Guy Does Not Like Candidates from Party He Is Ashamed to Be Associated With
Instapundit says Professor Bainbridge doesn’t like the Republican field nowadays.
I thought Professor Bainbridge was the guy who is embarrassed to be a conservative, much less a Republican.
Maybe he should express his thoughts about presidential candidates from a party that he is willing to admit being a member of . . . as he discusses politics at his faculty cocktail parties.
I understand there is this guy Barack Obama who is just splendid — why, you can ask any of the professors!
P.S. I don’t like any of them either. (As presidential candidates.) But:
1. As a guy who is not ashamed to be a Republican, I feel entitled to express my opinion.
2. I like them all better than Obama.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:41 pmI was wondering who was going to be the leader of the “Libertarians to Re-Elect Obama” movement for 2012. Looks like the professor is stepping up to the plate to offer his services, if Republican primary voters fail to please him.
John (8dd4e7) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:48 pmI re-checked my link above and it’s worse than I remembered. Bainbridge wasn’t merely embarrassed to be a Republican — he was embarrassed even to be a conservative!
I tinkered with the language of the post accordingly.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:49 pmHoly crap, I didn’t know T. Coddington Van Vorhees VII was actually based on a real person.
East Coast Chris (c31a9b) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:50 pmAs a semi-defense of Bainbridge, I don’t like any of the current candidates as well. Romney and Huckabee do nothing for me, Palin can’t win and Gingrich is Gingrich. If Mike Pence runs, I might get excited. Maybe I could get behind Herman Cain, if he gains some traction.
East Coast Chris (c31a9b) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:51 pmI wish this enlightened centrist hadn’t said he liked Mitch Daniels. Now people are going to think Mitch isn’t conservative.
I bet the smartest candidates are happily flying under the radar. I can’t imagine why Ron Paul is being listed next to Romney or Palin. Might as well list Nader, too.
If you’re going to cast a protest vote, if Palin or Romney are opposing Obama, you’re not just ashamed to be associated with conservatives, you aren’t associated with conservatives. I don’t even like those two very much and I’d give at least 65% of my pinky to replace Obama with either of them.
What goof has Palin made that comes close to Rev Wright’s crazy church and snorting cocaine? That’s like cooking meth with the local Klan, in my book. What flip flop has Romney made that betrays insincerity to the degree Obama’s condemnation and also expansion of Bush’s war on terror does?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:54 pmI know many folks hate to hear this, but Professor Bainbridge—who is a nice fellow in person, and quite smart—doesn’t understand that the perfect is the mortal enemy of the good.
We saw this before. People weren’t “close enough” to “perfection” and all we heard was sniping about how awful the candidate was. And then someone far, far worse won.
So, in the upcoming election, get ready to hear how the Republican candidate is terrible, awful, unacceptable. The real question remains: would you rather have four more years?
For some folks who say they are on the Right, I suspect they wouldn’t mind four more years.
But if they do that, promote that, help make that happen…I don’t want to hear them kvetch about those four more years.
Simon Jester (8d21ad) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:55 pmRepublican…conservative: it’s one and the same to some. Interchangeable.
I don’t like anyone on the list either and would be sorely disappointed if I am going to be forced to have to choose one of them.
OTH, I will joyfully choose one or any of them to keep Obama out.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:01 pmDo they drink sherry at those West Coast faculty parties or is that an East Coast tradition?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:04 pmI think that is lesson one for the GOP these days.
I also think this was the reason we would up with Mccain. We didn’t nominate him so much as we ruled everyone else out and he was the last man standing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:06 pmI voted for Dole, and wasn’t ashamed of it, I’d rather vote for someone than against, which has been the standard much of the time.
narciso (6075d0) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:08 pmDaley, I think it is more of a organic free range antibiotic free Chilean red thing on the West Coast.
Simon Jester (8d21ad) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:12 pmYes, I know a few egg heads who still back Obama but most have given up.
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:34 pmC’mon Patrick…he’s right regardless of whether he is a ‘good Republican’ or not.
Since it appears that my fellow swing voters and I will decide things, the issue is who can pull us over to your side. Mitt, Newt, Sarah? Not happening. Mitch or Chris or Tim? Maybe – but Chris is out (and from Jersey and probably has Jimmy Hoffa-sized bodies buried in his dad’s backyard), Mitch is charisma-free, and Tim is smart and charming, but as Sondheim says, nice is different than good. I don’t see it.
I’ll watch Daniels with a lot of interest, but he’s the guy I see winding up as VP or SecTreas under someone more – Presidential.
And do I have buyers’ remorse on Obama? Yeah, pretty much. He’s failed to meet my low expectations. Then again, it’d be interesting to do a counterfactual on what would have happened if McCain had won…
Marc
Armed Liberal (0730c3) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:55 pmThe funny part, to me, are the people who insist that McCain would have appointed people “just as bad” or promoted policies “just as bad.”
I don’t think they are talking about McCain at all. I think they are trying to feel better about their own choices.
Again: four more years? That’s the thought we ALL need to have in our heads.
Simon Jester (8d21ad) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:06 pmI despise mc cain but i voted for for him because our primarys are hugely flawed and now every one knows how bad the alternative was. A protest vote was effectively a vote for obama. Those responsible for the last two years and the next two will be paying for the error of their ways till they are in the grave and then their children will be burdened with the sin of their parent.
dunce (b89258) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:10 pmIt does raise a query, what did you expect AL, Obama from all indications, was the opposite of everything I’ve seen you espouse at WoC, was it
just ‘hope over experience’.
Now, Simon, in many ways, McCain would have been better, then again, there’s a reason he called the
narciso (6075d0) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:15 pmpress, ‘his base’ up until 2008. Because he had been a severe critic of large parts of the GOP’s
traditional agenda, on a whole host of areas, taxes, free speech, domestic oil production, prisoner detentions, the dubiousness of AGW
I hate to admit that I would gladly take a RINO to unseat Obama. I make it a point not to compromise my beliefs, but, in this case, I’ll put them in storage, temporarily, of course.
sybilll (05295f) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:24 pmOne teeny weeny point: Mccain was hugely moderate for a GOP nominee. Those who want someone more moderate than Mccain simply don’t want a Republican at all. Which is their right, but also great for putting their POV in its place.
I think charisma and ‘the historic occasion’ clouded the election to where people were not necessarily choosing Obama over Mccain on policy alone, so I’m not sure how relevant my point is. Obama is no longer a blank slate. He isn’t the anti-war president many fools thought he was. He isn’t the optimistic leader who can inspire hope. He isn’t changing DC into a more transparent place. And boy howdy were his deficit cutting promises a load of crap.
Also, he is taking a lot of blame for the economy.
I think the entire election will be a referendum on Obama. People will be voting for or against Obama.
A lot of people will try to make selecting the GOP nominee about whether they leave the coalition if they don’t get their way. We should ignore those people, because they are worthless. We should select the nominee who we think would make the best president. Let the general electorate work with that argument, instead of ‘this guy appeals to those voters in this poll’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:03 am_____________________________________
Those who want someone more moderate than Mccain simply don’t want a Republican at all.
That’s even truer since the mid-point of the socio-political spectrum has shifted left over the past 50 or so years. So in the context of 1950, a liberal then would be defined as a moderate today. Or a conservative in 2010 would have been labeled a moderate/centrist decades ago.
Under those circumstance, I possibly could have given a person of the left back in the 1940s or 1950s thumbs up—eg, it’s hard to believe that legislation in the US Congress in the early 1960s to ban lynching was deemed controversial! But a liberal in 2011?! Hell, no. That would be like being an enabler to an 800-pound person who’s claiming that he eats modestly and is serious about going on a diet.
Mark (411533) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:17 amI’m an independent. I’ve voted Democrat for President, Republican for President, protest vote for President.
My take-away, I guess, is that you proud and faithful party members don’t want to know what I and other independents think about your possible candidates until the general election.
Duly noted. I’ll not spoil the surprise.
Ciarand (8dbced) — 1/21/2011 @ 5:14 amWhat I would consider more interesting is this: What do you think of Obama, and compared to a Tim Pawlenty whom would you prefer?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/21/2011 @ 5:39 am“sane, but electable like Daniels or Pawlenty”
Ah, the old ‘electable’ shibboleth. Got that, then you get to eat dinner.
Yeah, I see what you thirtysomething libertarians like about Daniels, Ivy League Lawyer, Bush Admin, term-limited(not just a year in), but he’s short and has an odd appearance, and odd relationship with the missus, and an odd lack of appeal to conservatives in IN.
I’ve just had 8 with Timmy. FU.
Electable, in what sense electable? Two terms an executive. They can win the Nomination? They can get 45% nationwide and beat Ogabe?
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 5:43 amI hope Mr. Daniels and his ideas are on the stage when the Team R candidates debate. Team R doesn’t have much of a prayer with its current crop of frontrunners.
I don’t really understand the appeal that the desperately-pandering Pawlenty has for Mr. Bainbridge though. If I had to guess I’d bet Mr. bainbridge hasn’t looked at him all that closely.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:02 amComment by Ciarand — 1/21/2011 @ 5:14 am
You can get off your arrogant high-horse at this time, thank you. It’s not going to offend your sensibilities to come and play in the mud with the rest of us partisans.
And the same goes for you, Armed Liberal.
Brad S (9f6740) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:05 amAnd as for this notion of “Sarah Palin IS NOT ELECTABLE!!!11!!!eleventy!”, I wonder what your responses would be if Sarah said the magic words “I’m doing a third party run for President?” That action, by itself, would expose every Republican weakness you would think of, without having to discuss a single candidate.
So the fact that Sarah has the Republican Party by the short-and-curly-ones is fairly obvious.
Brad S (9f6740) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:20 amHere’s a gem from the Glenn Beck head-shooty transcript:
🙂
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:22 amPatrick, you’ve proven yourself to be an idiot once again. Explain how anyone with a brain (and perhaps you don’t have one) could pick Palin or Huck over Obama.
Jim (87e69d) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:36 amA Ron Paul/Barack Obama election would be fascinating and entertaining. Imagine the scene at the debate when Ron Paul gives a speech about “fiat currency” and Obama responds with “What does an Italian car have to do with, um, anything?”
Gregory of Yardale (db9fb3) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:43 am“21.I’m an independent…proud and faithful party members don’t want to know what I and other independents think about your possible candidates until the general election.”
Yeah, war is hard.
Gallup did their late October affliate polling and found 27% Thugs, 30% TEAS or just about 40% Indies total.
Yesterday Fox had 42% willing to vote for the Joker again. CNN had 48% considering the Won a failure sampling 31% as Dimmis(ok) 21% Thugs(!).
The Indies break 40% so-lib, 60% so-con. 2010 voting was 46.5% ‘GOP’, 42% Dimmi.
The big knock against the ‘hated candidate’ from the so-con side is she’s complicit with the DIABLOs, e.g., the ‘Mav’. But she got him 5%, minimum, at crunch time.
My takeaway, polling Indies this primary season will be frought with error, but critical to setting candidate’s upsides.
Yeah, you’ll lose some so-libs on a move to the right but most are voting Dimmi like last time regardless.
I say a move to the left, i.e., a Romney, and you could struggle to break 40%.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:52 amI think it is cute that the predictably leftist Armed Liberal tries to claim the mantle of a swing voter.
JD (3dddfd) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:15 am“24…Team R doesn’t have much of a prayer with its current crop of frontrunners.”
The sober judgement of `oi polloi, our gregarious, ‘Hail fellow’, mr. feet.
Herman Cain and Meg Whitman’s 2010 money can beat the Duffer in Chief. Romney and Ron Paul’s mummy can lose to Il Douche.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:23 amIf Harry Reid could win in Nevada in 2010 then Team R has no reason to feel particularly cocky about defeating bumblef in 2012, especially with any of the five frontrunners Mr. Bainbridge mentions.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:29 amHow many times do we need to remind everyone that no party challenging for the seat usually has a clear and identified set of front – runners for the nomination at this point? I have real hope that we haven’t even seen or heard from the eventual nominee (c/mon, Gov. Christie, forgettabout NJ already!).
The funny part, to me, are the people who insist that McCain would have appointed people “just as bad” or promoted policies “just as bad.”
Yeah, I’ve been getting that same bullcrap from most of my friends, who posit the usual “well, what do you think McCain would have done that would have been any better for the economy?” To which I reply, “McCain was an economic illiterate – he would have done absolutely NOTHING about the economy, and we’d be in the second year of a recovery by now.” End of argument.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:36 amRon Paul’s mummy can lose to Il Douche.
FTW!
Dmac (498ece) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:37 am“32.If Harry Reid could win in Nevada in 2010 then Team R has no reason to feel particularly cocky”
Nevada, bellwether of the nation.
Choose your analogy from Missouri, Ohio or even Florida and we might give you a C for effort and politely pass over the logic.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:39 amI’m with feets.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:44 amI don’t think Team R can beat Barcky, so they might as well run Palin and get it over with.
JD (3dddfd) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:53 am2010 shows that it’s feasible I think, but you can’t get there from here
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:00 amTwo years is an eternity, and the Journolist is going to make it feel like one. Scherer, seen wondering how Fox could be proscribed, gives Romney the PG -13 treatment
narciso (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:05 amtwo years is an eternity but prospective candidates need to be pretty well organized by this summer
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:08 amMy take-away, I guess, is that you proud and faithful party members don’t want to know what I and other independents think about your possible candidates until the general election.
Duly noted. I’ll not spoil the surprise.
Comment by Ciarand
This doesn’t even make sense. Most independents do not follow politics closely and make their decisions on feelings. Those who are a little bit engaged have a feeling of impending doom and have turned right.
I am always reminded of a young woman who called Hugh Hewitt’s radio show in 2008 and told him she was an independent and voted for the “best candidate” regardless of party He asked if he could ask her a few questions to judge her philosophy. The first question he asked was “Who is the vice-president ?” She didn’t know !
So much for independents. Anybody who tried to devise policy to please them is probably an ad executive selling toothpaste.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:33 amWe’ve got “Moby” for fake Conservatives. What term should we adopt for fake “independents” ?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:41 am“Most independents do not follow politics closely and make their decisions on feelings…
Anybody who tried to devise policy to please them is probably an ad executive selling toothpaste.”
Words to
livedie by.My first-ever opportunity Nixon-McGovern I stayed home rather than vote Socialist or whatever the options were back then. No, it did not matter.
But, I remember in ’92 appealing to cohorts that a vote for Perot was at best wasted.
In retrospect I and H.G.W. were asshats.
CA is lost and no amount of work by anyone will save her, but mindless reductionism is a guaranteed loser and we’re not ready to throw in the towel.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:56 amI gotta say, Gary, this is incredibly unfair.
Daniels remarried his wife. I don’t know who out there is trying to slime him with that, but it’s not an ‘odd relationship’. Stop trying to smear a good man with innuendo. If this is all you got on him, he sounds excellent to me.
A lot of good people out there suffer marriage problems. Daniels did, and worked them out and remarried his wife. It’s none of our business, really, but it also shows he’s the kind of person to work hard on what’s important. i feel sorry for people who think this is odd.
What’s wrong with his appearance? Are you saying we should elect someone who looks like Mitt Romney?
Or are you just saying we should bash everyone?
Let’s see a constructive criticism. Who do you think would be a better president than Mitch Daniels? He’s actually a strong leader, making good results as governor, with a great idea of what it takes to be president because he’s worked in the WH. And he’s a good campaigner.
I’m not telling people to support Mitch. I’m telling them that this sort of candidate really does exist, if that’s what they want. Telling me he’s weird, in some vague, dirty way, is just a lazy response. Who is the candidate you think should run?
—
It’s a good idea to not select unelectable candidates. This is a lot different from letting people trash eachother via some phantom independent issue. Anyway, the GOP tried the most independent friendly candidate we could, and failed. That doesn’t mean our candidate shouldn’t be electable, but I think if we focus on who would be the best President, that problem is addressed in a superior fashion.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:57 amTake a look at the legislative agenda Daniels outlined in the last couple weeks, and then try to tell me that he would not be a great leader.
JD (3dddfd) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:59 amReally?
I think you were completely right. Can you imagine how much better the world would be, had HW won? Perot played a spoiler, to the end, his mission to get as many votes, pretending to be viable. What a shame to the Republic. You were right the first time.
I’ve said that too, many times. Hard to argue against this, but it’s not very constructive, and there have been campaigns make a lot of headway. No candidate really is perfect, and it seems like any imperfection in a republican becomes the entire narrative of any Cali election.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:06 amObama’s going to get re-elected with a crappy economy and $5/gallon gas? That’s speculative but it seems to me that headwind, which seems likely/better than 50-50, is going to make it difficult to keep 96% of his voters (lose 2 of his 52+ pps). Oh, the Obots will come out alright. But anybody even receptive to the arguments of the right are going to be difficult to hold. The Republicans don’t have to win these voters. They’ll come on their own.
East Bay Jay (19f566) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:09 amDepends, Earl. If we elect a GOP President, we’ll get probably have both houses of Congress (since the Dems have more open seats to defend in the Senate) plus the President all GOP. Remember how that worked the last time? (I’m going to vote for Obama for the block.)
Jim (87e69d) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:16 am“Jim” speaks of we when referring to the GOP and then claims he will vote for Teh One for divided govt. I call BS on yet another Moby and/or previously banned douchenozzle.
JD (d48c3b) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:42 am45. “I gotta say, Gary, this is incredibly unfair.”
And life is fair? Viz., Milhouse “it would be morally wrong to eject them all[, the illegals].
Mike K. said most Independents, i.e., 40%, most of which, will vote, will not go to the work of becoming informed. I’d say that is rather a good description of the electorate as a whole.
Yes, present company is certainly excepted.
Today the government has admitted(yeah, who knows what the truth might be) that illegals have taken 1 million of the jobs created in this economy.
Do you hope to ‘educate’ unemployed construction workers that, despite their goodwill toward the world’s poor, amnesty is not in their best interests-following selection of the candidate?
Do you hope to go without the biblethumper vote, since after all Catholics and Jews don’t take their religions’ dogma seriously, why should anyone?
No offense, but remaking the world in ‘our’ image is not an over-arching philosophy espoused by conservatives, quite the opposite.
Please, please let go of the notion, you free-thinkers, that we have only to be reasonable and any problems we apply our formidable intellect to will vanish.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:45 am“We’ve got “Moby” for fake Conservatives. What term should we adopt for fake “independents” ?”
– SPQR
I suggest “windsock”. Or “Fox” (sorry, can’t resist).
Leviticus (b987b0) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:51 amLeviticus, well so many real “independants” do match “windsock”. I’m thinking we need a term for people who falsely claim to be independants.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:53 amThat’s it?
You said there was something wrong with putting your marriage back together. What is so odd about doing that? I think that’s imminently normal and good.
You’ve lost me. Mitch Daniels fixing his marriage is going to cost him the ‘biblethumper’ vote? I realize that this is the sort of person your incredibly vague comment was meant to influence. After all, you aren’t saying what’s odd about Daniels. You make it sound like they are swingers or perverts or abusive, when all you’re really talking about is a man remarrying his wife.
Sure, that might work. There are some people who beleived this kind of vague ‘odd’ crap about Romney’s faith, too.
Is your reaction to this still going to be “life isn’t fair!”?
You’re talking about some very general and strange issues you have with democracy or religion or something like that.
I’m talking about Mitch Daniels being a great leader, a great campaigner, with results and experience. I’m saying the worst slur I’ve heard has been to bash the man for something that isn’t even wrong, using vagueness to suggest something wrong.
And yes, that’s unfair. If you think it’s OK to be unfair because life is unfair, I’m afraid that’s moral cowardice.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:53 amYelverton, please stop posting as JD. (That is a joke, JD, but probably not to you). I guess JD thinks that the only non-regulars who post here are Yelverton and losers who have been banned or need to hide their IDs.
Oh, and why are you now focused on Moby Dick?
Jim (87e69d) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:53 amAs an aside, the last time I saw a breakdown by self-identification in political leanings, Fox News Channel got a large number of self-identified “independants” as watchers compared to CNN and MSNBC …
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:54 amDustin, you’re right that those are mean and false slurs about Daniels. Here’s a mean but true one: He’s from Indiana and looks and acts like it.
Jim (87e69d) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:55 amYes, that was a pretty low blow, didn’t they remarry again, we’re talking about policies and beliefs, not personal junk. I like his position
narciso (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 9:58 amon government unions, not so much his ‘truce’or
his willingness on defense cuts, Many of the Rinosphere, have turned their attentions to him,
from Romney
Fair points.
However, his truce was simply rhetoric. And what it meant was that our finances are the most important crisis. More important than Gay marriage or DADT. I agree with the idea that if we can push on finance, at the cost of other issues, then we should do that. I realize it’s unrealistic to expect a truce, but even then, the most important thing is the fiscal situation.
In fact, it’s a national security issue. I believe we must be prepared for war, but I also think the Pentagon can tighten her belt. There is no absolute where the DOD can never overspend, after all.
I should add that I’ve never preferred Romney, except when it appeared to be either Romney, Huck, or Mccain, in 2008. Your point on the RINOsphere is completely valid, but I wanted to note that I demand someone who will practice limited government. Because I cannot moderate on that point, I prefer Mitch Daniels.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:03 amAnd I’m not going to lie, I like some people that are described as RINOs. I like Chris Christie because he really is a leader, he has he act together, and he does what he says he’ll do (he doesn’t have even slightly enough experience to be qualified yet). I also liked Rudy. But they are gun grabbers, and I rationalize this unforgivable problem with the fact that they are unlikely to act on that, or be able to act on that.
I don’t think I count as a RINO for this, but some people will disagree. I certainly am not preferring a candidate over another because they are less conservative. Show me this other guy, and you might even change my mind.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:07 am“The Republicans don’t have to win these voters.”
Yes, that is the conventional wisdom, the club we Neanderthals receive, “Yes sir! May I have another?”
Ron Paul’s mummy can take 12%, no sweat, Lawn-Jockey Lenin has 42%, where does that leave your fait accompli?
Your final rebuttal, “Remember DE!!!”. Oh, we remember.
Lincoln won re-election in ’58 to IL House, then contested IL Senate against Douglas, as a Whig.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:10 amThere is nothing “fair” about criticizing Daniels for the truce, since it was completely demagogues by the Pawlenty loving hotair clowns.
JD (d48c3b) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:12 amJD, you’re right that it was demogogued to all hell, but it’s fair for someone who has heard that crap to bring it up, and then have a discussion about it. Compared to Gary’s point, it seems like something more appropriate and fair for discussion to me.
I agree that it’s not what it was advertised as.
It sucks that little snippets, from reasonable arguments, wind up ripped out and repeated thousands of times.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:20 am“That’s it?”
That was the first sentence, indeed. Do you even know my personal stance on either Daniels’ marriage or amnesty for illegals? No, because I did not give either.
Here you go again, saying “The perfect is the enemy of the good” and fight ’til we’ve left the voting booth for the perfect.
Conscious dreaming.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:21 amWhy is anyone bringing up Daniels’s marriage as an issue? To whom could it possibly be an issue? Is there any religion that objects to it? (Even Judaism has no problem with it, since neither Mr nor Mrs Daniels are Jews, so Deut 24:4 doesn’t apply to them.) So who exactly will be turned off by it, or influenced by it in any way?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 11:54 amExactly. You brought it up, in the vaguest sense, and your reaction when called on it was ‘Life isn’t fair’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 11:57 amI have serious problems with Huckabee, Romney, and Gingrich. I suppose I’d prefer any of them to Obama with a D congress, but given the likelihood of Rs controlling both houses, and since I think Hillary will do to Obama what Kennedy almost did to Carter, I’d prefer a D president to Huckabee. Romney and Gingrich, I’m not sure.
So far, I’m still supporting Palin. Not that she’s perfect, but she’s good enough. But it could be that someone even better will come along. I could easily see myself supporting Daniels, Barbour, maybe Pawlenty.
And Jindal for VP. Bolton for SecState. Palin, if she doesn’t get the top job, should get either Energy or Interior.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 11:58 amAlso, what comment of mine is this meant to pertain to?
It’s true, I don’t think we’ll find a perfect candidate. So?
You’re fitting the textbook definition of ankle biting. What constructive point do you have about Daniels? If you think he’s a loser, politically, because you don’t think he’s attractive, and because he remarried his wife, who do you think is a winner?
Explain what you’re operating off of.
It’s not constructive to just rule every single candidate out. I suspect you do have a preferred candidate in mind (no clue who) and don’t want to name them because your arguments are toxic and you know better than to associate them with your guy.
But that’s actually the optimistic scenario. What if you really don’t have anyone in mind? You’re just telling me I shouldn’t see ‘perfection’, because that’s what you’re seeking.
Anyway, you are quite right that I have very little insight into what your POV is.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:02 pmEvidently ‘snow machine’ champion Todd Palin has had chakra’s exorcised by a masseuse, with whom he’s had a compromising relationship.
Will this be a ffolkes-Haley thing, a salacious relationship in separate cities together, one party unaware of its existence or something more substantial?
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:06 pmGetting away from the personal lovelife issue completely, I am curious about people’s view on Daniels’s physical appearance.
Does this guy not have an acceptable appearance?
Personally, I just don’t have the software to think this way. I actually often think someone who is too pretty looking is fake, or at least too worried about their vanity. I resist the Obama and Edwards style candidates.
But I also know I’m unusual and that a lot of people can be influenced simply by the fact someone looks like Dukakis in that MBT.
He looks like a plain dude to me. Am I an outlier? Do people think this guy’s appearance is wrong for the oval office?
What would it say about the GOP if it nominated someone on the basis of their appearance? We’re not just trying to cater to voters’ most basic and dumb instincts, we’re appealing to them that we are a source of policy leadership because, as a party, the GOP can make responsible calls.
That’s why I think part of ‘electability’ is simply picking who we honestly think would be the best president. I think far more Americans will appreciate that, than would appreciate some kind of cynical choice. just look at Chris Christie.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:10 pmgary gulrud, “Lawn Jockey Lenin” is a piss-poor choice of words, just FYI.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:10 pmYou’re doing this for the lulz, and own a horse, etc, right?
What’s the snow machine in scare quotes for? Is that some double entendre for cocaine?
Are you having a good time?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:11 pmGulrud, what on earth are you up to? What is this “evidently”? I’m behind on my National Enquirer subscription so I have no idea what you’re referring to, but I assume this is some new rumour; why would it have any more legs than the identical rumours that were spread last year and two years ago, or the corresponding ones about Sarah? When I first heard the rumour that Sarah had dallied with McCain, my immediate reaction was “Have you seen what she has at home? Why would she trade that for this?” And the same applies in the other direction. The Palins are both lucky to have each other, and have no reason to look elsewhere.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:26 pmYou’re doing this for the lulz, and own a horse, etc.
No, around here pipples drive ‘snowmobiles’ to work, school, shopping, etc.
It is a heuristic for you and Milhouse, feigning ignorance, of the sh*tstorm awaiting the GOP nominee.
First Wookie gets her stern photoshopped to runabout proportions and you putative ingenues believe their opponents’ private lives will be off-limits.
Like A-Rod won’t be envisioned taking down their 12-year old.
Again, my interest is limited to-once the dead are counted and the hanging chad certified- having 45%. Telling the trailer trash or those speaking in tounges Wednesday nights they’ve no right to vote Huckabee is not a winning proposition.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:35 pmso you’re using scarequotes for no reason.
OK. I can’t say I don’t sometimes make up my own usage rules. Often people use scarequotes to imply they have a non-literal meaning.
ummmm, ok.
They have a right to vote for Huckabee or any other democrat they prefer.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:47 pmWhat in the hell is this even supposed to mean?
Do you really read that into his comments? Or mine?
He asked you to EXPLAIN YOUR ACCUSATIONS. They sound like lies. You said something was evident. Back that up with evidence.
Thank you, Detective, for the point that the GOP nominee will face tremendous flack. I think everyone with a pulse kinda figured that one out.
We should still pick whomever we think would make the best president, and you just repeating random garbage about anyone who is listed, as though it’s the truth, is not the best way to communicate that our nominee will be lied about.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:50 pmI thought Gary was one of those conservative guys with common sense who was tired of political games, and willing to call a spade a spade sometimes.
Have I confused him with someone else?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:52 pmApparently, Dustin, that one is willing to trawl in that tripe, which is not true, and I’m willing
narciso (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 12:55 pmto speculate where the lie is coming from; doesn’t speak well of him
“EXPLAIN YOUR ACCUSATIONS”
Accusations against the media or against those wanting almost anyone but the shiftless Bolshevik who might find the tastes, preferences, lifestyles of a candidate too foreign to understand?
Let’s entertain a few extreme possibilities: Mrs. Daniels’ 2nd husband is an SF lefty, a swinger, an abortion doctor, an oxy dealer, …, or on the opposite end, they maintain a blended family, he’s invited to the same party, he’s a partner in a physician-owned clinic,…
I know you’re Ok with all of that, bring it on. I say you’re Ok with another term for Magic.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 1:11 pmHe appears to be a bit too eager to call a spade a spade, based on his language here.
carlitos (cbd3cc) — 1/21/2011 @ 1:22 pm80. I knew someone would understand. Out.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 1:25 pmgary, I must have been mistaken. I honestly thought you were a sincere, normal person, who I didn’t always agree with (which is the whole point of discussion).
Now I see you’re an idiot. Feel free to entertain whatever dumb crap you want.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 1:27 pm“Now I see you’re an idiot.”
Have it your way Dusty. I am an idiot. Steve Schmidt will not be needing your services though.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:30 pmYou’re a dick. Steve Schmidt is also a selfish dick.
A lot of times, the dick will point fingers in some random direction in a desperate attempt to divert attention from their dickery.
I guess that sums up your recent body of work.
Ramble about someone else now, please. I’m just curious who else you’re associating me with that I pretty much can’t stand at all.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:35 pmSchmidt was alleging she was suffering from post partum depression, who engineered a whispering campaign against her, who repeated another insinuation to Vanity Fair’s last wretched drive by, this seems very much his style
narciso (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:37 pmNarciso is right. I just want to add, since perhaps I didn’t make this clear: I think the main reason Steve did that was to divert attention away from his personal and monumental failure. The Mccain campaign BLEW IT. It is amazing to me that they even had a shot in that political climate, but because Obama was politically vulnerable in several directions, they did have a shot, and they BLEW IT.
And Palin saw that. She was a national politics neophyte, but she knew that you have to criticize your opponents valid flaws in order to beat them. Steve pulled the dick move of slurring her, to complexify (a legal tactic term) up this idea that the campaign was impossible to manage.
In reality, people like Steve are the reason we lost this election. I also strongly blame Karl Rove for years of ignoring valuable messages that needed to be made about Bush and those demonizing Bush. It created the climate where we could barely win, but Steve sure as hell didn’t help.
And we should learn to recognize the dickish sleazy smear story move, and not respond to that kindly.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:41 pmThe thing you have to remember is that schmidt was
narciso (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 2:53 pmreally a mercenary, he didn’t have the personal tie that Rove had to W, he ultimately didn’t believe in the campaign, and after Lehman Bros
fell, he thought the campaign was over
And maybe it was, but they owed it to themselves to fight for limited government anyway. Give us an alternative to the Obama idea of massive stimulus. Instead, they decided to play ball with what was presumed to be the inevitable massive expansion of government, and an awful lot of people lost faith in Mccain. They didn’t have much to begin with.
Elevating Palin to the forefront of the campaign brought a lot of patriots into the fold, and it’s a shame some of these people didn’t take a personal stake in her success, on that campaign.
Actually, Palin was a great VP choice. I wouldn’t mind if Rubio or some of that nature were put in that role in 2012.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 3:01 pm“or some” should read “if someone”
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 3:01 pmnarcisco (#17) – It’s pretty much all here:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/nostra-armed_liberal_speaks.html
O has definitely underperformed expectations – one core assumption was competence. But the checks and balances I’d talked about seem to be working just fine.
And is that “san” narcisco?
Marc
Armed Liberal (0730c3) — 1/21/2011 @ 5:51 pmNo,although some think I’m Pynchonesque, it’s short for this name,
narciso lopez (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:04 pmWhat you left out, AL, is that Iraq was the ‘kill zone’ for the best of AQ’s operatives, that’s why we’ve ended up with generally third string operators like Mutallab, and Shahzad, who still almost succeeded. You didn’t anticipate a third
narciso lopez (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 6:11 pmforce like the Tea Party, or the fact that Obama’s administrative and regulatory overreach would cause such a backlash.
Armed Liberal, quick question I’m just curious about.
If they had an election tomorrow between John Mccain and Obama, would you vote Mccain? No trick or second step to this… I’m just curious.
Also, are you considering voting in the GOP primary?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:31 pmSwing voter, my arse.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:36 pmDustin, I genuinely have thought about this for the last month or so and can’t decide.
Obama has massively underperformed, period.
But McCain hasn’t covered himself with glory in the last two years by any stretch of the imagination…
So no, I don’t know. I wish I did – things would be simpler.
Marc
Armed Liberal (0730c3) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:41 pmnarcisco – re Iraq…
I was unhappy with the SOFA because I felt like Iraq needed a presence for a few more years to stabilize civil society, and that moving to a large footprint in Afghanistan risked far more than it might gain.
Marc
Armed Liberal (0730c3) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:44 pmArmed Liberal,
In my view, the only way you can say that is if you believe Obama either isn’t responsible for what’s happened in the last 2 years or, if he does bear some responsibility, you still believe Obama can fix what’s wrong. (I guess it’s also possible you believe no one can fix what’s wrong, in which case it doesn’t matter who is President.) Is any of this accurate?
DRJ (fdd243) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:47 pmIf you can still look at the choice between McCain and Obama and still choose Obama, you ain’t no swing voter.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:49 pmSo you voted for Obama, who wanted us,to leave before the Anbar Awakening and the counterinsurgency could take hold, what’s the logic in that?
narciso lopez (6075d0) — 1/21/2011 @ 7:53 pm“84.You’re a dick. Steve Schmidt is also a selfish dick.”
Coming from one as resolutely obtuse as yourself I’ll have to take that as a compliment.
You could not have further missed my import throughout than if on purpose. Oh, wait…
gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/21/2011 @ 10:04 pm