

    jakee308 (f1b953)

  30. Well I like to put it a different way, where has he been on the fights with the Obama administration, mostly AWOL, Cruz, Paul, (even though he is finding new ways to tick me off,) Rubio, on balance, if we’re going to go identity, and a fresh face,

    narciso (3fec35)

  31. He’s coming! Teh Ultimate Conservative Warrior is coming!

    Colonel Haiku (aa8ee9)

  32. Yes, I left out Walker and a few others, but Stay Puft, has removed all doubt.

    narciso (3fec35)

  33. the only reason for Jeb to run is to make sure the Demonrats win the White House again in 2016.

    for a party that focuses on “electability”, as the RINO’s who run the RNC do, they sure have a stOOpid idea of what that word means… (insert Princess Bride graphic here)

    i’ll still go to the polls, because there’s other things to vote on, but i’m not giving him my vote, ever.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  34. they say bush in hand
    is worth three on teh world stage
    i say turn the page

    Colonel Haiku (2c2cec)

  35. teh old poppy bush
    once blew major chunks on host
    “take that, Nip bastard!”

    Colonel Haiku (a6bc62)

  36. But I know people foam at the mouth when they see his last name

    Some of his opponents do, too.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  37. jeb bush lol

    if we want a filthy whore in the white house the simplest thing to do is just let food stamp have a third term

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  38. There is room in the Republican Party to disagree on how to deal with illegal immigration, but there really is no room for gun-grabbers like Christie.

    If you land in Newark for any reason (e.e. your plane is diverted) and you have to declare a checked gun to the TSA, the staties will arrest you. Christie could stop that, but doesn’t.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  39. The nation can’t afford him. Too bad, Jeb was a good governor and might even have been a good president but with trillion $ deficits and exponentially exploding debt we just can’t afford the “middle of the road” immigration, healthcare and education policies he’s in favor of. 14 years and $14 trillion ago, maybe but not now.

    crazy (d60cb0)

  40. What I lament is that there are going to be very few Republican debates in 2016, although we are promised that they won’t have Democrat operatives as moderators. I found the debates in 2012 fascinating and a great opportunity for the candidates to reach past the 30-second spot and the power brokers.

    Maybe there didn’t have to be 18 of them, but I’d err with too many rather than too few. Too few debates and the establishment doesn’t have to worry so much that someone else will appeal to the masses and break out. Gingrich sure gave Romney a scare for a moment in 2012.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  41. Winter is coming. We need someone who can deal with winter, and that’s not Jeb.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  42. (Although, to be sure, if Jeb IS somehow the nominee I will support him completely)

    Kevin M (b11279)

  43. i will support Jeb as much as he supports me:

    not at all…

    8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  44. the sheer amount of money it would take to convince a majority of dullard whoremericans to vote for bushfilth again is mind-boggling

    I don’t think there’s literally that much tv ad time for sale between now and November 2016

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  45. Rasmussen has a new poll out today: (emphasis added)

    …A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is fair to say that neither party in Congress is the party of the American people. That’s up six points from 47% last October and matches the previous high found in June 2012 during the last national election cycle. Just 28% disagree, while 19% are not sure.

    ropelight (2644f4)

  46. 44. You should note that the “Tea Party, whatever that exactly is, is even less popular. People are not looking for showdowns. People are looking for people who make sense, and are not in it (solely) for themselves.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  47. Mr. Sammy John Boehner says Republicans are cowards what are afraid to make tough choices

    maybe we shouldn’t vote for a Republican at all

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  48. Jeb Bush is obviously free to toss his hat into the ring and to duke it out. But, and, this comment is less directed at Mr. Bush personally, and stands more as a general statement — I have an aversion to the establishment of political “dynasties,” whether the family in question is the Kennedys, the Cuomos, the Bushes or, the Clintons. It simply doesn’t sit well with me, as a matter of course. I like fresh blood in politics, and a changing of the guard; I think it’s important for a variety of reasons. And, I think that there are plenty of intellectually deep, appealing, well-qualified conservatives out there who do not come from a politically established family.

    Guy Jones (df6cf0)

  49. push push in the bush

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  50. We should clearly support him. He is the most electable.

    JD (bb7248)

  51. People are looking for people who make sense

    Damn.

    now i need another irony meter… 8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  52. 47. Comment by Guy Jones (df6cf0) — 4/24/2014 @ 3:03 pm

    I have an aversion to the establishment of political “dynasties,” whether the family in question is the Kennedys, the Cuomos, the Bushes or, the Clintons. It simply doesn’t sit well with me, as a matter of course. I like fresh blood in politics, and a changing of the guard; I think it’s important for a variety of reasons. And, I think that there are plenty of intellectually deep, appealing, well-qualified conservatives out there who do not come from a politically established family.

    The problem is our campaign finance laws, which severely restricts the number of candidates who can make a plausible run for the office.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  53. 46. Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2014 @ 2:55 pm

    Mr. Sammy John Boehner says Republicans are cowards what are afraid to make tough choices

    He was talking about amnesty for illegal immigrants, you know.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204334-boehner-mocks-gop-colleagues-on-immigration-reform

    They are all scared of it. Even scared to pass a law that amnesties only people who join the military.

    maybe we shouldn’t vote for a Republican at all </i.

    Not because they are Republicans. But teh republican Party is less centrally controlled than the Democratic Party. Most members of Congress on teh Democratic side are just pawns, controlled by the money for their campaigns that Harry Reid and other high ranking Democrats control.

    I do NOT think it is a good idea to have strong parties, at least parties that don’t result from people taking positions.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  54. 45. With less than half the eligible population voting, which half it is that votes becomes important.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  55. Meanwhile, on the immmigration issue, which I said will have astronger effect on American politics than the vietnam War and maybe may come to rival slavery as a divisive issue – it’s where slavery was around 1842…

    Obama or the Democrats is coming under a lot of pressure from the other side:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/24/obama-good-deportations-immigrants-border-removals

    Obama’s red line on ‘good deportations’ is inhumane – and he has crossed it

    He has tried to go both ways on immigration. But ask immigrants up close, and you’ll see that ‘border removals’ destroy lives

    (it seems like some border removals aren’t really border removals. But actually there really are more deportations from the border)

    The total number of deportations is about the same as the level it recahed undrr Bush. Internal deportations are actually down, but in earlier years most of the people coming to the bordere were Mexicans and could voluntarily agree to cross the border back the other way. Now they are from Central and South America and have to be deported.

    Unaccompanied children are always sent to live with relatives in the United States and women with chldren are also released and not imprisoned. A new tactic is to get caught and immediately claim asylum. Just telling you.

    Success is small but buys time. Fear of gangs is not considered a reason usually. When it comes to asylum, lies often buy success, especially for people from outside the western hemisphere. The cases are not investigated, except on Wikipedia or Nexis – if they find something in a news article, that has credibility and now people are told to claim some incident in the news happened to them. While if something is not documented it may be much harder.

    There is asylum fraud especially for people from China. Many claim to be Christians. Once here, they attend churches. The U.S. government is establishing religion this way. If they are very uneducated, Falun Gong. Or they claim to have been forced to have abortions and to have come to officials unfavorable attention in China.

    The whole computer system by the way has now just broken down. This is what the present system does, since the strength of a desire to come to the United States is not a factor. It’s inevitable.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  56. Another link:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/activists-growing-weary-obama-excuses-deportations-article-1.1761399

    There are people who want Obama to just simply stop deportations. Or stop making repeated violations of immigration law a reason for giving a case high priority, and take more crimes off the priority list.

    The President’s argument for not taking immediate action on what is a life-and-death issue for millions of immigrants, was the same, old, tired excuse he has used many times before: Unilateral action on his part could enrage Republicans and jeopardize the chances of Congress approving immigration reform.

    The problem is that Republicans are already enraged and everything indicates they will continue to be enraged for the foreseeable future. At this stage of the game the people who seriously believe the House will act on immigration reform this year, with or without deportations, can be counted with the fingers of one hand, or maybe two hands, since the six religious leaders seem to be among them.

    This is heading in the direction slavery went in the 19th century.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  57. Hallelujah, noel, be it heaven or hell,

    The Christmas you get, you deserve

    Same thing with respect to politics: we get the politicians that we deserve.

    Wanna fix things? Do it yourself. Seriously. Shut up and run. It either means your lives, your fortunes or your sacred honor or it doesn’t.

    J.P. (bd0246)

  58. the deportation numbers, are unexpectedly not accurate, the majority are returns at the border,

    narciso (3fec35)

  59. I hope Jeb, Romney, Christie, Snowe, Murkowski, and every other RINO runs. That way maybe they will split their vote and resources.

    The only way conservatives win is if they are effectively organized and call out corrupt election practices. I think the IRS corruption made that impossible in 2012, and thus Obama got the inferior candidate he needed to win an election he should have lost.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  60. The Beowulf of Butthurt continues.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  61. Ace:

    the Republican Party is currently so divided on so many things I’m not really sure what the Republican Party is any more.

    I have an idea(not original with me) that you take an individual gifted in communication of ideas, say like a Ted Cruz(who thankfully is not an attractive woman, thus killing her chances) who actually stands for something and see whether they pick up the odd disaffected Whig.

    Yeah, I know, it’ll never work.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  62. 58. Actually, I like a variant of this theme: Jeb, One Eye on Top of the Other, Bush sweeps up all the big donor money and runs like cheap chili and beans thru Amerikkka’s A-hole, the Great Plains, flopping miserably.

    Then someone who looks sharp in a $1000 suit, sharper than Slim Pickens anyway, cleans up.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  63. The Beowulf of Butthurt continues.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/24/2014 @ 4:45 pm

    Indeed. Like a toothless old hound dog, eyes on a fat pork chop that is hanging just out of reach.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  64. Agreed, everyone into the pool, however, the insistance only one can swim, is the kicker,

    narciso (3fec35)

  65. clownish behavior
    and false flag operations
    ain’t gonna do it

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  66. Any potential candidate who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants will never receive my vote, no matter how fiscally conservative he or she may be.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  67. Let’s make our comments about ideas, not personalities, especially in these potentially inflammatory threads.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  68. Patterico is obviously unclear on how teh Intarwebz funktionz….

    8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  69. Well Amnesty, ‘rotten core’ what else am I missing,

    narciso (3fec35)

  70. “All we have of freedom, all we use or know
    This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.”

    - Rudyard Kipling

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  71. I’ll ask again: how has alleged pedophile Harry Reid accumulated so much wealth on a government salary?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  72. Dustin is soooo far ahead of the curve, he has pegged Olympia Snowe as a potential candidate for 2016.

    Good Allah.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  73. i’m a need to practice making idea comments

    they’re really hard

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  74. mister happy, all you gots to do is say ‘principle’ !!!!

    and tell your friends they are fake conservatives.

    add some kool-aid. stir. and serve.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  75. with principle you get gravitas

    it’s a two-fer

    someone should let jebediah bush in on the secret

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  76. how was that?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  77. I sure hope Jeb doesn’t run.
    Besides his views on Common Core and Immigration, we need to look forward, and unfortunately his surname would be an excuse for the Left to relitigate the 2006 mid-terms.
    Or something.

    And America has too many stupid people who would get duped by it.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  78. Sarah has been looking a little bit thin, lately. I hope she’s eating enough and not working too hard.

    nk (dbc370)

  79. Jeb Bush will not get my vote. I voted for McCain, and I voted for Romney, knowing that neither man would win. I’d write in Sammy Finkelman before I’d vote for Jeb. That’s my “act of love”.

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  80. As others have so aptly said, I do not want any more dynasty candidates. Period. (Hillary, this especially includes you!) But one of Jeb’s appeals right now is that his wife Columba is Mexican American and his son George Prescott is also well spoken and fluent in Spanish. Some donors will no doubt see this as a strong plus in potentially drawing Hispanic and younger voters into the fold.

    elissa (9e7de1)

  81. No more Bush’s. No more Clinton’s. No more Kennedy’s.

    This is the United States of America. We don’t have ruling families. Those darn Adam’s set a bad precedent, and the Bush’s also reinforced it. The Roosevelt’s were pretty darn close too.

    That’s ridiculous, and un-American. It’s damn close to unconstitutional. What you’re really calling for is Corruption of the Blood, something the constitution specifically bans.

    George P is just starting his political career; how high would you allow him to rise before you tell him “no more”? Should he be barred from public office altogether, or is it OK if he sticks to Texas but he should be barred from federal office? Would you be OK with him serving as a cabinet secretary? As a senator? Is it just the presidency that should be beyond his grasp? Or what?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  82. And what about the political families that have not yet supplied a president? Do they offend you too? Should George HW Bush, Mitt Romney, Algore, and Andrew Cuomo all have been barred from public office, because of the offices their fathers held? What about all the siblings in politics, e.g. the Levin brothers of Michigan?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  83. Let us be perfectly clear, no presumption for the Bushes, consider who are the candidates for Land Commissioner and vote accordingly,

    narciso (3fec35)

  84. Milhouse, I think many people’s preference not to have a nation with so many multi-generation political dynasties comes from a good place and from an anti-elitist place. But I don’t see anyone here suggesting that they be prevented from running, or barred by law from running–do you?

    elissa (9e7de1)

  85. milhouse – Nobody is saying they CANNOT run, they are saying they should not run, that we do not wish for them to run.

    JD (a6eb12)

  86. You OK? You seem a little grouchy this evening, Milhouse.

    elissa (9e7de1)

  87. Jeb Bush?

    Squish, squish.

    Touchy-feely, touchy-feely.

    I’m okay, you’re okay.

    Conservatism that’s compassionate: Compassionate conservatism.

    Nidal Hasan, your table for two is waiting.

    Mark (59e5be)

  88. If a bush runs it better have nice curves and a pair of boobs!

    mg (31009b)

  89. Milhouse, we’re not saying we want to prevent Jeb from running. This is not going to be an episode of Scooby Doo where the bad guys tie up the Captain of the ship and stuff him into a dreary basement with skeletons.
    Or something.

    We’re just saying he’s not our cup of tea, and that we don’t intend to get behind him in the primaries.

    On the other hand, if Shaggy were to run, I might vote for him.
    Zoinks !

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  90. Barbara Bush, daughter of Bush 43, is a cutie.
    And Lauren Pierce Bush, daughter of Neil Bush, is a hottie.

    If either of them wanted to violate my civil rights for an evening, I’d consider it.
    Or something.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  91. One problem of the boooooshes is they want one America, from the tierra del fuego to the North Pple. Fricken progressive dolts.

    mg (31009b)

  92. pole

    mg (31009b)

  93. No more Bush’s. No more Clinton’s. No more Kennedy’s.

    I can tolerate ruling families if they’re at least not corrupted by feel-good liberalism mixed together with Bill-Clinton-is-a-swell-guy, back-slapping type of camaraderie, incubated in the atmosphere where the elite hanging out with one another tends to make right-leaning people in the midst of all of that turn into a tub of jelly (ie, the phenomenon evident in situations where people grow misty-eyed about, for example, issues like same-sex marriage because “it affects a close relative of mine” or “I just discovered my childhood friend is a certain way”).

    Mark (59e5be)

  94. “One America” ???
    Tierra Del Fuego to the North Pole ?!

    Oh Lordy.
    mg, let’s stick to talking about how “en fuego” Barbara Jr and Cousin Lauren are.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  95. I think the Bush family has icky gross corrupted blood to where they need to not run for office no more.

    None of them.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  96. They must bar teh Romney dynasty… two governors and some city councilmens!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. mister happy, you sound like you could use a taco. or a slice of cheesecake.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  98. And nobody from Texas! That dog won’t hunt anymore.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  99. OOps, Redo is required. You left out the bath houses, Mark.

    elissa (9e7de1)

  100. I prescribe a slice of my wife’s icebox lemon pie. It is to grow fat for!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  101. What other States shouldn’t be allowed to have people run for President, Colonel?

    JD (bb7248)

  102. She got one in the chamber with teh safety off… Teen Arrested With Loaded Gun In Vagina: Cops

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. Utah? Wisconsin? Rhode Island? Arizona?

    JD (bb7248)

  104. Indiana… New Mexico… Oklahoma… Colorado… New Jersey… Illinois… Rhode Island… Maine… New York… Oregon… California… Washington… Mississippi… Alabama…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  105. Only foreigners or people that hate this country should be allowed to be president.

    mg (31009b)

  106. Is it worth discussing that Barbara Pierce (the matriarch) is a descendant of President Franklin Pierce ?

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  107. I see we have our big tent out again.

    JD (bb7248)

  108. Delaware… Maryland… No Carolina… Louisiana… Hawaii… Nevada… Minnesota…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  109. And any state where they speak Austrian.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  110. Eff the big tent, y’all convinced me.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  111. I never convinced you of any such thing.

    JD (bb7248)

  112. And never ever let a wimp who bows to robots and eats a half plate of fish bait run…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  113. Colonel, I hadn’t noticed you included Missouri.
    Does that mean you’re still open to a Todd Akin comeback in 2016 ?!

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  114. I will go with the cup half full philosophy, at least we agree Bush shouldn’t run.

    JD (bb7248)

  115. C’mon Colonel, we all know that the fewer votes we receive in the general election, the better our electoral prospects.

    Look at Ralph Nader.
    He won in 2000.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  116. happyfeet, if you were closer I’d have you over for fresh from the garden wood grilled asparagus. With kosher salt, fresh pepper, grated parmesan cheese and a little squeeze of lemon.

    mg (31009b)

  117. Oops…sorry, I meant to say that Ralph Nader’s tent had room for only 2,000 voters.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  118. 78. That’s prolly the runner effect. You feel light on your feet down a few.

    Swimming you actually gain weight feeling warmer in the pool.

    She isn’t thin everywhere.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  119. Who has advocated a policy of getting fewer votes?

    JD (bb7248)

  120. I really really hope Jeb doesn’t run.
    All his candidacy would do is re-open the can of worms of the past.

    We need to look forward, and we have a strong list of prospects to turn to.

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  121. don’t forget the buttah drizzled liberally over all

    elissa (9e7de1)

  122. Missouri don’t show me sh*t, ES. Bunch a inbred tweakers.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  123. And fer gawdsakes, nobody from Arkansas.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  124. 66. Well, my idea that the Whigs would get sick of losing, and decide in some numbers, to vote for the second place TEAs might have worked if time were not an issue.

    When martial law is declared elections will be indefinitely postponed.

    Sides Whigs like having they white azzes whipped.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  125. And no weak sucks from New Hampshire!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  126. “tends to make right-leaning people in the midst of all of that turn into a tub of jelly (ie, the phenomenon evident in situations where people grow misty-eyed about, for example, issues like same-sex marriage because “it affects a close relative of mine” or “I just discovered my childhood friend is a certain way”).”

    Mark – Are you suggesting that the correct response for a conservative politician when informed by one of their children that they are gay is to disown that child, banish the child from their life or for the politician to remove his/herself from public life forever.

    Please clarify.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  127. the asparagus sounds really good Mr. mg I’m a need to pick some up again soon

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  128. 107. Note, no one even moots bending curve anymore.

    No one even suggests retarding the growth in debt.

    ‘Just don’t drone me boss’.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  129. Hitler had a nephew in New Jersey and he had some kids. I wonder what they’re doing?

    nk (dbc370)

  130. @126 “Please clarify”

    C’mon. He never actually thinks things like this through, daley. He just likes to string words together into long sentences and when called out he tries to change the subject and/or pretends he’s a victim of political correctness run amok or calls you a squish something. It gets old and boring thread after thread after thread.

    elissa (9e7de1)

  131. i need to explore this icebox lemon pie concept

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  132. Milhouse, I think many people’s preference not to have a nation with so many multi-generation political dynasties comes from a good place and from an anti-elitist place. But I don’t see anyone here suggesting that they be prevented from running, or barred by law from running–do you?

    and

    milhouse – Nobody is saying they CANNOT run, they are saying they should not run, that we do not wish for them to run.

    It comes to the same thing. Advocating an actual legal barrier would be actually unconstitutional; what has been advocated here is an informal barrier, and is therefore not technically illegal, but is profoundly un-American, and close to unconstitutional. Whether formal or informal, how do you distinguish this from Corruption of the Blood? How is it “from a good place” to tell George P Bush that he ought not to seek public office merely because of who he is? How is that different from telling a black person in 1900 “you have the legal right to run, but you should have the decency not to, and if you do we won’t even consider voting for you, just because of your birth”? Or how is it different from those who said people should vote against Romney because of his religion?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  133. An unknown quantity in 2016 will be the changes made by the RNC, running thru the primaries in shorter order.

    Mudders need not apply.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  134. ==How is it “from a good place” to tell George P Bush that he ought not to seek public office merely because of who he is? How is that different from telling a black person in 1900 “you have the legal right to run, but you should have the decency not to, and if you do we won’t even consider voting for you, just because of your birth”? Or how is it different from those who said people should vote against Romney because of his religion?==

    Good grief. There is much silliness afoot this evening.

    elissa (9e7de1)

  135. I guess my litmus tests amount to:

    1). Executive experience.

    2). Not a lawyer.

    3). Not tight with big business.

    4). Not a godless gay prostitute.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  136. No, but thanks for asking. I’m not too fond of another Clinton either.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  137. Jeb’s daughter was a coke offender. She might fit in with DC life too well.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  138. Back in 2006, the choice for Governor was between Tom Gallagher who had been running since 1986, and Charlie Crist, I ‘chose poorly, and I apologize unreservedly,;

    narciso (3fec35)

  139. Good grief. There is much silliness afoot this evening.

    Tell me why it’s silly. Tell me why considering someone unfit for public office because of who they are is bad if it’s because they’re black or mormon, but good if it’s because they’re related to other people who held office.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  140. The Constitution is not a moral code, for starters. And there is precedent for “corruption of blood”. 8-) For I, the Lord your Electorate, am a jealous Electorate, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. Whittle/Malkin 2016

    mg (31009b)

  142. 140. Applause from the cheap seats.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  143. It’s silly because you’re making s#it up and then arguing as tho people said what you made up. It’s not only silly it’s unseemly, too. Nobody here wrote the word “unfit”. (Well except you.)

    elissa (9e7de1)

  144. Obviously, Jeb’s big attraction to the GOP elites is he might well carry FL, virtually a must have.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  145. icebox lemon cake is one of those annoying things where the recipe hooch says it’s the easiest thing ever in history and then you start reading it

    http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Lemon-Icebox-Pie-356829

    first of all I’m a have to buy an electric mixer thing. I threw that away in the last move cause I never use it and it comes with a kajillion attachments what just take up space

    but ok fine I’ll get by on my manual one

    next thing is I need a “springform fan”

    what in the unholy name of the bush family’s corrupted blood is a “springform pan” you ask?

    me too

    it was clearly some sort of ingeniously evil byproduct of nazi kitchen research

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springform_pan

    fortunately at that page I just link there’s another link where you can go for “Mastering the Art of the Springform Pan”

    This will help me grow as a person.

    Plus I guess it’s high time I learn to zest a lemon.

    I been putting that off. It can be a handy skill for certain cocktails so for sure it’ll be useful to get that under my belt.

    But I’ll have to buy a zester.

    And a sifter.

    Good god this is not a shovel-ready pie.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  146. springform *pan* I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  147. A

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  148. Mark – Are you suggesting that the correct response for a conservative politician when informed by one of their children that they are gay is to disown that child, banish the child from their life or for the politician to remove his/herself from public life forever.

    daleyrocks, the very fact you stretch my observation to such an extreme is a sign of just how much squish-squish you’re bringing to the topic. From such pitter patter of the heart is born the phenomenon of Nidal-Hasan-ism. Oh, well. Lucky America, lucky Western civilization.

    BTW, just because a person’s son or daughter is gay doesn’t mean that the parent has to therefore proclaim that same-sex marriage is a wonderful and beautiful thing. But to assume otherwise, of and by itself, reflects a belief that homosexuality should naturally and (although it really isn’t) logically elicit pangs of liberalism in not just the GLBT person but in those around him or her too.

    Mark (59e5be)

  149. oh. that A is me NOT making an unkind comment about Ashley Biden and her filthy coke habit.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  150. “””””Hey, How About Another Bush in the Oval Office?”””””””

    Answer: Uh…….no, how about not.

    “”””””Jeb Bush says he’s thinking of running.””””””””””

    Maybe now its time to consider a new amendment (since we can’t add a subset to the 23). The new amendment would build off of the 23, which term limited the Presidency.

    This time, let’s term-limit a person’s extended family.

    For example, George W. Is the father. Under the new proposed Amendment, NONE of his: Children can be elected to the presidency; NONE of his siblings can ever be elected to the presidency; NONE of his grandchildren or great-grandchildren can ever be elected to the Presidency; NONE of his cousins/nephews/nieces can be elected to the Presidency.

    Bottom line: A member of the Bush extended family would have to wait till at least FIVE generations out to attempt to run for the Presidency (or the Vice-Presidency for that matter). W’s great-great grandchildren, they could run.

    We are still a representative republic and not a inherited constitutional monarchy.

    Enough’s enough. Wait a couple generations and until that time go out and get a career in the private sector.

    Kenneth Simmons (a10c17)

  151. My wife brought me a huge bar of Munz Swiss Chocolate from her vacation in Greece. In one hour I could be ill.

    mg (31009b)

  152. Did I call that one or what, daleyrocks? Sometimes I scare myself. :)

    elissa (9e7de1)

  153. Oh no, mg. Tell me that she did not go to Kalambaka. And if she did, please tell me she’s not a blonde.

    nk (dbc370)

  154. 145. I love lemon desserts, Mom’s lemon bars, lemon ices, and a ‘Lemon Bashing’ Macaroni Grill used to offer.

    Three layer cake, soaked in lemon sauce, with lemon butter frosting between the layers. I’d eat that until I was sick.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  155. Since this thread is about Jeb Bush, I guess the even better analogy to use when noting how squish-squish is triggered (presumably) in a person due to his or her personal circumstances (and not from an overriding ideology), is the assumption that because Jeb’s wife is of Mexican descent, Jeb therefore has to be a big do-gooder and softie when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.

    So I guess the various people in Mexico who aren’t big pushovers (or squishes) about the “undocumented” entering the southern border of Mexico are therefore socially, emotionally disconnected from other Mexicans?

    Mark (59e5be)

  156. i do have a lemon recipe Mr. Gary

    unlike that concoction above it’s for reals easy and tasty tasty tasty

    http://deliciousdishesrecipes.com/chevre-and-lemon-curd-butter-waffle-cookie-sandwich/

    for reals if you have a Trader Joe’s nearby this is the best thing ever

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  157. Milhouse sez,”what has been advocated here is an informal barrier, and is therefore not technically illegal, but is profoundly un-American, and close to unconstitutional. ”

    Oh dear sweet infant baby Jesus. There is not one damn thing un-american or unconstitutional about expressing a preference as to who might be our next candidate for President.

    JD (5c1832)

  158. One thing Jeb has going for him is that he’s tall.

    If I think of something else, I’ll mention same.

    That his pants ride up rather than down isn’t a positive.

    I give up.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  159. you know what’s profoundly un-American anymore?

    America.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  160. Elissa “Good grief. There is much silliness afoot this evening.”

    Understatement of the evening.

    JD (5c1832)

  161. “Did I call that one or what, daleyrocks? Sometimes I scare myself.”

    elissa – You are scary, but he is very predictable. He does not like to clarify his comments.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  162. 156. Thanks, feets, got a Trader Joes next to a World Market about 40 minutes distant.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  163. Yes, she spent time in Kalambaka. Annie be an Irish lass with beautiful red hair. Her best friend is rebuilding the library in Kalambaka. Diana is the salt of the earth.

    mg (31009b)

  164. It’s silly because you’re making s#it up and then arguing as tho people said what you made up. It’s not only silly it’s unseemly, too. Nobody here wrote the word “unfit”. (Well except you.)

    Really? What else does “no more Bushes” mean? What else does “no more dynasties” mean? Plenty of commenters here have said that the entire Bush family are unfit for office; whether they used the word “unfit” or other words meaning exactly the same thing is irrelevant.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  165. The Constitution is not a moral code

    Really? Is the constitution not constantly used as the measure of what attitudes are American?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  166. 156. And an easy recipe at that!

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  167. “daleyrocks, the very fact you stretch my observation to such an extreme is a sign of just how much squish-squish you’re bringing to the topic.”

    Mark – There is nothing extreme in my question given your comment upon which they are based, but I am happy you found something in the question to determine my squishiness somehow in your professional judgement.

    If only your response had somehow been responsive to the question then we both might have enjoyed the dialog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  168. All the people I have met from Phillips Academy remind me of why I like guns and hunting. Although I have never met jebbedieya.

    mg (31009b)

  169. “Plenty of commenters here have said that the entire Bush family are unfit for office; whether they used the word “unfit” or other words meaning exactly the same thing is irrelevant.”

    Milhouse – What offices are you talking about or is that irrelevant as well?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  170. “There is not one damn thing un-american or unconstitutional about expressing a preference as to who might be our next candidate for President.”

    JD – It is un-American to propose a corruption of blood litmus test to hold public office, which, by the way, nobody here has advocated.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  171. Via Sammy’s article @52:

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) mocked the rest of his GOP caucus on Thursday for being too scared to take on immigration reform.

    “Here’s the attitude. ‘Ohhhh. Don’t make me do this. Ohhhh. This is too hard,’” Boehner said at a lunch hosted by a rotary club in his home district, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

    Boehner said voters elect people to Congress to solve problems, but he said it’s “remarkable” that many of his fellow Republicans don’t want to fulfill that obligation.

    “We get elected to make choices,” he said. “We get elected to solve problems and it’s remarkable to me how many of my colleagues just don’t want to…They’ll take the path of least resistance.”

    Boehner said he’s been working for more than a year to try to push immigration reform through Congress.

    “I’ve had every brick and bat and arrow shot at me over this issue just because I wanted to deal with it. I didn’t say it was going to be easy,” he said.

    Despite his complaint, Boehner has said at Capitol Hill press conferences this year that he can’t pursue reform because President Obama can’t be trusted to enforce the law properly.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204334-boehner-mocks-gop-colleagues-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2zrrXEP4e
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

    Nobody is scared of this, Sammy. Disgusted by it, yes. And this little stunt he pulled in Ohio illustrates the reason why.

    Cryin’ John says people elect reps like him to make the tough choices and solve problems? As far as I can tell all they do is create problems. And then make them bigger by fixing them. The Republican mantra has been “our immigration system is broken.” Passive tense. No, people like you, John Boehner, have been breaking the immigration system. And the reason people like me elect reps that don’t want to help you solve the problem is that no matter how broken the system is there’s no solution you can come up with that will fail to make it even more broken.

    Just last February John Boehner said this.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-reform-delay-will-be-obamas-fault-boehner-says/

    “This is an important issue in our country, its been kicked round forever and it needs to be dealt with,” Boehner said. But, he added, members of Congress and the American people “don’t trust that the reform that we’re talking about will be implemented as it was intended to be. The president seems to change the health care law on a whim whenever it likes…now he’s running all over the country telling everyone that he’s going to keep acting on his own.”

    Seems to? Seems to?

    Cryin’ John; profiles in courage. That’s a bold statement.

    It’s amazing to watch this guy’s performances. Let’s see; after Fast & Furious, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the EO directed DREAM act, and all the Obamacare delays and waivers (just to name a few) it suddenly dawned on the GOP leadership to make the argument that Obama can’t be trusted to enforce the law as written.

    Yeah think? And it only took them five years to pick up on that. Sharp cookies.

    And now John Boehner is mocking reps for not working with him on immigration reform. It’s right in line with what Boehner told donors last week Vegas; that he’s hell bent on passing immigration reform (after which he came back to DC and said nothing had changed, which no one believes).

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-boehners-double-speak-rattles-house-immigration-foes/article/2547536

    When it comes to immigration, many Republican members of the House have long distrusted their leader, Speaker John Boehner. Now, things have gotten even worse.

    Boehner has assured members who oppose comprehensive immigration reform that nothing will be done on the issue until the Obama administration “can be trusted to enforce our laws.” Given the average GOP Congressman’s view of Barack Obama, that means “never.” That’s certainly how many members interpreted the speaker’s words.

    …The reassurance didn’t reassure. Team Boehner’s response was “the ultimate non sequitur,” in the words of one Senate GOP aide involved in the immigration battle.

    “Most members see the leadership as being supportive of Gang of Eight-style reform,” said a House Republican lawmaker who asked to remain anonymous. “We continually hear that once most primaries are over, the leadership will move forward with comprehensive reform.”

    “That’s another one of those unguarded comments from Boehner — every once in a while you get the truth out of him,” said another House Republican, Rep. Steve King, who definitely did not wish to remain anonymous. “Every once in a while he slips up.”

    More than a few House Republicans believe, or at least suspect, that the speaker is getting ready to pull a fast one on them…

    I don’t much like Rep. King, but when someone’s right, they’re right. I’d say today was another one of those times we got the truth out of him.

    But I disagree he’s getting ready to pull a fast one. Mostly because he’s not slick enough to pull a fast one.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/but_seriously_just_how_slowwitted_is_john_boehner.html

    As he moves from lobbyists to the golf course, from press conferences to the tanning bed, he remains oblivious to all that is around him. He has power, incredible power, and yet to this day he has no understanding of the election that made it so. Moreover, all around him are astonishing opportunities for him to be an historic figure — one who could and should be the man who did more than any other single person in turning back the red tide of Obama. It’s all there for Speaker of the House, and yet John Boehner manages to miss it all — as he guarantees his spot as the most spectacular failure in the history of Speakers of the House.

    So seriously, just how dense is this guy? I’m not being flippant, or overly dramatic. His performance, in light of the momentous circumstances, necessitates just that question in the most literal and serious sense. Mr. Boehner, I frankly think you’re sort of stupid. Either that, or …

    Steve57 (013200)

  172. Is the constitution not constantly used as the measure of what attitudes are American?

    Not by people who understand that it’s just a tool set for the functioning of a society.

    nk (dbc370)

  173. The Beowulf of Butthurt continues.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/24/2014 @ 4:45 pm

    Indeed. Like a toothless old hound dog, eyes on a fat pork chop that is hanging just out of reach.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/24/2014 @ 5:24 pm

    What is it with you two that makes you so angry and ugly towards people who aren’t even talking to you? Does that give you some kind of satisfaction?

    Let’s try to keep our arguments about ideas instead of insulting eachother. I don’t feel any need to insult either of you. I’m very secure in my views about nominating someone who intends to balance the budget, abhors an intrusive Romneycare style model of government power, and is more interested in really leading this country than being a thin skinned moderate who is afraid of polls and his own shadow.

    So you guys liked the last nominee. It didn’t work out. I was told over and over how a moderate republican is electable and beating a democrat is the only thing that matters, and my response, that this approach is a sure loser and useless seems to have been pretty accurate.

    And look at what else happened: The GOP has predictably steered wildly to the left as a result of the lesson the weaker politicians have learned. The GOP taught politicians that Romneys win primaries. So now our debt ceiling deals have seen the GOP working to eliminate the only real control on spending we had left. It used to be very frustrating to me… I worked hard for the GOP and the GOP has proven to be useless and actually pretty ambivalent about my country’s future. All most of ‘em care about is winning their piece of the K Street pie.

    And if I step out of line, I get incredible hostility instead of an intelligent response. The hostility is not only a moral weakness, it’s awareness of the weakness of one’s argument.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  174. For example, George W. Is the father. Under the new proposed Amendment, NONE of his: Children can be elected to the presidency; NONE of his siblings can ever be elected to the presidency; NONE of his grandchildren or great-grandchildren can ever be elected to the Presidency; NONE of his cousins/nephews/nieces can be elected to the Presidency.

    And there you have it: Corruption of the Blood. Anyone can be president, except for someone whose cousin was president.

    Shame on you.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  175. Cruz and Rand Paul aren’t for reals Whigs.

    But I’d even vote for a few like Walker, Jindahl, Martinez.

    Why, oh why, don’t Republicans like decent folk.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  176. Just so you know, I do have an idea about immigration reform I’d be willing to pass into law even if President Tiger Beat is President.

    Declare a half-mile wide strip along the entire border a national park. Borderlands National Park.

    Then shut down the government.

    Next thing you know there’ll be park service goons with machine guns throwing up barricades to make sure no one gets in there.

    Hijack off. Back to the discussion of Jeb “Act of Love” Bush and his potential run for the WH.

    I can’t tell you how excited I am to have a chance to vote for another candidate destined to call me a racist for opposing amnesty.

    Way to fire up the base, GOP!

    Steve57 (013200)

  177. Dustin is soooo far ahead of the curve, he has pegged Olympia Snowe as a potential candidate for 2016.

    Good Allah.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (77e955) — 4/24/2014 @ 6:21 pm

    Obviously not, as I can’t think of many people who support her, though I do recall you explaining your support for her.

    That was an example of sarcasm. However, my point remains. Conservative support is usually divided among many candidates, and in 2012 this problem was probably increased by the IRS’s impact on the Tea Party’s ability to organize. When the state of Virginia ripped people off ballots it was ruled unconstitutional, too late, and Romney won a state he was quite unpopular in. When you have to do that to win a primary, you’re probably going to lose the general (and the man who made this call in VA was a Romney election staffer).

    We have a very screwy primary system, and sometimes it’s going to be necessary to call out misdeeds, which takes better organization. Hell, Romney’s comment about the ballot access was that it’s actually a measurement of political organization. It’s likely the case in most states that the establishment is more organized with longer standing power structures than reform minded candidates.

    Anyway, if you really were interested in an intelligent discussion, that would be a nice change. So far it appears you are trying to insult me like your little buddies. No need for that.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  178. to determine my squishiness

    What’s really unnerving, daleyrocks, is you’re a fairly moderate-right to conservative (ie, generally sensible) person. IOW, if the siren song of do-gooder liberalism is affecting someone like you, then imagine how corrosive it is to people who are out-and-out squishes or who are already heavily tilted to the left. That’s why I find the situation in societies like Venezuela (or France or Mexico, or the city of Detroit) both quite fascinating yet also so pathetic. Simply put, no matter how bad things get or become in such places, a large number of people continue to listen to the pitter patter of their hearts or that of others (ie, manipulative, phony-baloney liberals).

    Mark (59e5be)

  179. Oh dear sweet infant baby Jesus. There is not one damn thing un-american or unconstitutional about expressing a preference as to who might be our next candidate for President.

    There is something profoundly unAmerican and close to unconstitutional about ruling someone out from public office merely for who he is.

    Nobody has suggested that you have to support Bush, any more than you have to support Christie or Biden or anyone else. If you disagree with someone’s policies then of course you shouldn’t support him. But when you rule someone out regardless of his policies, his talents, his learning, his experience, or anything else, declaring that none of these matter because he is unfit from the cradle, that is unAmerican.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  180. Milhouse – What offices are you talking about or is that irrelevant as well?

    The talk has centered around the presidency, but presumably the same anti-dynastic considerations apply to all public offices. I did ask whether people drew a line, and if so where. Are you OK with George P running for state office, but draw the line at federal? Or where?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  181. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/28/mccain-i-want-to-name-americas-new-immigration-reform-law-after-ted-kennedy/

    He was most definitely serious, says Johnson, although I could have told you that even without having been there. After all, for whatever strange reason, McCain has felt compelled to praise Kennedy before when trying to sell the Gang of Eight bill.

    …Either McCain totally misjudged which voting bloc needed pandering to or he’s so contemptuous of conservatives that he found it more important to taunt them with a Kennedy reference than to try to win them over by deep-sixing rhetoric like that. Imagine: This is the guy whose political acumen we were trusting to stop the Hopenchange juggernaut in its tracks in 2008.

    And now the stupid party actually is considering considering foisting Jeb “Act of Love” Bush on us. I’m not talking about Bush weighing a run, I’m talking about the big money donors and the establishment GOP begging him to run. Which they are.

    Sorry guys, it isn’t just the personal insult. The GOP is giving me the finger (that’s how I take Boehner’s clown act in Ohio, too). But considering the GOP must want to destroy the country just as much as the Democrats, I’d rather not have anything to do with it.

    Steve57 (013200)

  182. No Bush in 2016. Walker… Ryan… Paul, maybe. No on Jindahl…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  183. Cruz and Rand Paul aren’t for reals Whigs.

    But I’d even vote for a few like Walker, Jindahl, Martinez.

    Why, oh why, don’t Republicans like decent folk.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/24/2014 @ 9:40 pm

    I like most of those guys! I’m hoping for Walker, though I want to know about his immigration reform plans.

    Immigration is a great opportunity for a little leadership. I don’t necessarily need to agree 100% with a candidate’s position on this topic. There are some very good points on the ‘wide gates’ side as well as the other side (though I think the ‘tall walls’ aspect is critical). What I won’t accept is a weak leader who is clearly just moderating his opinion in order to win a few votes. Immigration is one of those issues with long lasting impact on this country, and a politician willing to trade such impact for a few votes is not fit to lead.

    I remember Perry’s ‘you don’t have a heart’ comment. While it was politically tone-deaf, it was also a moment of bravery to call out (and insult!) so many voters in defense of a policy. As I said at the time, I admire that stubbornness. There’s something Texan about sticking to your guns in a room where most people reject your views. I makes me trust that sort of leader’s other proposals, especially those that will run into tremendous resistance.

    And that’s the bottom line for me: budget reform for this government will indeed run into tremendous resistance. Any politician who isn’t up to that task (or doesn’t even intend to do it) is a non-starter for me. I need to see leaders who can take some punishment on their way to success (Gov Walker is a great example). Compare that to Rubio’s evolutions or Christie’s desperate latching onto Obama.

    A politician who is aiming at the next election is petty, and usually a loser. Obama didn’t aim at the next election. He wanted to transform this country. He’s taken stands that are unpopular and run into heavy resistance. I disagree with him on most, if not almost all issues, yet I grant he’s won his elections and also made ‘progress’ in the direction he wanted to go. There are lessons to be learned from that bitter reality.

    But I gotta admit I do not expect needed reforms to happen. We’re headed for economic disaster, and Jeb Bush certainly isn’t going to fix that.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  184. John Boehner needs to dance it out

    shake it to the left

    yeah John now shake it to the right

    grind grind twerk twerk kick step slide

    you got it!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  185. ruling someone out from public office merely for who he is.

    I think some of the comments along those lines have been born out of mainly sarcasm or glibness more than anything approaching the notion that the US Constitution should be changed. However, I am reminded of instances when a person of a certain race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality/nationality/religion will discount another person because of his/her race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality/nationality/religion and, in turn, say absolutely nothing about whether that person also is (in the critic’s eyes) an ultra-liberal, liberal, center-left, centrist, center-right, conservative or ultra-conservative.

    Mark (59e5be)

  186. JD – It is un-American to propose a corruption of blood litmus test to hold public office, which, by the way, nobody here has advocated.

    Not true. Several commenters have proposed exactly that. Only one has gone so far as to propose a formal legal ban, but several others have proposed an informal ban, to be enforced by social consensus rather than the law.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  187. 181. No Bush in 2016. Walker… Ryan… Paul, maybe. No on Jindahl…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/24/2014 @ 9:54 pm

    As of right now I’d vote for Walker.

    Because he busted the unions, rides a Harley, and I like Mad Max movies.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23SVHUPrUJ4

    The Tell of Captain Walker

    Steve57 (013200)

  188. “””””Hey, How About Another Bush in the Oval Office?”””””””

    Answer: Uh…….no, how about not.

    “”””””Jeb Bush says he’s thinking of running.””””””””””

    Maybe now its time to consider a new amendment (since we can’t add a subset to the 23). The new amendment would build off of the 23, which term limited the Presidency.

    This time, let’s term-limit a person’s extended family.

    For example, George W. Is the father. Under the new proposed Amendment, NONE of his: Children can be elected to the presidency; NONE of his siblings can ever be elected to the presidency; NONE of his grandchildren or great-grandchildren can ever be elected to the Presidency; NONE of his cousins/nephews/nieces can be elected to the Presidency.

    Bottom line: A member of the Bush extended family would have to wait till at least FIVE generations out to attempt to run for the Presidency (or the Vice-Presidency for that matter). W’s great-great grandchildren, they could run.

    We are still a representative republic and not a inherited constitutional monarchy.

    Enough’s enough. Wait a couple generations and until that time go out and get a career in the private sector.

    Comment by Kenneth Simmons (a10c17) — 4/24/2014 @ 9:03 pm

    Cool proposal, though I completely disagree with you.

    The problem isn’t solved by yet another law. The problem is solved by having smarter voters and less partisan loyalty. Why in the world are democrats enamored with Hillary? For one, the democrat party is rigid with power structure, and the Clintons have built that structure for decades. For another, voters just don’t know enough to intelligently discuss the other leaders of that party. Hillary is a brand that means democrat, and they aren’t going to think too deeply about it.

    The GOP is similarly screwy. Last primary saw an awful lot of shameless lionization of several politicians. The power structure can be equally rigid. Who did the Bushes want nominated last round? The guy who was.

    I was hopeful that the internet would lead to a higher understanding of a politician’s views and record. Most people just plain don’t care, and never will. We have to find a way to elevate the culture. How does that happen when the massive gears of western civilization begin grinding toward collapse? In the past, it just learns some lessons from the collapse.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  189. The Tell of Captain Walker

    Comment by Steve57 (013200)

    LOL. That was the worst Mad Max movie, though. At least until this next one comes out.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  190. Milhouse sez,”There is something profoundly unAmerican and close to unconstitutional about ruling someone out from public office merely for who he is.”

    I have done no such thing. I can’t stand his politics. That his familial connections would lose added difficulties unnecessarily is but a secondary consideration. At best.

    JD (5c1832)

  191. “What is it with you two that makes you so angry and ugly towards people who aren’t even talking to you?”

    Dustin – What makes you believe I’m angry? I can’t see anger in a five word comment, but bless your heart if you think you can.

    If you know what Beowulf is, you would understand the reference. Beowulf is a 3,182 aliterative line epic poem in Old English. Virtually endless.

    That’s what most of your comments are – variations on the same theme – different ways of saying the same thing about 2012 – we wuz cheated, we wuz robbed, the wrong guy was nominated.

    Your inability to move on is your own issue, but false claiming hostility where none is evident is flat out dishonest.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  192. Oh sweet infant baby Allahito, please provide us an innertubes where people do not make up positions, and then attribute said made up positions to us.

    JD (5c1832)

  193. I remember Perry’s ‘you don’t have a heart’ comment. While it was politically tone-deaf, it was also a moment of bravery to call out (and insult!) so many voters in defense of a policy.

    When it comes to that one fundamental yet very telling statement, I certainly don’t feel about Perry the way you do. Even more so since the ethos of “compassion for compassion’s sake” — which is nurtured by a cheap desire to disapprove when someone isn’t being a big enough do-gooder — is what I see as a key reason this society is becoming more and more distorted and corrupted.

    Mark (59e5be)

  194. There is something profoundly unAmerican and close to unconstitutional about ruling someone out from public office merely for who he is.

    Milhouse, while I take your first point, I don’t really think it’s truly unconstitutional, even in spirit, to reject someone just because of ‘who he is’.

    The entire world rolls their eyes at North Korea’s dynasty. Dynasties are backwards, just like monarchs are. Granted, it’s not fair to Jeb or Hillary to be rejected because of who they are married or related to. It’s just that I hope most people look among the other 350 million Americans and see if they can find someone up to the task who isn’t from the same ultra powerful political dynasty. Our last nominee was also from a long, long line of politicians, born a fortunate son. There’s something indefinably American about our preference for leaders who needed to overcome, or at least didn’t have advantage born to them.

    I think it’s partly our personal experience with fortunate sons vs those who overcame.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  195. I have done no such thing. I can’t stand his politics.

    Did I say you had done so? Can you deny that several commenters here have done exactly that?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  196. you know who’s angry is that Alec Baldwin guy

    plus he hates gay people and msnbc hosts, which is not always necessarily the same group of people though a lot of times it certainly seems that way

    and then after he gets all hateful he goes to T.G.I. Friday’s for tasty Jack Daniels Salmon and Grilled Shrimp Scampi

    then he gets drunk and hates on some gay people/msnbc hosts some more

    I think he might could have corrupted blood

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  197. Even more so since the ethos of “compassion for compassion’s sake” — which is nurtured by a cheap desire to disapprove when someone isn’t being a big enough do-gooder — is what I see as a key reason this society is becoming more and more distorted and corrupted.

    Mark, I actually agree with you on the merits of arguing ‘have a heart’. That kind of argument is stupid, and has led to a lot of fundamental problems in our society.

    My point was that I also admire a leader who is willing to lead, instead of just following popular views. That means, sometimes, that leader must say something that the audience doesn’t want to hear. Even though that one argument was stupid, it was unpopular enough to make that you could trust that leader to speak his mind, so his other promises are more credible.

    Just my take on it, anyway.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  198. “What’s really unnerving, daleyrocks, is you’re a fairly moderate-right to conservative (ie, generally sensible) person.”

    Mark – That assessment makes me very happy because you know how much I crave your approval.

    Back to the question at hand that which you have deliberately avoided, though, specifically your contempt for right leaning politicians who “grow misty-eyed about, for example, issues like same-sex marriage because “it affects a close relative of mine” or “I just discovered my childhood friend is a certain way””

    Obviously your comment implies you believe there is a better way for right leaning politicians to handle such situations, which led to my question, that you had the nerve to describe as extreme:

    Are you suggesting that the correct response for a conservative politician when informed by one of their children that they are gay is to disown that child, banish the child from their life or for the politician to remove his/herself from public life forever.

    Please clarify

    Really Mark, it is a simple request for you to explain your preferred manner of behavior for a right leaning politician.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  199. Hey.

    How about NOT another Bush in the Oval Office?

    How you like them frijoles?

    Cause that’s what casa pikachu is serving up.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  200. As Oscar the Grouch would say, “scram!”

    Bookin Weasel (aa84f3)

  201. Why in the world are democrats enamored with Hillary? For one, the democrat party is rigid with power structure, and the Clintons have built that structure for decades.

    Beyond that, I’ve noticed people of the left are even more likely to rationalize or excuse away the shortcomings and idiocies (and rampant dishonesty) of a politician if he or she at least exudes enough liberalism to pass the smell test.

    Richard Nixon came the closest to being a conservative counterpart to that phenomenon back in the 1970s, meaning a politician who will be snuggled up to by his supplicants for purely ideological/partisan reasons, no matter what. BTW, Nixon was less staunchly of the right, if even that (ie, in reality he was full of squish-squish), than Sniper-Fire Hillary is staunchly of the left.

    Mark (59e5be)

  202. Obviously your comment implies you believe there is a better way for right leaning politicians to handle such situations,

    Yep, daleyrocks. Simply put, the politician shouldn’t and doesn’t need to become selfishly misty-eyed about the idea of same-sex marriage merely because his kid is gay. Just because one’s heart doesn’t go pitter patter, pitter patter due to personal circumstances doesn’t mean a person has to therefore treat the son or daughter like a pariah.

    Mark (59e5be)

  203. Just because one’s heart doesn’t go pitter patter, pitter patter due to personal circumstances doesn’t mean [sic] a person has to therefore treat the son or daughter like a pariah.

    FWIW, that should be “means a person has to…”

    Mark (59e5be)

  204. 178. …But when you rule someone out regardless of his policies, his talents, his learning, his experience, or anything else, declaring that none of these matter because he is unfit from the cradle, that is unAmerican.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 4/24/2014 @ 9:47 pm

    Well then count me as un-American because I could never vote for Chelsea Clinton precisely because she is unfit from the cradle. Although I imagine being raised by Bill and Hillary! (or, rather, whoever they hire to do it) would ruin anyone.

    Policies? She could be the second coming of Ronald Reagan (although I wouldn’t believe it because she is, again, a Clinton) and I wouldn’t vote for her.

    Talents? She may have some although none were on display when she was hired as a “special correspondent” at NBC. She was horrible. Yet they hired her. Hmm, wonder why? I’ve lost track of the jobs she’s had as an “associate” at Wall Street financial firms, the corporate boards she sat on, etc., before becoming Assistant Provost at NYU. She insists she got all those jobs because of her education and her abilities. Are you effin’ kidding me?

    Learning? I will never be convinced she actually earned those credentials any more than I can be convinced she actually put in a day’s work at any of those jobs. Sort of like when Emperor Nero went to Athens and entered into a series of athletic and theatrical and musical competitions. And he won every prize! By the same token, how could Chelsea Clinton’s doctoral thesis fail to be wonderful!

    But her “learning” does bring up an interesting point. According to Wikipedia she got a bachelor’s degree in history from Stanford, a master’s in international relations from Oxford, and a master’s in public health from Columbia. With those kind of creds, what Wall Street hedge fund or Manhattan management consulting firm wouldn’t want to hire you? I hear the only thing that would have made her a more desirable candidate is if she minored in medieval French literature. Because that comes in so hand when discussing finance or developing a business strategy.

    Just do a search on the terms “management consultant education requirements” and you’ll see just what a perfect fit her “learning” made her for that job at McKinsey & Co.

    Experience? She’s got a ton of experience at being Billy Jeff’s and Hillary!’s daughter. Apparently it’s a lucrative gig. How couldn’t it be a lucrative gig? People pay for access. And with Bill and Hill, who’ll rent out the Lincoln bedroom for enough scratch, when you pay you get access. Billy Jeff let’s a defense contractor know that his daughter needs a job through some back channel, and the next thing you know she’s assistant VP of engineering at an aerospace company. Because she’s just got that kind of talent. She says.

    I didn’t need to wait for her to get out of college to know this was going to be how her life was going to go. I knew it twenty years ago when her dad’s corrupting presence was in the WH.

    Some people really are unfit from the cradle. It’s not her fault, but she is.

    Steve57 (013200)

  205. * handy

    Steve57 (013200)

  206. ABaB!
    (Anybody But a Bush!)
    Check back with me around 2075 to see if I’ve changed my mind.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  207. Dustin – What makes you believe I’m angry?

    A high percentage of your comments are ugly attempts to put someone on the defensive, personally. Going on years this way. For me, a person who doesn’t like to be ugly to others, it would take anger to be like that because it would mean a loss of self control. I can’t say I’m above it, as people have gotten a rise out of me, but that’s not who I seek to be. I can see how that isn’t the case for some people, who are just mean because they get satisfaction out of it.

    false claiming hostility where none is evident is flat out dishonest.

    HA! Yep, no evidence whatsoever you and your battle buddy have been intensely hostile towards me for years. It’s always polite disagreement, free of insults, directly answering questions and offering thoughtful arguments… Thanks for the completely non-ironic integrity check.

    That’s what most of your comments are – variations on the same theme – different ways of saying the same thing about 2012 – we wuz cheated, we wuz robbed, the wrong guy was nominated.

    It’s called a point of view, and because I was proven correct, this view has been reinforced. Indeed I do intend to reference the harsh lessons learned in 2008 and 2012. 2012 is more frustrating as we should have learned in 2008, and if you recall, I was making this comment well before 2012. In fact, it’s something I’ve said at least as long as ten years ago. If only everyone had listened! This ‘you need a moderate to be electable’ idea is simply wrong. I can’t imagine why someone would suggest the failure of the last nominee is inappropriate in a thread about the contest for the next one, other than being insecure and defensive about Romney, the reason Obama was reelected. Any sane republican who could go back in time to before the primaries would sound an awful lot like I do today.

    It’s not a matter of opinion that Romney was the wrong nominee, except from the point of view of the democrats. Same for Mccain. Same for Dole. Same for Jeb. Losers gotta lose. Guess what I’m going to say if they nominate Christie and he loses? I’m sure the comment is predictable. So what? Truth is like that.

    I’ll make a deal with you: you (Daleyrocks) and Haiku go six months without talking about any other commenter at this blog personally, at all, and I go that period without doing so either, and also without referencing Romney directly or indirectly. However annoying you find it to see Romney criticized, I assure you I find your ugliness to others to be more annoying.

    Romney is a public figure and an historical lesson, and it’s weird to see someone upset he’s criticized when it doesn’t even matter beyond educational value. But still, I’m willing to knock that off, and now you know my price.

    Dustin (b045f4)

  208. “It’s called a point of view, and because I was proven correct, this view has been reinforced.”

    Dustin – It’s called relitigating the past, something you have repeatedly claimed here you do not want to do but for some reason cannot resist doing. Tonight you added a new twist, the IRS 501(c) investigations disadvantaged other candidates enough to allow Romney to pull out the nomination. Evidence presented = 0. You just can’t help yourself. Last week it was corrupt electoral processes.

    You can’t change the past no matter how you try to rewrite it.

    Seek help.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  209. Megan McCain is another one who’s unfit from the cradle. But based upon this review of her book “Dirty Sexy Politics” I can also say that I wouldn’t vote for her because of her talents. She has none. This review was originally written for The New Ledger, but the author reposted it here when The New Ledger shut down the text portion of their site.

    http://www.redstate.com/diary/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/08/meghan-mccains-dirty-sexy-politics-a-review/

    On June 20, 2002, the United States Supreme Court decreed, in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, that the mildly mentally retarded were categorically exempt from capital punishment, reasoning that fully functional adults of diminished mental capacity were as a matter of law not as culpable for their acts. Writing eloquently in dissent, Justice Scalia drew a sharp distinction between the severely mentally retarded (who are truly not responsible for their actions), and the merely stupid (the category into which Mr. Atkins undoubtedly fell). Scalia argued forcefully that, with respect to the merely stupid, at least sometimes they deserve to be punished for their antisocial and destructive behavior.

    This article, of course, is not about capital punishment. It is a book review of Dirty, Sexy Politics by Meghan McCain. However, the above discussion is relevant because I initially had reservations about writing this book review at all. After all, it is clear to everyone who has read Meghan McCain’s twitter feed, her “articles” on The Daily Beast, or her ill-fated campaign blog that Meghan is not a paragon of clear reasoning, exemplar of familiarity with facts, nor a model of English language expertise. And after subjecting myself to 194 continuous pages of her “writing,” it became clear that none of the above-described works truly plumbed the depths of mental vacuity in which Ms. McCain aimlessly and cluelessly drifts.

    This presented a dilemma.

    It is impossible to read Dirty, Sexy Politics and come away with the impression that you have read anything other than the completely unedited ramblings of an idiot. This being a professional website for which I have a great deal of respect, I searched for a more eloquent or gentle way to accurately phrase the previous sentence – but could not find one.

    It is important to know that I was repeatedly tempted just to put the book down, eat the relatively small price I paid to download it to my Kindle, and silently curse Hyperion for publishing this book. After all, they are the ones taking advantage of this particular idiot’s fifteen minutes of fame by exposing her idiocy for the entire world to see. By all appearances, they didn’t even have the decency to hire someone to edit the book – more on that later.

    In the final analysis, however, I determined that most of Meghan’s flaws – such as her unbearable narcissism, delusions of persecution, anti-religious bigotry, and mendacity – couldn’t be chalked up to her manifestly below-average intelligence. These are blameworthy traits born of a malfunctioning moral compass, and they are laid bare in spades on every page of Dirty, Sexy Politics. Furthermore, it is important to address them because Meghan McCain’s book is an active attempt to split the Republican Party in two and thereby destroy its ability to win elections. And even though she is an idiot, she is a useful idiot in the hands of the media and other assorted Democrats, who also want to achieve this goal.

    Therefore, let us thoroughly evaluate this book on the merits, and see whether anything worthwhile is contained therein.

    The most obvious problem with Dirty, Sexy Politics is that grammatically, the book appears to be the work of a high school sophomore. To be more accurate, it appears to be the first draft of an essay written for a high school English class; the one turned in before the teacher makes all the pretty red marks in the margin that helpfully keep students from turning in final papers riddled with comma abuse, sentence fragments, and incorrect punctuation. Each subsequent page of this book contains one grisly crime against the English language after another…

    I highlighted certain parts that make this relevant to my strong suggestion that some people such as Chelsea Clinton really are unfit from the cradle for public office. A functioning moral compass is not one of the characteristics Milhouse mentioned, but that is a characteristic that one’s upbringing instills in a person. Chelsea Clinton has made statements when campaigning for her mother in 2008 that convinces me she lacks one just as much as Megan McCain. Of course, being a Clinton she was doomed from the cradle.

    Then there’s the fact that Megan McCain’s writing and public comments (there are plenty of examples out there, not just the ones for amusement’s and cruelty’s sake I’m going to cite here) really are sophomoric. Nobody would put up with her (or publish a book written by her) unless her name wasn’t McCain and like her dad an embarrassment to the GOP.

    …The entire book is riddled with inappropriate comma use: commas where there should be colons, commas where there should be semicolons, commas where there should be periods, and commas where there should be no punctuation at all. And lest you think me an obsessed fetishist with a commaplex, the rampant abuse of commas is not NEARLY the only, or even most important, problem with Meghan McCain’s “writing.” Below are a few snippets of the grammatical offal offered in Dirty, Sexy Politics:

    This, combined with the fact that I’m a nonstop extrovert, a people person who loves mingling and gabbing and getting out in the world, a blog that chronicled my days on the campaign – and showed the silliness and madness, as well as the seriousness – seemed like a perfect idea.

    ** snip **

    (Discussing the 2000 South Carolina primary) It was sick, disgusting – and everything it will go down in history for being. And it was so dirty and secret that it became impossible to trace who was responsible, directly or indirectly, except to know the man who won that primary: George W. Bush.

    ** snip **

    [Giuliani’s] tactic was to completely bypass Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and to concentrate on one thing: winning Florida. Because Florida has more electoral college votes than the first three states combined.

    ** snip **

    I’m sorry, Iowa, but I get wistful when I think of New Hampshire, and teary-eyed, and maudlin.

    ** snip **

    It was going to be a tough race. Not much disagreement about that.

    …When not describing the outfits, hairstyles, and makeup of people you don’t care about (most notably the author herself), Meghan’s narrative usually actually descends from the merely tedious to the shockingly banal. This is a fairly typical example of the sort of hard-hitting observation on life peppered throughout Dirty, Sexy Politics:

    From the beginning, Shannon noticed that there were no other Asians in New Hampshire. It is kind of a homogeneous state. We always laughed about this together, but, at the same time, I did wonder if it bothered Shannon more than she said.

    One day we were sitting in our hotel room, and feeling tired, and kind of worn down by the slog of the blog, by the meals that were starting to be predictable and not that healthy, by our lack of sleep – and maybe the bitter cold outside. Shannon made another joke about being the only Asian in New Hampshire, and this time, I kind of felt it, and worried.

    Just then, as we were looking out the big window of our room – literally five minutes after Shannon admitted that she felt out of place – an Asian family appeared and ran out into the snow and started making a snowman.

    We jumped up and down, screaming and laughing. That’s what I mean when I tell people that New Hampshire is a magic place. As if the Granite State hears your wishes and makes them come true.

    You might be tempted to think I’m engaging in some clever editing here and omitting some wise and pithy observation about providence or human nature or Asians generally that followed this story that absolutely no one could possibly care about. I assure you that I am not. The next sentence goes on to talk about the political process and the magical Asians are never mentioned again.

    If you’re insulted right now that I’ve wasted your time and precious blog space block quoting that entire excerpt, imagine how I feel: I read the entire book.

    …Perhaps the most important sentence in this entire wretched book was helpfully contained in the first chapter:

    I checked dates and facts, and corroborated my accounts with friends and family, but my stories are decidedly impressionistic rather than reportorial.

    It’s a good start at honesty, but a more candid admission would have gone something like, “Where I needed a fact, I just made one up.” I paid close attention while reading and can confidently say that Dirty, Sexy Politics contains not one citation or reference to any factual source. I wasn’t expecting an APA-approved bibliography or anything; I would have been satisfied with even one simple “According to The New York Times…” Or something. But no. For 194 uninterrupted pages, Meghan McCain’s word is the only authority needed.

    The results of this approach are predictably disastrous. She claims, for instance, that one third of the electorate are “young moderates.” Actual exit polling shows that all voters age 18-29 (of all political stripes) accounted for just 18% of the electorate in 2008. Is Meghan perhaps defining “young” as “under 50”? Is she getting her information from some source other than exit polling? Who knows. The most likely source for this claim, of course, is “thin air,” but it would be nice if at least some of her assertions were provable or disprovable.

    In other cases, Meghan’s made up facts are demonstrably and embarrassingly false. For instance, in one place, Meghan claims to be proud of her father because he got almost 48 million votes. About 20 seconds on Google will tell you that John McCain got over 59 million votes. If I could do this while fact-checking Meghan McCain’s book, why couldn’t she do this while writing it?

    Meghan’s real talent, however, is not in manufacturing facts, but rather in manufacturing enemies…

    McCain’s political prescriptions are the sections of the book that are perhaps the most vacuous and devoid of factual support in the entire book; and in the context of Dirty, Sexy Politics, that is an impressive feat indeed.

    I have to wonder, if [Reagan] and Goldwater were alive today and could see where their party has gone in the last decade, what they would think. Somehow the walls closed in. The conservative movement seems hell-bent on constricting our freedoms rather than expanding them. The base has moved to the Far Right and, sadly, it seems to be dying there.

    Who’s closed in the walls? What walls? What freedoms is the conservative movement hell-bent on constricting? Can you provide a single example of a person who has advocated restricting such a freedom? Can you compare the statements of such a person to the statements of Reagan and/or Goldwater to see if they advocated constricting that freedom or not? What evidence do you have that the “base” is more conservative now than it was in 1980? What evidence do you have that it is dying?

    These questions, like the question “Who the hell paid a cash advance for this tripe after reading Meghan McCain’s blog?” are sadly left unanswered. McCain continues on:

    Rather than the party of openness and individual freedom, it is now the party of limited message and less freedom. Along with an ideological narrowness, an important PR battle is being lost. Rather than leading us into the exhilarating fresh air of liberty, a chorus of voices on the radical right is taking us to a place of intolerance and anger. We hear them on the radio and TV. They love to spread fear because it keeps the money rolling in. You know who I’m talking about. The more afraid we are, the richer they get.

    Humor us, Meghan. We paid money for your book; can you go ahead and tell us who these people are? Can you give us some examples of the kind of rhetoric that you claim is ubiquitous in Far Right Land? Surely if there is such a “chorus of voices” that are being heard everywhere “on the radio and TV,” could you not at least provide some support for your assertions? And not to beat a dead horse, but could you write sentences that make sense?

    More: …

    There really is more, much more, so I encourage you to read the entire review. But if you think it’s an outlier go to amazon and read the customer reviews.

    http://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Sexy-Politics-Meghan-McCain/dp/B0051BNUXW

    Apparently all 88 people who bought this book reviewed it for Amazon. There seem to be four types.

    Three fall into the “loved it” category: people who hate the GOP, Meghan McCain’s coworkers at MSNBC, …

    Ok, there seem to be three types. Two fall into the “loved it” category: people who hate the GOP and those who graduated from Columbia with Meghan McCain.

    Then there is the type that falls into the “DON’T READ THIS BOOK!” category: people who don’t like to read stuff that causes brain damage.

    And yet Columbia University actually gave her a degree. So what am I to make of Chelsea Clinton’s MPH from the same degree mill?

    I will say this; Chelsea Clinton did not embarrass herself as badly in public when she was working at NBC. But then, none of her puff pieces was a book-length treatise like Meghan McCain’s she might have.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmyp69_chelsea-clinton-s-debut-on-nbc_news?start=16

    Chelsea Clinton’s Debut on NBC

    I laughed, I cried, I experienced the full range of human emotion, I…

    Ok, a bit wooden. But I’m sure with practice she’ll get better.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZabULKS_CU#t=102

    Chelsea Clinton reports on the Foster Grandparent Program for NBC News

    No, no she didn’t. The best part of her reporting is when someone else was talking.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ziU3bQoPGw

    The Chelsea Clinton Bubble Bursts: What Is Bill & Hillary’s Daughter Doing on NBC News?

    Steve57 (013200)

  210. *like Meghan McCain’s so she might have.

    Steve57 (013200)

  211. 170. Comment by Steve57 (013200) — 4/24/2014 @ 9:32 pm

    Despite his complaint, Boehner has said at Capitol Hill press conferences this year that he can’t pursue reform because President Obama can’t be trusted to enforce the law properly.

    What president could? This is asking for something that can never happen.

    For if there was a president who you thought would do something like that (and right now you don’t understand what the consequences of enforcing the law would be) the next president after him might not.

    And there’s no way to guarantee that he would, and that Congress would appropriate enough money, especially if there’s a large percentage of the population that’s not happy with the law as written.

    And so it is impossible to say amnesty will never happen again, which is what the hangup is.

    So actually Boehner is wrong. The problem is not that Obama can’t be trusted to enforce the law as written. The problem is that no president can, or rather the problem is that that’s a sticking point.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  212. Sammy, no Preezy has flouted the law so completely as this one. Others have failed in their duties. This one rewrites the law.

    Steve57 (013200)

  213. The leadership that is needed is to forthrightly admit that there will another amnesty after this one, because the case will be just as strong later as it is now, and that it will always have to be that way, unless you are never for amnesty, not later, and not now – but political opinion will not remain the same forever so you can’t guaranetee that.

    You can only appear to guarantee that, except that you can’t, because the opponents of amnesty will prove that you are not guaranteeing it, and will to prove the law will be enforced later, enforce it the way it is now – and then we’ll think.

    It’s a mirage.

    Leadership is needed to argue that whether the law is enforced or not enforced, and you can argue if you want that it should be enforced, but I wouldn’t, because it would give Congress and lobbyists too much power, after a certain point, or in certain situations, amnesties should be granted.

    And that there’s nothing wrong with such a state of affairs.

    And if you want less of that, you need a more liberal immigration law.

    And that there are provisions right now in the law for individual amnesties (partially in order to avoid pressure either for more liberal immigration laws or for private immigration bills, which used to be a big thing in the 1950s.)

    And the question of amnesty and who should get it is a separate question from whether or not the law should be enforced as written or what the law should be.

    “Comprehensive immigration reform” attempts to link them, by saying we’ll change the law, and then enforce it. But that’s really a non-starter.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  214. 210. Comment by Steve57 (013200) — 4/25/2014 @ 2:26 am

    Sammy, no Preezy has flouted the law so completely as this one.

    I think that’s true. He may yet go further.

    However far he goes, it will be difficult for anyone to be elected President who does not promise to not change anything he has done adversely to the interest of illegal immigrants.

    I think it is also true that we haven’t had any other major laws, or parts of laws, (like say, Prohibition) that a president, as opposed to a mayor or a Governor, has decided to simply disregard or modify. (Obama was careful to limit himself to what might reasonably pass Congress)

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  215. Others have failed in their duties. This one rewrites the law.

    I think earlier there was also more discretion.

    In terms of duties anyway it would be depend on how important a law was, and here we have one that at least in many respects, is regarded by many as having a negative utility. That’s never going to be a priority.

    We have some other laws widely flouted and not rigorously enforced. Importing of prescription drugs from Canada or Mexico, for example. Possibly copyright law, also. Obama added de facto legalizaton of marijuana in certain states when and where state law permits it.

    This is not a good situation, but the way to remedy it is to bring the law more in line with reality and not to bring reality more in line with the law. at leasst not without revisiting the law itself.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  216. This is going on too long, but let me finish and then I’ll get back to the main thread.

    What Boehner said also ignores that some laws are more enforceable than others.

    You can write laws that are easier to enforce and you can write laws that are harder to enforce, and you can include provisions that will tend to keep people within the law (it’s easier to channel immigration or add conditions people can meet, than to prohibit it) and you can not modify the law that way.

    Boehner doesn’t seem to understand that when he talks that way.

    Saying you need the law to be enforced or a guarantee of future eforcement before you will change anything is like saying you won’t permit the importation of certain prescription drugs from outside the country unless you could be assured that the new law would be enforced as written.

    Or that you won’t liberalize copyright law unless you could be sure that the new copyright law would be strictly observed.

    Or that you won’t liberalize the drug laws unless you could be sure that the new laws would be enforced and maybe even let that be demonstrated by acting against people in Colorado.

    Or that you won’t agree to lower a speed limit unless you could be certain that the new speed limit would be rigorously enforced, and speed limits never are.

    Or that you wouldn’t have supported repeal of Prohibition unless you could be sure that the new law would be enforced – and maybe even that the old law should be until it is repealed. (The Wickersham Commisison called for enforcing the law until it was changed. A Democrat was elected in 1932, albeit that actually wasn’t the main issue, and even before a Constitutional amendment
    went into effect, a new law was passed that kind of vitiated it a little.)

    The reason you would not expect a new immigration law to be enforced is that it goes against compassion, and you think the new law won’t be liked either. If not, why is it different than a copyright law?

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  217. Boehner wants to change immigration law to prevent it from being a stumbling block for a 2016 Republican presidential nominee.

    But I don’t think he can do that. He really truly does not understand the issue.

    To get rid of this issue requires a massive rethinking.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  218. Comment by Steve57 (013200) — 4/24/2014 @ 11:36 pm

    because I could never vote for Chelsea Clinton precisely because she is unfit from the cradle.

    With Chelsea Clinton, the real reason ths is a problem is because of her connections. Which is not the case for a Bush or many others.

    And JFK did not turn out to be his father’s son, to the disappointment of organized crime.

    Although I imagine being raised by Bill and Hillary! (or, rather, whoever they hire to do it) would ruin anyone.

    The hiring was probably a saving grace. Bill Clinton only got to work corrupting her after he became president.

    Some people really are unfit from the cradle. It’s not her fault, but she is.

    One thing about Chelsea: she’d probably be incompetent at coverups, so not really a good choice for the Clintons, but who else do they have?

    I think Bill Clinton needs someone witha “clean” record, and he brought her into his foundation. She may not even understand what had happened.

    Billy Jeff let’s a defense contractor know that his daughter needs a job through some back channel, and the next thing you know she’s assistant VP of engineering at an aerospace company.

    Well, that didn’t happen, and it is probably not quite that blatant, or limited.

    Bill Clinton needs to maintain the image that he could be back in power, and that’s enough to get a lot of people willing to help him and to stop people – maybe – from telling what they know.

    A 2016 race might change some of that.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  219. 176. Comment by Dustin (b045f4) — 4/24/2014 @ 9:44 pm

    When the state of Virginia ripped people off ballots it was ruled unconstitutional, too late, and Romney won a state he was quite unpopular in. When you have to do that to win a primary, you’re probably going to lose the general

    Interesting thought, even though it’s a different electorate than what is in the general. It may be true. There may be a general weakneess in such a case.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  220. I think Bill Clinton was not interested in getting Chelsea Clinton jobs, so much as he was interested in making her really rich from unimpeachably “legitimate” sources. It is possible even that he may have wantes a variety of sources, but all of it “earned income.”

    That way the money could never be taken away as the result of a RICO prosecution, or some civil lawsuit. He took other precuations against that, but this was a fallback.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  221. Chelsea’s Clinton’s money could then, literally, help bail him out.

    I think he wass most interested earlier, in having her not be quoted, because she could say things that contradicted what he said, and she wasn’t disingenuous. He wanted her values to be that she loved her parents irregardless.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  222. After all, for whatever strange reason, McCain has felt compelled to praise Kennedy before when trying to sell the Gang of Eight bill.

    That’s probably partially personal feelings, and also in his mind it should help. Maybe only among Democrats, but Democrats weren’t so anxious to take up the bill in the Senate. It’s not like Harry Reid was encouraging it.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  223. Comment by Dustin (b045f4) — 4/24/2014 @ 10:06 pm

    Why in the world are democrats enamored with Hillary?

    I don’t think they are.

    The politicians are afraid to run against her. Afraid that they’ll lose at least.

    And the biggest reason is money.

    Plus the Clinton propensity to lie, or even have the truth told about their opponents.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  224. 181. Ryan is out in perpetuity. And again Paul is a Libertarian so by definition preferable to a loyal Republican.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  225. My point was that I also admire a leader who is willing to lead, instead of just following popular views.

    Dustin, I pretty much go with the flow when it comes to most opinions expressed here, that is if they’re generally at least right-leaning enough to not seem really absurd or are not disingenuously or tactically crouched in liberal sentiment. So your slamming people like Mitt Romney doesn’t bother me in the least. However, I do let out a sigh when people say that allowing an ultra-liberal like Obama to win an election isn’t any worse than doing nothing to prevent the opposing squishy-right candidate from losing the election.

    I also have to ask whether you were more forgiving of the left-leaning sentiments of Rick Perry when it came to his take on the “undocumented” — or labeling it as an uplifting sign of a person’s willingness to lead — only because you think he in general isn’t too ideological squishy. In my case, such comments make me pause and feel wary. That’s why I don’t mind your downbeat impressions of Romney in the least. But, at the same time, I have to ask you to be less puzzled by those who feel otherwise when you’re more easygoing about Perry’s ideology than is perhaps justified.

    This is not a good situation, but the way to remedy it is to bring the law more in line with reality and not to bring reality more in line with the law. at leasst not without revisiting the law itself. — Comment by Sammy Finkelman

    So if the law pertained to something along the lines of, say, racial discrimination, and businesses were being cavalier about dispensing with non-white job applicants (btw, that happens quite a bit in the wonderful liberal world of Hollywood, where hiring actors and actresses for various parts is very dependent on the looks of a person, including that of his race or ethnicity) would you also proclaim: “the way to remedy it is to bring the law more in line with reality….”?

    Mark (59e5be)

  226. This is not a good situation, but the way to remedy it is to bring the law more in line with reality and not to bring reality more in line with the law. at leasst not without revisiting the law itself. — Comment by Sammy Finkelman

    Comment by Mark (59e5be) — 4/25/2014 @ 7:29 am

    So if the law pertained to something along the lines of, say, racial discrimination, and businesses were being cavalier about dispensing with non-white job applicants (btw, that happens quite a bit in the wonderful liberal world of Hollywood, where hiring actors and actresses for various parts is very dependent on the looks of a person, including that of his race or ethnicity) would you also proclaim: “the way to remedy it is to bring the law more in line with reality….”?

    No, I didn’t say that. Notice that I said:

    I am talking about a at least not without revisiting the law itself

    If you are going to double down on the law, you ought to at least make sure the law is something you really want to do.

    As for Hollywood actors, that actually is one of the exemptions in the law, because it’s the classic illustration of a genuine job requirement.

    But even with this, I’d say if you are fighting human nature too much you really should stop.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  227. How about another Bush in the Oval Office?

    Right now I’ll just settle for an adult in the Oval Office.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/24/shocking-report-obama-didnt-even-finish-jiros-sushi/

    If one can get a reservation in the greatest sushi restaurant in the world and afford the $300 for the meal, Jiro will painstakingly prepare every bite, serving each customer each piece, one by one. He prepares the octopus he serves by massaging it for 45 minutes to an hour. There is no menu except what he sets, serving what’s freshest and best each day. His 50-something son works in his shadow, trained for decades to be worthy of prepping food for his father’s plates.

    So, it’s not the kind of thing you’d stop eating halfway through. It’d be glaringly obvious and disrespectful. Not to mention foolhardy and wasteful. If there’s one time to clean your plate, this is it. C’mon, MAN!

    The owner of a yakitori (grilled chicken) restaurant that sits in the same basement as the exclusive diner told Tokyo Broadcasting System that Obama had put his chopsticks down at the halfway point.

    The man said a sushi chef from the restaurant told him the leaders’ chat was quite formal, the broadcaster said.

    Unlike Obama, Abe munched the whole way through the offerings from 88-year-old legend Jiro Ono, who serves around 20 pieces of sushi one by one at the customer’s pace, it said.

    Both men emerged from the restaurant to declare the meal had been a success, with Obama telling a crowd of journalists and well-wishers: “That’s some good sushi right there” and Abe saying they had discussed “a wide range of topics in a relaxed atmosphere”.

    This guy is the ugly American, swear to all that is holy. “That’s some good sushi right there?!?! You come out of Jiro’s and that’s what you have to say?!?! Oh, it’s a little bit more than that, dumb@$$. And very nice of you to come out of that place and let the Japanese well wishers know that’s some good sushi in there. Because they didn’t know whether it was good or not but now that it’s got the Barack Obama seal of approval, well then!

    I can tell from a distance that good sushi is wasted on the guy. I’m sure he eats it. But for the snob appeal. You can always tell sushi snobs, especially American sushi snobs. They go for the wasabi. They’ll put a glob of wasabi in their oshoyu (soy sauce) and then soak their sushi in it.

    (pro-tip: for extra bonus points use the special ancient sushi terms. Everywhere else in Japan soy sauce is Ohshoyu. Inside a sushi establishment it’s murasaki; “purple.” By the same token inside a sushi place Japanese horse radish is not wasabi but namida; “tears.” And green tea inside a sushi restaurant is not Ohcha but agari.)

    Sushi is not just raw fish (that’s sashimi; that’s what you put the wasabi on but not too much, dammit, if it’s good fish). It’s a freakin’ symphony of delicate flavors. From the vinegared rice to the fish to herbs such as shiso. If it’s supposed to be eaten with wasabi then the chef will already have put it on. After years of developing his craft, the chef creates his sushi before your eyes as you sit at the bar, presents it to you and… being a sushi snob as a opposed to a sushi aficionado you drown it soy sauce and wasabi. And now you’re lucky to be alive because you just insulted a man who really, really knows how to use a knife.

    So I’ll bet that’s why Obama only ate half his sushi. He’s sitting there wondering, “where’s the effin’ soy sauce and wasabi. You can’t eat sushi without soy and wasabi.” I bet on the way back to the hotel Obama was yucking it up with his staff about how the Japanese don’t even know how to eat sushi.

    The man is a boor who just doesn’t know how to act like a civilized human being.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/21/article-0-0E05655C00000578-864_468x400.jpg

    Barack Obama, screwing up group photo of national leaders at summit, because it’s all about Barack!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG7VSt0_VcU

    Barack Obama, screwing up toast at state dinner in Britain by trying to talk over “God Save the Queen.” I love that photo because you can tell he has no clue what that song was. He clearly thought that the Brits were paying homage to his oratorical magnificence by playing an appropriate song to add dignity to his dramatic reading.

    Moving on to the juvenile delinquents running the state department.

    http://twitchy.com/2014/04/24/jen-psaki-lets-hope-the-kremlin-will-live-by-the-promise-of-hashtag/

    I’m not even going to try to sum this one up.

    This crowd is demonstrating to the world that we are so friggin’ mockworthy it’s unbelievable.

    Ok, I’ll vote for Jeb Bush. Just make it stop! Make it stop!

    Steve57 (525198)

  228. *I love that photo video

    Steve57 (525198)

  229. Steve57: Obama only ate half his sushi.

    He probably thought, therefore, he was giving his hosts an undeserved complement when he said: “That’s some good sushi right there”

    I myself, like cooked salmon.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  230. Yes, it’s the battle of the battle of the titans as the US and Russia square off over the Ukraine.

    On the one side is a former KGB agent assisted a wily foreign minister who came up through the ranks in the treacherous and paranoid Soviet bureaucracy, supported by the Russian military.

    On the other hand we have President Prom Queen assisted by an aging windsurfer who married a ketchup heiress, supported by an irrepressible group of young idealists who are willing to demonstrate their impressive mastery of social media that they formerly used to get elected to student government in high school.

    It’s a real cage match.

    Steve57 (525198)

  231. 228. …I myself, like cooked salmon.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be) — 4/25/2014 @ 9:37 am

    Lots do, Sammy. There’s nothing wrong with good cooked salmon. It’s good.

    Steve57 (525198)

  232. It is indeed a proud day for the United States of America. We are now using the same methods to “defend” the Ukraine…

    http://www.humanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/psaki_hashtag_lg.jpg

    that OFA used to defend Obama and Obamacare in the last election.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2012/09/messina-obamacare-creepy3.jpg

    Predictably we are getting the same kind of awed respect all over the world now that Jim Messina did then.

    http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/27122811.jpg

    Steve57 (525198)

  233. More on the nomination process, such as it will be.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-not-open-convention_787378.html?nopager=1

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  234. meahwhile, John McLame, the guy who threw the 2008 campaign, cozies up to his friend Shrillery.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/24/john-mccain-to-host-hillary-clinton-in-sedona-ariz/

    tell me again how the RNC has the best interests of this country, and conservatives in general, at heart.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  235. There’s nothing wrong with good cooked salmon.

    yes there is: it tastes like feesh.

    if G*d had wanted us to eat seafood, she wouldn’t have made the land animals so easy to catch.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  236. What are you talking about, red? Ever try to catch a deer by hand?

    Now, seafood…

    1) tie a string to a chicken neck
    2) throw the chicken neck into the drink and let it sink
    3)pull it back up
    4) half the time a crab has latched onto it
    5) swing the net underneath it
    6) Cuz when it gets close enough to the surface it’ll let go

    It works for blue crabs on the Chesapeake, anyway. What could be easier? All the time the cooler full of drinks is right there with you on the boat.

    Steve57 (525198)

  237. It’s so great that people listened when I asked that this thread not contain personal attacks. Thanks, guys!

    (FWIW, I do not consider defending oneself against a personal attack to be itself a “personal attack.”)

    Patterico (9c670f)

  238. The Zombie Candidate:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/25/does-christie-still-have-a-shot-at-the-nomination/

    Another chicken Chris?

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  239. ah, that falls into what Taranto calls ‘questions no one is asking?’

    narciso (3fec35)

  240. Patterico #235,

    When your buddy Dustin continues to make false “recollections” about past threads, are we allowed to respond with factual corrections ?
    Or should we just take one for “the team” ?

    Elephant Stone (77e955)

  241. 236. Disculpe usted los Tres Amigos, son tocados.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5585 secs.