Ace on Dispute Resolution
There is a type of mediated dispute resolution which I think is more analogous. In this type of resolution, each party writes down its demand/offer. The third-party mediator also writes down his opinion of a fair resolution. Let’s say it’s a money demand of some kind, for simplicity’s sake, so both parties write down their demand/offer, and the mediator writes down what he believes is a fair number.
Crucially, in this type of resolution, the mediator’s number will not, under any circumstances, be the number imposed on both parties. His number — somewhere in between the two, a compromise — will not form the basis of the settlement.
In this type of mediation, one or the other party’s number will be used. The mediator will choose one of the two party’s numbers, the one that is closest to his own.
The point of this sort of mediation is to force the negotiating parties into making more reasonable demands, to start the process much closer to what each figures the final resolution will be.
Because in this sort of mediation, if Party A offers $10,000 in compensation, and the mediator thinks that $500,000 is fair, but Party B decides to demand thirty million dollars, guess what? Party A’s offer is closer to the mediator’s number and Party B walks out not with thirty million, nor with $200,000, but with a paltry $10,000. He has walked in with a demand so far from the mark that the other party gets to make all decisions about the resolution.
I like this example because it precisely replicates what happens in an election. The voters are the mediators, but they don’t get to choose whatever they want. They are presented with two options, and they must choose one. They will choose whichever is closest to their desires.
Part of the job is educating the mediator. Litigants need to explain to the mediator that their position is reasonable — just like part of a candidate’s job is to explain to voters why his principles are the best.
But at the same time, ultimately you’ll get only so far with education. In the final analysis, the candidate’s position has to be closer to the voters’ desires than his opponent’s. Or he will lose.
This means that you can’t get too far in front of the voters. If you care about winning.
Some people like to talk about “sticking to principles” and saying that it’s not as important to win elections as it is to stick to the fundamentals. That’s wonderful rhetoric. It sounds great on a blog. By articulating such a position, you can often get a few dozen commenters to come on and type “Damn right!” into their little comment boxes.
And then your side loses, and the other side starts passing even more laws that kill our country.
Hey, at least you “stuck to your principles” while you sat and watched our country get torn apart. You were able to maintain your sense of self-righteousness. And isn’t that what really matters?
Those of you who care about getting things done in the real world should pay attention to Ace’s explanation. For example, apologizing to a company that has polluted the holy hell out of the Gulf of Mexico is never a position that is going to be closer to the voters’ wishes.
I’m not saying abandon principles. Far from it. I’m saying: be smarter about how you articulate them.
I recognize that this may be an unpopular position on a blog, and that I will get fewer “Damn right!” comments than a self-righteous screed might produce. So be it. I’m not in this to make money (although there are some shiny new PayPal buttons on the right sidebar now!) or to get the “Damn right!” comments. I’m in this to call things the way I see them and try to help us win, while staying within the bounds of truth and sense.
So that maybe we can stop some of our Dear Leader’s agenda that he is ruining my kids’ future with. On this Father’s Day, I’m keeping them in mind.
I think Joe Barton’s statement was inartful, if true. I was chiefly angry with the thuggish behavior of the GOP leadership.
What politicians have done for the past 30 years, or at least since 1994, is to place their own position so close to that of the opponent that the voter chooses based on atmospherics, not policy. Right now Meg Whitman is being assailed by the Democrats because she didn’t vote for 20 years, or whatever it was.
To me, a proper response might be, “I had no reason to vote the past 20 years because there was little difference between the parties in California.” Now, there is.
Mike K (82f374) — 6/20/2010 @ 12:11 pmSome people like to talk about “sticking to principles” and saying that it’s not as important to win elections as it is to stick to the fundamentals.
I think people who buy that don’t live in the real world. For example, I’m a conservative but I reside in a very uber-blue, if not ultra-liberal, part of America, otherwise known as LA/California. For that matter, I could say the same thing if I were residing in a society that runs the gamut from France to Mexico, from Denmark to Venezuela. IOW, there are a lot of leftwingers — or certainly people who suffer from a serious deficiency of common sense and decency — throughout the human populace. It’s an unfortunate reality of life, but it is what it is.
That’s why I think it’s naive and foolish to pout and wail “If I don’t get my way, I’m going to take all my marbles and run home!,” certainly when a lot of the electorate (“Hi, Californians!” Hi, Mexicans! Hi, Euro-Socialists! Hi, registered Democrats!”) is going to be idiotic no matter what.
Therefore, matters pertaining to tactics and social skills — including getting the best out of an otherwise pathetic situation — should be considered as crucial as the nature of a person’s political philosophy alone (of a president, senator, governor, mayor, councilman, etc, etc).
Mark (411533) — 6/20/2010 @ 12:20 pmPatterico, great post.
First: happy Fathers’ Day (and to all of you who are fathers, or have fathers you wish to honor today).
As for the mediation idea: I like it because it enforces something like fairness, as in the game of “I cut, you choose,” that forces each side to think about what is fair from the perspective of the other person.
Again, Heinlein once wrote about a couple divorcing. The man told the woman to create a list of assets for both of them. The woman did so, and then chose the man’s list. Horrors! Eventually, they came up with fair lists from both perspectives.
As for sticking by principles, that is a fine perspective. But it shouldn’t translate to “Purity of Essence” straight out of “Dr. Strangelove.” The perfect is the enemy of the possible, as the saying goes.
You can be ideologically pure and lose election after election. As I hope the New Democrats learn this year.
And there are still folks who insist that McCain is no different from Obama, because they sat out the last election.
Again, just my opinion. My parents were ideologically pure, and voted for Perot. And that made Bill Clinton possible. And much derived from that.
Something to think about.
Eric Blair (02a138) — 6/20/2010 @ 12:25 pmThere is also the point — discussed earlier here and at AoSHQ, iirc — that the way in which we stick to our principles matters also. We are not required to do so in a manner guaranteed to alienate those we hope to persuade.
Taking it a step further, there is the argument about the relationship to campaigning on principles and governing. That is, between elections the minority outlines its principles and policies, on the theory that winning an election thus gives the new majority a mandate to enact those policies. Recent history ought to demonstrate that Obama and Hillary debating health care for a year, and Obama’s election, did not produce a popular mandate for the sort of changes the Democrats have enacted into law. Conversely, Lefties who think that Dems will be saved by the GOP’s own low ratings are blind to the idea that the public will probably be happy if the 2010 outcome is gridlock. And the GOP (and Tea Partiers) will make the same mistake if they view their likely electoral victories as an endorsement of any particular agenda.
Karl (1573e4) — 6/20/2010 @ 12:47 pmI voted for George Bush twice. In 2000 I thought he was the real deal as far as a conservative was concerned. By 2004 I did not feel the same way but voted for him because he was much closer to what I wanted in a president than John Kerry could ever be.
In 2008 I held my nose and voted for McCain having a pretty good idea of what we were in store for with BO. The process that Ace articulates is right on.
BT (74cbec) — 6/20/2010 @ 12:54 pmthe center did not hold, Patterico… this model is a day late and a dollar short I think.
Watching the dismayingly cowardly John Boehner homopublicans abase themselves in apologetics for Joe Barton’s honesty is pretty much all you need to know about the future of dispute resolution in our once-respectable little country I think.
If you are too cowardly to insist that your dispute resolution be grounded in truth than what proceeds is farce.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:02 pmDamn right!
oneisnotprime (eea123) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:07 pmBarton did a poor job of enunciating his thought. His thought was right, though. He is also the best qualified person on that committee to consider energy legislation given that he has two degrees in engineering. Boehner lost a lot of stature in my eyes. Ironically, a woman called me a couple of hours later from the RNC. She got an earful.
Mike K (82f374) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:07 pmI think there has been a complete overreaction to Joe Barton’s remarks predictably by the Democrats, but more surprisingly by Republicans. The link above is to a video of his actual remarks where he makes it clear at both the beginning and end of his intro that he holds BP responsible and that his concern is the bypassing of the system of due process we have in this country. He also makes it abundantly clear that he is only speaking for himself, not the HOP or any other member of the House. I think a lot of the people condemning him have not heard or read his complete words.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:09 pmAnd the GOP (and Tea Partiers) will make the same mistake if they view their likely electoral victories as an endorsement of any particular agenda.
this is true true true and I think it’s why it’s why Mr. Daniel’s contends that a laser-like focus on the existential issues is essential.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:10 pmhi daley Mr. G I think is marvelously apt on the subject of Mr. Barton
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:12 pmThis strikes me as an argument that conservatives (and liberals, for that matter) should be more realistic about politics, and that’s a good point that I believe inherently favors conservatives. But even in mediation, one party can refuse to participate and that’s especially true with voting. The art of the deal in today’s political world is motivating voters to vote.
I think politics is a continuum constantly swinging back and forth. The Clinton years were all about triangulation and moderation, and we’ll undoubtedly see that again in the future. That middle-of-the-road approach works in between extremes but, for now, I think we’re at an extreme. Thus, the question becomes: How do you budge a system lodged at the end of a political continuum? Specifically, how do you pull the electorate back from the Obama extreme?
Some believe you do it gradually, by gently nudging them back to the center like an aircraft carrier being nudged into port by tugboats. But when you end up on the far end of one political extreme, you risk a lot by offering incremental change that tugs gently in the hope you land somewhere in the middle. Obama’s election shows we aren’t dealing with a society in the mood to change incrementally, which is why I think the best course is to offer basic conservative ideology as a counterpoint to the Obama years.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:19 pmhi daley Mr. G I think is marvelously apt on the subject of Mr. Barton
I especially like his stream of comments insulting me and Ace and Allah.
Heaven forfend any of us should criticize a politician for making incredibly impolitic remarks. Instead we must back him up. Now that he has fucked up the initial message royally, we should all stand behind him as he clarifies. Hopefully, he won’t continue to fuck up the message and dig himself a deeper hole! We hope!
It was a fucking apology to a company that didn’t deserve an apology. No clarification undoes that. Leave your fucking house and talk to a real person or two and see what they think.
And don’t give me this crap about intent. What is the argument? That he didn’t really INTEND to apologize?!?!
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:27 pm*Daniels* I mean no apostrophe… I need to get used to that name I think
Hi DRJ the problem I think is that so many Team R ones have basic conservative ideology confuzzled with basic conservative theology.
I learned this in the Hot Air comments section.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:28 pmObama’s election shows we aren’t dealing with a society in the mood to change incrementally, which is why I think the best course is to offer basic conservative ideology as a counterpoint to the Obama years.
That may well be. But in making your argument, you are accepting as a given that it matters what the electorate thinks. That is my one and only point.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:30 pmhi feets – Mr. G and I seem to be in agreement on this one. People should listen to or read what Barton said in its entirety, with context, rather than rely on what somebody else said he said before condemning him.
Given the Wall Street bonus shakedown, the Auto Company Bailout shakedown, the Attempted Honduras shakedown, the Drug Company shakedown, the Amnesty shakedown, there is absolutely nothing outrageous in what Barton said.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:34 pmBarton was correct about the extortion, wrong to use the word “apology”.
The only thing Boehner does well is to tan.
AD - RtR/OS! (71ba66) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:35 pmI especially like his stream of comments insulting me and Ace and Allah.
where was that? Mr. P I didn’t really see the criticism of you or even Allah or Ace… if I had seen anything like that I would not have linked but I don’t really see that part.
But for reals I think Barton did a huge service to America by exposing the Boehnerhomo Republicans as being to a man as cowardly and unprincipled as their last presidential nominee.
oh boy was that eye-opening
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:38 pm_______________________________________
Watching the dismayingly cowardly John Boehner homopublicans abase themselves in apologetics
Because a greater percentage of folks on the right tends to be like the parents of the family — compared with the snot-nosed, bratty kids (ie, liberals/Democrats) — and therefore has a greater sense of responsibility, maturity and shame, the downside is carrying the burden of, on one hand, trying not to be the pushover (certainly to leftists) and also, on the other, trying not to be the mean ol’ heavy. That requires a delicate balancing act.
I think most of us can see both sides of the dilemma, because we probably all have sympathized with and also, on other occasions, resented father (or “father”) or authority figures, or people who’ve set rules that we might otherwise agree with.
This also reminds of a major news story back in 1997, after the death of Diana Windsor (aka the former wife of Prince Charles). Although Diana reportedly could be a neurotic, childish, immature troublemaker — and she very likely also was a “leftie” — she did have the upper hand in the public’s eye. That’s because she could be seen as playing (or having played) the role of the “good guy,” compared with the image of her former mother-in-law, who could be stereotyped as the straitlaced, uptight, follow-the-rules, non-weepy conservative.
Mark (411533) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:41 pmhere Mr. daley this is anthemic
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:42 pm“I especially like his stream of comments insulting me and Ace and Allah.”
Ooops, did not look at the comments over there. Good thing they don’t hold grudges. They just can’t quit you Patterico, I don’t want to think about what that means.
IMHO, Barton was fine until the rest of Team R stepped on its dicks.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:42 pmhi feets – Mr. G and I seem to be in agreement on this one.
Are you in agreement with all his pouty comments lashing out at me and Ace and Allah?
I have watched the entirety of Barton’s comments. For one, I always think it’s bullshit to “apologize” for things other people have done. Second, instead of extolling the virtues of making everything go through the court system, which can take years, why not focus on how we don’t trust the president to use the money to help the victims — in other words, make the primary focus the “slush fund” aspect he mentioned (which he touched on but did not make a central point).
Again: I have said I think the guy may well have a point. But he said it stupidly. In Goldstein land, one must never criticize the idiotic way that a conservative makes a conservative point, because of the intentionalism and the thing. In the real world, how you make the point matters.
If you think Barton made the point well, that’s fine. Many of us disagree.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:48 pmOur comments crossed.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:48 pmI don’t like the way “team R” handled the aftermath, either. If he had a legitimate point, press the legitimate point and distance yourself from the way he said it.
Sample: “BP doesn’t deserve an apology and I am appalled anyone would suggest they do. That said, the president’s Chicago-style thuggery is unlikely to help the victims; instead, it will give the president a $20 billion slush fund that I predict he will use to help his cronies rather than the victims of the leak.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:50 pminstead of extolling the virtues of making everything go through the court system
but the shakedown is expressly decontextualized from any idea of adjudicated damages… the 20 large America ganked has no relation whatsoever to future claims… this is just protection money BP is paying thugmerica so it can *maybe* remain viable for a little longer.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:53 pmPatterico:
That’s a good point of agreement. What troubles me (in general, not re: the Barton episode because I agree he blew it) is defining who the electorate is. It isn’t enough to get the votes of people who were going to vote anyway, even if they had to hold their noses. We have to get the ones who weren’t going to vote or who were going to vote D.
There’s validity in not looking too extreme but I think there’s more validity in making sure they know the GOP stands for something different.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:54 pmhappyfeet:
What makes you think your version of conservatism is more pure and valid?
Voters will come when they decide what you offer is a good idea. After Obama, I think a lot more people will consider and vote for the GOP’s ideas. GOP candidates need to make it clear what they stand for — whether it’s fiscal or social issues — instead of trying to be everything to everybody.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:54 pmI think we’re a lot close to being on the same page… let me just throw out what our essential difference is I think.
I could care less if Joe Barton embarrassed Team R. Team R has made quite a sport out of embarrassing me.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:55 pmSample: “BP doesn’t deserve an apology…That said, the president’s Chicago-style thuggery…
Where the hell are all the conservatives/Republicans on Capitol Hill who should be voicing the same type of comment!?
Common sense that isn’t accompanied with appropriate tactics ends up being an act of futility or self-immolation.
Mark (411533) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:59 pmWhat makes you think your version of conservatism is more pure and valid?
I know this one. My version of conservatism is more pure and valid because a limited government philosophy dovetails with a limited scope of issues what Team R’s governing philosophy need must embrace. Social cons like Jindal who would grab a pregnant hoochie by the neck and force her face up to a monitor to view an ultrasound glorify the state every bit as much as our little president man does when he ganks BP for billions.
There is a decided mismatch between conservative ideology and conservative theology I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:02 pmWhy Barton’s statement was a mistake, no matter what he really said or meant:
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:04 pmWho wants to elect a GOP what supports the Chavez-style ganking of free enterprise anyway?
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:08 pmbut, question: when BP’s carcass is found bankrupt and dead in a thugmerican alley, will Mr. Barton be vindicated?
I rather think he will. And I think the rest of the world will see America as the thugly bullying loserstate it has become. And the GOP will have been complicit.
And everybody what hearts America better understand the ramifications of this I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:16 pmSocial cons like Jindal who would grab a pregnant hoochie by the neck and force her face up to a monitor to view an ultrasound glorify the state every bit as much as our little president man does when he ganks BP for billions.
I don’t much see what that has to do with anything, and I don’t want to get in an extended debate about a side issue, but the government has a role in protecting life. You would draw the line in a different place than I would, but taking the position that any restrictions on abortion are illegitimate and inconsistent with limited government is a strawman.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:17 pmYeah, and if we lose because of that, the Principles At All Costs crowd will say we lost because we didn’t back BP enough.
DAMN RIGHT!
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:18 pmFutile attempt to try to draw me into another debate? Good for the next fundraiser, which I assume is just around the corner. Nothing brings home the cash like poking at the foil.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:21 pmoh. Sorry. I thought it fair to adduce social issues inasmuch as Drew at Ace’s and Allah have both taken positions contrary to Mr. Daniels’ position that extraneous social issues are not of any help in the quixotic quest to address the existential issue of America’s structurally unsound economy… that in fact they are a lot unhelpful.
That is a discussion what is essentially every bit as much about dispute resolution as this one is I think, but maybe there will be a more better time for it.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:24 pmany restrictions on abortion are illegitimate and inconsistent with limited government
for the record that is not my position
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:26 pmHere is Jeff G. to Joe:
Guilt by association, in other words. Your argument is wrong because leftists are agreeing with you.
This is why people distance themselves from statements: to avoid having people tar them with exactly that argument.
It’s a fallacious argument, to be sure. But it gets made by a lot of people — including OUTLAWS who pretend to be against the concept of guilt by association.
Sometimes especially by them.
I agree with DRJ that the best course for conservatives at this point is to set themselves apart by standing up firmly for principles of limited government.
Let me know when we find someone who manages to do that without saying something incredibly stupid. I’ll nominate that guy for President.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:29 pmI also agree with DRJ that the best course for conservatives at this point is to set themselves apart by standing up firmly for principles of limited government.
We are consensused!
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:31 pmDRJ @31 – That is exactly why GOP leadership screwed up in demanding Barton apologize.
He and they should have pushed back against the criticism and said this is another example of a runaway Presidency. We intend to make sure that the funds BP agreed to advance against its ultimate liability for damages in this terrible accident to not get used as another Chicago patronage account for the President’s cronies, like much of last year’s stimulus bill. This unprecedented extra-legal arrangement must be protected from partisan political misuse…….
By doing what they did, they just made themselves weak. They have to fight the distortions about siding with BP, but I think that’s doable.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:36 pmNow we have the White House predictably saying Barton “defended” BP.
This reminds me of what I have called the “Hitler Killed 600 Million Jews” fallacy. It goes something like this:
The idea is that if you point out something that could be read as a defense of a bad guy, people will claim you defended the bad guy.
But it’s stupid to PLAY INTO that fallacy. For example, by apologizing to Hitler for the slander on his legacy caused by the accusation that he killed 600 million Jews.
You can debunk falsehoods and point out bad behavior without seeming to take the side of the bad guy who is being wronged. It’s simple Rhetoric 101. If a Congressman can’t get that, he deserves to be pilloried.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:37 pmMr. G’s comment is really sorta valid by the way…
Mr. G was telling our friend Joe that his anti-Barton views looked to Mr. G to have an umcomfortable resonance with these specific views of Pandagon:
the world of contemporary Team thinkers is a great capsule I think by the way what is useful apart from a discussion of the BP shakedown.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:38 pmI think the Barton statement makes a great soundbite for Democrats and that makes it a mistake. But what’s done is done and the point now is to deal with it in an honest way — to explain that it is a shakedown and while we want BP to pay what it owes, we want it done according to the laws that protect us all instead of by using strong-arm tactics.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:40 pmHe and they should have pushed back against the criticism and said this is another example of a runaway Presidency.
I don’t know. I think the initial message was so horribly fucked up that, in pushing that message, they still needed to sacrifice Barton in the process. Yes, attack Obama for what he did, but no, don’t defend Barton’s articulation.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:40 pmMr. G was telling our friend Joe that his anti-Barton views looked to Mr. G to have an umcomfortable resonance with these specific views of Pandagon:
Two parties can indeed both be wrong at once. But “you agree with Pandagon” is not an argument. It is a fallacy.
Sounds great, though!
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:41 pmThis is all Entry #54,349 in Goldstein’s jihad against holding people responsible for their own words. If a guy is getting criticized for the way he said something, even if there is an underlying nugget of truth there, it must all be the fault of the audience.
Maybe part of the fault lies in the stupid fucked-up way he said it? Naw, that couldn’t be.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:44 pmIt’s called “spin”. Whether one is a paid PR flack, a congressperson, or the President of the US, much of what is said publicly has been calculated to frame a debate or to frame a position within a specific situation. This usually works out so long as what is said cannot be either immediately and obviously disproven, or as long as what is said does not immediately set off the BS meter and gag reflex of “normal” Americans with busy lives. Once the statement reaches either or both of those thresholds, however, both the spin and the spinner becomes a major liability to “the cause” going forward.
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan.” “No family earning less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” “I apologize to BP”. These are examples that come to mind. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Defense is futile. The public has made up its mind. Whether the original statement was a lie, an inartful word choice, or abject stupidity really is immaterial.
elissa (6da0b4) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:45 pm*uncomfortable* I mean… and I think calling a company what has been an engine for American jobs and prosperity for decades a “bad guy” is sort of… I think if I were a company looking to invest in an enterprise in America what entailed risk, I would be paying close attention to who’s calling who a bad guy.
And it shouldn’t go unremarked that our inept loser little country was totally unprepared for this eventuality.
If BP were to tell thugmerica to plug the damn hole itself, America would stand before the world as a hapless empty-suited and really quite silly little country, and our dirty socialist little president man better pray to his dirty socialist little gods that it doesn’t come to that I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:45 pmI thought the retraction/apology was a bad idea.
SteveG (9fb25f) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:47 pmA $20B back room deal needed to be dissected into parts.
$20B good.
Back room deal consisted of what?
Third world backroom shakedown tactics…. and did they give up anything to get $20B?
Who says that if the deal was done in the light of day that we the people would not have gotten more than $20B?
This is the bestest most succinct and true true true comment I have read on the matter yet.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:47 pm“I think the Barton statement makes a great soundbite for Democrats and that makes it a mistake.”
DRJ – I think the way it can be edited to eliminate the surrounding context makes a great soundbite for the Democrats.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 2:56 pmThere’s an argument that a candidate’s pre-election statements can be modified after he takes office, and still benefit the country at large.
Articulations of current goals and principles are very important, yet they were the most mishandled – if not lacking – items of the GW Bush presidency. Bush’s posse simply let their political assassains own every attack issue, and the MSM of course sang every chorus. Time and time again, Bush failed to respond or explain or counterattack – which can be done, as Governor Christie demonstrates, very effectively. Those failures contributed hugely to the anti-Bush public opinion, which voted in the most extreme anti-Bush they could find: the very Obama who’s busily busting the US Constititution and our institutions of liberty and lifestyle today.
Insufficiently Sensitive (8906ed) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:03 pmAmerican leadership!
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:08 pmhtml is stupid
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:09 pmThis sort of reminds me of a quote from the 1997 movie As Good As It Gets, with Jack Nicholson playing the part of Melvin Udall. Just substitute the word liberals for women and conservative for man below:
“Secretary: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.”
Unfortunately, most conservatives were acting like their more excitable liberal counterparts in this episode.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:09 pmhappyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:11 pm
link
maybe I should eat something
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:11 pmbut I wanted to highlight this:
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:12 pmDoes Norman have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:29 pmwhere was that? Mr. P I didn’t really see the criticism of you or even Allah or Ace… if I had seen anything like that I would not have linked but I don’t really see that part.
You didn’t read the comments, then.
Patterico (c218bd) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:31 pmI woke up really late
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:36 pmI shouldn’t have linked anything I guess but I think it’s a very very salient point that the dirty socialist media narrative is not a whit different for all the Boehnerhomos’s bowings and scrapings.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 3:38 pmGOP candidates need to make it clear what they stand for — whether it’s fiscal or social issues — instead of trying to be everything to everybody.
Therein lies the heart of the matter: The GOP itself is not collectively fixed on what it stands for. There are factions within, strong factions, with neither willing to concede in order to make a solid cohesive front.
There is the Palin crowd that holds social issues on a par with fiscal issues – with the exception of a pro-life stance which supersedes all else; and then there are those who are straight ahead fiscal conservatives with everything else (social issues) given far less significance because the economy is everything.
There isn’t much time left to hone the message, let alone figure out what the message is.
The Washington Times looked at this and the potential impact on the midterm elections,
A skirmish is breaking out on the right just when key components of the Republican coalition – the fiscal, social and national-defense conservatives – appeared to have a tacit agreement to focus on economic issues going into the 2010 midterm elections.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/20/2010 @ 4:38 pmActually Dana, you may be pigeonholing the Palin crowd, how many times has she said ‘this is not free money, we’re borrowing from China” how many
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 4:42 pmtimes has she insisted that we exploit our own resources, support the troops in Afghanistan, oppose ‘death panels; well you get the gist, Now
that may be Huckabee, next door over
You have a point, ian cormac, however, I don’t believe there any way she would ever yield regarding her pro-life stance. Personally I see that as a strength of character and consistent with her principles; however, as far as this conversation of unifying the GOP into a solid conservative message that most can agree with, it is perhaps, divisive.
As far as reaching those who didn’t vote or disappointed Dems and Indepdents, this might lose them. They might prefer to sit another one out rather than give a pro-life endorsement.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 6/20/2010 @ 4:56 pmNo Dana is correct on this I think Mr. cormac.
the Palin crowd that holds social issues on a par with fiscal issues
this is from her facebook endorsement of that Carly woman
I think that’s pretty much the definition of holding social issues on a par with fiscal issues.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 4:57 pmPro energy development, pro military, anti health care, pr Second Amendment, which one of those do you disagree with,feets, that’s more the likes of “Princess Lindsey” as you say, who tends to skimpon these things. Carly was competing with DeVore, who was even militant on these score, there was no end of bad blood that surged, because she didn’t endorse him
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 5:04 pmI’m just saying these ones in the Palin camp are putting social issues on a par with fiscal issues.
And me personally I think it’s kind of a dumb/dishonest thing to do when your little country is facing an existential fiscal crisis.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 5:19 pmI think Dana has a nice read on it that’s sort of hard for me to communicate cause of I have trouble saying things in a temperate reasoned fashion.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 5:21 pmSome are, some don’t, it’s a very one dimensional read on things feets, now what you fail to realize is that the ‘religious right’ is a reactive response to events. Abortion came by judicial fiat, as did not only the removal of prayer from the public square, but the stigmatizing of parent’s imparting said values to the next generation. The same with gay marriage, what was the pressing need for that. Now her position was more nuanced about that, but hell no one cares about the dang facts, pardon my french, she caught hell for supporting a PP candidate for the state high court
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 5:51 pmwe’ll see, but I don’t see any reason to expect that Team R can beat Obama in 2012 on a platform of Jesus issues. The Tea Party has pointed the way… the fiscal issues unify, the Jesus issues divide.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 5:59 pmbut to be clear, in the taxonomy of things, Sarah Palin stands with the Boehnerpublicans far more than she does with the tea party I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:00 pmhere’s Palin’s latest breathless endorsement… notice what comes first and what comes last
or don’t. I’m just saying I do.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:05 pmActually, no, feets, she was the tea party before there was one, now you want to repudiate the party’s platform since 1980, go back to the excitement of Nixon and Ford (the vapors) then go ahead. It’s funny among the ranks of pro choice republicans are Specter, whoops, Collins, Snowe, Crist, there’s a certain sense they will abandonother principles almost as readily, ie; Brown voting for the Dodd powergrab
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:14 pmfeets – I don’t see Jesus mentioned in the Carly endorsement. I think you’re seeing shadows again.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:18 pmthe party’s platform since 1980 is wholly irrelevant to the formidable challenges our little country is facing… and if she was Tea Party before there was one than her support for McCain suggests that she is a woman what is wholly without integrity because cap n trade for the cameras McCain may be a lot of things but tea party is sure as hell not one of them.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:19 pm(grazin’ in the grass is a gas baby can you dig it)*
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:21 pmoh that’s just shorthand for religious right issues Mr. daley what are divisive
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:22 pmYou never know what they will describe as divisive,
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:27 pmlike owning private property, using gasoline, defending yourself against criminals, you know
crazy stuff like that
Now Shelby attacking Hayward for attending an event back in his native England, after they got their pound of flesh, is a cup of ‘epic fail’ Romney will eventually get around to deciding what his opinion
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:31 pmon the Barton thing will be, maybe
Romney makes Sarah Palin look almost presidential I think. She should stand next to him whenever possible.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:39 pmYes he still believes the TARP worked, and thinks ‘cap n trade’ is peachy keen, or words to that effect, and don’t forget Masscare, it’s too die
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:45 pmfor, literally
Well Mr Feet, tell us all again how that purity business is working out for you? I seem to recall your saying that McCain was no different from Obama.
I just want to thank every conservative that sat out the last election. Good job getting Obama elected.
I guess I don’t hear enough about people you support, Mr Feet. We all get to hear “hoochie” quite often, however.
Eric Blair (a30317) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:50 pm“oh that’s just shorthand for religious right issues Mr. daley what are divisive”
Mr. feets – I understand, but the issues in the Carly endorsement are not exclusive to the religious right no matter how much whoever the “religious right” scares the C.R.A.P. out of you and other voters. Do you know where you can get a membership in the “religious right?” Just seems like a stale old bugaboo for lazy thinkers.
Praise Jeebus.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:55 pmHi Eric I heart Mr. Daniels. I am not a purity person, I just think Team R has this one last shot if our little country is to be meaningfully saved and Palin Romney Pawlenty Gingrich can’t beat Obama. But I didn’t sit out last election and I’m not even sure but that I wouldn’t throw my last shred of dignity to the wind and vote for Miss Alaska in 2012. Not making any promises, mind you.
Mr. daley we shall see but I think it’s rather more nuanced than that. I say this cause of the savaging of Mr. Daniels what went on at Hot Air and at Ace of Spades when he said that America’s paramount concern was somehow maybe hopefully getting this country’s squalid third world financial picture back into some semblance of sustainability. Nonono they said… the Jesus issues are just as important and you Mr. Daniels are a scurrilous unchristian bandersnatch (or somesuch… don’t quote me on that).
Ok whatever I thought to myself, but you ones are wrong.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:06 pmMr. Feets – I don’t no nuffin about Mr. Daniels or his savaging. You do sound like nishi when you talk about Jesus issues, and she is about the most ridiculous person I have crossed paths with on the internets. Usually people say that stuff when they don’t want to talk about real issues or problems with candidates they like.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:22 pmI made a long post on the other thread on Barton earlier today, probably should have made it here. (https://patterico.com/2010/06/18/ace-on-how-joe-barton-should-have-approached-the-topic/#comments)
There are people who want “true conservatism” whatever that is, and it’s a foolish demand.
There are those who want to be “practical” to the point of David Brooks where it seems there is no such thing as principles, just playing political strategy to win an election with an “R”. That to me is worse than foolish.
Somewhere in between is a range of conservatism that is wise, and I think there are better things to do than scrap on the perimeters.
Barton was correct in content, in fact, there’s a list of reasons to apologize to BP and a list of people and nations to apologize to in addition to BP.
As said in #51 and by others, once the comment was made the thing to do was to clarify what he said and what he meant, and demonstrate how it was true.
The Dems get away with all kinds of lies, distortions, and dishonesty, and conservatives need to be able to stick to their guns about the truth, if necessary by apologizing for missteps and then moving on.
I understand the need to compete in a world of sound bites, but, if every election turns into who has the better PR campaign without regard to the right ideas, then civilization is lost. We need to communicate truth so people will hear it, not simply work to avoid putting our foot in our mouth.
MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:22 pmokey dokey then “Jesus issues” is out and we’re back to “issues principally of concern to the religious right”
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:28 pm“issues principally of concern to the religious right”
Who are these people and why are issue principally only of concern to them? Sounds SCARY!!!!
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:44 pmAlso sounds BS. IMHO.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:45 pmonly of concern to them
Who are “them” though these days? The reason I like “Jesus issues” though is that it more better acknowledges the crude (white, Christian) identity politics dynamic at play on Team R, something about which nishi is absotively correct by the way.
So yes, it can be elastic. The dirty socialists are very keen on making Team R own the issues principally of concern to the religious right… but do we want it to be that elastic?
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:48 pmWhat’s the alternative? The partial birth abortion supporters and climate change religionists seem to be taken.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:55 pmMr. Feets – That is giving up the narrative to the left and allowing them to frame it, which is absolutely wrong and I am surprised at you for falling for it. We are a Christian nation, left, center and right, black, white, and hispanic. You have caved in to the left’s identity politics.
Shame, shame, shame.
What you need is a good Jesus Prayer to soothe your soul.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:57 pmthe alternative is Mr. Daniels’ suggestion that we focus on our fiscal plight in hopes that one day we can again have the luxury of arguing these subjects I think….
me personally in the spirit of full disclosure I’ve lost all patience with issues what don’t address the very real danger that our little country as we know it faces a dissolution
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:59 pmI just LOL over how the left periodically cues up the reactionary “religious right” to instill fear into the hearts of American voters. They’ve been doing it off and on for at least the past 30 years and people still fall for it.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:10 pmThe comments on this thread have been very amusing. I remember getting ripped to shreds by certain folks for suggesting that if “Team R” is going to make “principled statements” on behalf of the base, that the base is obligated to give a “come hell or high water” defense of the person making those “principled statements.”
Both Patterico and the commenters are making an excellent case why there’s no real profit in making “principled statements.” And I’m starting to come to the conclusion that it’s a good thing there’s no profit in it.
Brad S (06f94b) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:17 pmit’s not about fear it’s about making the right toxic to educated people and professionals and minorities and gays and it’s working and me I do not think it is a lol matter… it’s simple run of the mill identity politics. The right is become Other, and if we can berate Mr. Barton for not “saying it right” then there’s a whole passel of activists keen on the issues principally of concern to the religious right what could use a bit of a talking to as well I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:20 pmBTW, can anyone provide any real, tangible evidence that Barton’s foot-in-mouth apology has changed the current narrative about Obama’s lack of response to the spill? Just because the blogosphere is sensitive to rhetorical tactics doesn’t mean the rest of the public (or even the portion of the public that lives along the Gulf) is sensitive.
Every adminstration tries to change the subject from a bad narrative, and every opponent has given them some reason to try to do so. Doesn’t mean it’ll work, even in the short term.
Brad S (06f94b) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:22 pmthe amount captured reports are becoming harder to get… the play by play we used to get is drying up, Now more and more we hear about hearings, not the actual hole.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:25 pmBrad S,
Heh. We have had this discussion before, and you can count me in the group that doesn’t support someone just because they have an R by their name.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:36 pmYes, from a panel, that has practically no oil experts, on staff, but do have every incentive
ian cormac (38cac7) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:40 pmto maximize the extent of the crisis, because ‘you know you can’t waste it’, but don’t worry they’ll make any use of fossil fuels some kind of aberration, that’s what cap n trade is all about
Of course, if we were to take Ace’s point at face value, that means the Overton Window is a fallacy. And Glenn Beck and the Daily Kos freaks would be greatly chagrined to hear that.
Brad S (06f94b) — 6/20/2010 @ 8:49 pmMr. D is a lot perspicacious herein I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/20/2010 @ 9:09 pm