Fables: The Establishment Isn't Forcing Crap Candidates On Us; Crap Candidates and Crap Voter Decisions Are Forcing Crap Candidates On Us

A useful puncturing of a cherished myth.

McCain won in 2008 because voters disqualified most other candidates (or those candidates disqualified themselves) and because Huckabee wouldn't drop out, even after he was mathematically eliminated, and thus kept the anti-McCain vote split when only one man could mathematically stop him (Romney), which was his intention.

It's easier to just say "Teh Estabilshment." "Easier to say" rarely corresponds with "accurate to say," however.

The Republican Establishment, like the “international community,” is more of a figment than a reality. Whom did the so-called establishment support in 2008? Do conservative voters believe that Republican elites somehow engineered the selection of the least loyal and reliable Republican in the U.S. Senate? And how did that work exactly? John McCain was considered the frontrunner in early 2007. Yet by the summer he was languishing in the polls and so broke that he was forced to take out loans. Was it the establishment that earned McCain the nomination or was it the fact that Rudolph Giuliani ran a terrible campaign, Fred Thompson never got airborne, and Mike Huckabee undermined Mitt Romney’s Iowa sling-shot strategy?

What about 2000? Did the establishment pick George W. Bush? It might seem so, based on primogeniture. But the comfort with Bush came from the grassroots up, not from the top down. Bush himself acknowledged that he was enticed to run not by fat cats at a private club but by the polls. Yes, he was certainly aided in the money chase by his pedigree. But if money determined the outcome of primaries, we’d have been treated to the nomination of Phil Gramm in 1996.

People have this weird impulse to claim that the results of highly complex contests with hundreds of moving parts and unknown variables are, at least in politics, engineered by some controlling elite, deftly pulling this lever and pushing that button to shape the result per their wishes.

Does anyone extend this curious bit of religion to any other highly complex endeavor? When a football games results in a wild fourth-quarter dogpile with multiple lead-changes and a heroic last second 55 yard field goal (as with that Broncos win a month ago), did anyone claim that this outcome had been essentially "scripted" by the League looking to inject drama and narrative storylines into the season?

No. Or at least no one but confirmed lunatics claim this. We understand that even in a rather simple thing like a football game, there are all sorts of unexpected things that can and sometimes will happen, and this will produce unanticipated results.

But when it comes to politics, people suddenly start imagining Cigarette-Smoking Men controlling their very own votes.

I quote this next bit not to boost Romney, but to knock down Paul. While every other candidate is vowing some kind of painful but necessary reform to FDR's arguably-unconstitutional entitlement programs, you know the one guy who's vowing to keep them fully funded?

Paul's plan is to get the money for them from Foreign aid -- a pittance -- and by basically gutting defense. Which also isn't enough, but it's Doctor Ron Paul, so we don't sweat actual facts.

This year, most of the Republican field is strongly conservative. But some disgruntled conservatives are convincing themselves that Ron Paul is a more authentic conservative than Mitt Romney. Really? On the one question that ought to define a candidate’s seriousness — grappling with entitlements — Paul is trafficking in fairy tales while Romney has proposed far-reaching reforms.

So the strict constitutionalist Ron Paul wants to take all the money from a function that is listed as a federal governmental responsibility -- defense -- in order to pay for two programs which are not mentioned in the Constitution, and which, in fact, the Brave Speaker of Truth Paul claims are themselves unconstitutional.

And that, by the way, isn't enough money to keep them funded, but who cares, it's Ron Paul, doing what he does bests, offering fantasy solutions and chickening out from discussing the actual problems facing us, preferring to focus on paranoid bugaboos such as the TriLateral Commission.


Posted by: Ace at 06:15 PM



Comments

1 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 06:18 PM (8y9MW)

2 It's the media! They forced Sarah to drop her bid because they were just so mean! And now they're gonna force us to vote for the Establishment! It's the only way they ever win!

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:19 PM (zLeKL)

3 The Tri-Lateral Whatevers got Ace too. There, I said it.

Posted by: Mark Levin at January 03, 2012 06:19 PM (yBtkG)

4 And with that, I'm headed home.

Thanks to all the 'rons 'ettes for heading over to my blog today- I've had the stats up most of the day, and it's been a Red Letter day for me.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 06:19 PM (8y9MW)

5 Ron Paul 2012: because intentions=results

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 06:19 PM (vuzx2)

6 spoken like a true, secret, member of the nutmeg cabal.

Posted by: garrett at January 03, 2012 06:20 PM (CSyi3)

7 Ron Paul 2012: because fantasy candidates call for fantasy illusions

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 06:20 PM (vuzx2)

8 Only Ron Paul can save us!!1!!1

Posted by: Zero Hedge at January 03, 2012 06:20 PM (GdalM)

9 This is the same sort of argument leftists use to "prove" the mainstream media doesn't have a liberal bias.


You can make that sort of argument (i.e. that there is no such thing as a Republican Establishment, or Liberal Media) if you want to, but recognize that you are choosing to be incredibly intellectually dishonest by doing so.

Posted by: Ortho at January 03, 2012 06:21 PM (Wfwje)

10 True that- but there are more moderates in the GOP than conservatives. The majority of the Republican party is, by definition, "establishment".

Posted by: Valiant at January 03, 2012 06:21 PM (aFxlY)

11 Ron Paul 2012: because I love me some earmarks.

Posted by: Narf! Zort at January 03, 2012 06:21 PM (O6q63)

12 4
And with that, I'm headed home.

Thanks to all the 'rons
'ettes for heading over to my blog today- I've had the stats up most of
the day, and it's been a Red Letter day for me.


Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 06:19 PM (8y9MW)
One of these days I need to find employees who actually do some work.

Posted by: AllenG's Boss (Dedicated Bottom-Liner) at January 03, 2012 06:22 PM (yBtkG)

13 Dear Paultards,

Your fuhrer could eliminate every federal expenditure but Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and balance the budget.

Congrats, you have arrived at the cognitive singularity of stupid: Childish fantasies coupled with an inability to do fifth-grade math.

As Doc Holiday said to Ike Clanton in Tombstone: "I know, let's have a spelling contest."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:22 PM (7utQ2)

14 Illinois Nazis arriving in 3...2...1

Posted by: Elwood Blues at January 03, 2012 06:22 PM (O6q63)

15 Ron Paul may even be more insane than little barry's mole.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 06:23 PM (baL2B)

16 Ron Paul 2012: because you want to throw away your vote, but your too pussy to vote libertarian

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 06:23 PM (vuzx2)

17 It's easier to just say "Teh Estabilshment."

I intend to drink 6 beers and test the veracity of this statement. If Luap Nor wins Iowa, 6 beers is nothing but a good start.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 03, 2012 06:23 PM (BhuDE)

18 Damn, Ace just makes too much sense....

Posted by: izoneguy at January 03, 2012 06:24 PM (i6Neb)

19 Has Ron Paul ascended to heaven from the top of a huge Iowa meat processing plant yet?

Posted by: deepelemblues at January 03, 2012 06:24 PM (Jov5i)

20 Utter BS. I get the anti-Paul bias. Every. Day. Good luck with Mr Elite- the white Obama.

Posted by: Deus Ex Machina at January 03, 2012 06:24 PM (GOG1H)

21 Take care boys and girls I've had a brisket going all day time to chow.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at January 03, 2012 06:24 PM (79SNs)

22
Integrity.
Honesty.
Vinegar.
Ron Paul 2012. Because nblearfh grahatu *click* promox, hoo-mans.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2012 06:25 PM (DiqH3)

23 Ron Paul 2012: because fantasy solutions call for a fantasy candidate

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 06:25 PM (vuzx2)

24 and Crap Voter Decisions -

...except there hasn't been an official crap voter decision made yet...

Posted by: tasker at January 03, 2012 06:25 PM (r2PLg)

25 You can make that sort of argument (i.e. that there is no such thing as a
Republican Establishment, or Liberal Media) if you want to, but
recognize that you are choosing to be incredibly intellectually
dishonest by doing so.

But it's not intellectually dishonest to invent some phantom group of manipulators that control the GOP and election process. Good to know.

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 06:26 PM (GZitp)

26 I blame the doctrines espoused in the Protocol of the Elders of RINO.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 03, 2012 06:26 PM (jUZRg)

27 Integrity.
Honesty.
Vinegar.
Snort.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:27 PM (7utQ2)

28 Quit trying to fuck up my investments in tin-foil futures, Ace.

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 06:27 PM (xSHjK)

29 Ron Paul 2012 : America is pining for theFnords!

Posted by: garrett at January 03, 2012 06:27 PM (CSyi3)

30 Unfortunately, Paul's plan may be the only realistic way to allow an opt-out for younger workers out of those entitlement programs, while at the same time ensuring that people that paid into system get the benefits they paid for.

While completely gutting those entitlement programs overnight wouldn't be politically feasible, enacting legislation to completely phase it out may be our only way to transition to an entitlement free society.

The use of defense funds to achieve that goal is another issue entirely, which I'm still on the fence about.

Posted by: Classical Liberal at January 03, 2012 06:28 PM (nEkz4)

31 Indeed, lowandslow, just as there is no group of manipulators that controls the media and news reporting process.

Posted by: Ortho at January 03, 2012 06:28 PM (Wfwje)

32 We nitpick all our candidates and crucify any and all who change an opinion over 20 + years in politics. Many of us have become one issue voters or one issue against voters ( I'm guilty of that for the record). And ya wonder why no one wants to run?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 06:28 PM (i6RpT)

33 Operation Romney Thrust is proceeding precisely according to plan.

Mwahahahaha.

Posted by: Georgette Mosbacher at January 03, 2012 06:29 PM (QKKT0)

34 My favorite thing about Ron Paul? He saved us from wild bands of marauding pre-teen black children stabbing us all with HIV syringes back in the 90s.

Posted by: Truman North at January 03, 2012 06:29 PM (I2LwF)

35 >>>Utter BS. I get the anti-Paul bias. Every. Day. Good luck with Mr Elite- the white Obama.

Please link Ron Paul's plan for reforming Medicare.

You don't really care about that issue, do you? You're focused on the "Real Problems," like Paul is, and see stuff like Medicare as pettifogging and obscuring the real issues, right?

Pardon me, but I'm dumb. I see the "Real Problems" being the rather obvious problems. I'm not smart enough to look past the huge wave of unfunded liabilities and see the "Real Problems" beneath those.

Posted by: ace at January 03, 2012 06:29 PM (nj1bB)

36 Ron Paul 2012: We make internet ads after smoking lots of really good weed.

Posted by: deepelemblues at January 03, 2012 06:30 PM (Jov5i)

37 ...well this time around.

I hate reading comments about a month ago that claimed-it's too late for Perry.

The proof that no one really watches the debates-they just care what the media tells them about the debates-is-

Santorum.

Who the hell-after watching the debates for themselves-said that Santorum is really,really likable?

Plus Rick Santorum himself was complaining that the moderators weren't giving him enough time....

Think about that Santorum-maybe they did you a favor.

Posted by: tasker at January 03, 2012 06:30 PM (r2PLg)

38 So Ace is a Bildeberger, then?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 03, 2012 06:30 PM (niZvt)

39 "pettifogging"?

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:30 PM (zLeKL)

40 The use of defense funds to achieve that goal is another issue entirely, which I'm still on the fence about.

Yeah, because every time the U.S. has gutted defense, that turns out really swell.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:30 PM (7utQ2)

41 Bravo, Ace. There's no cabal, no conspiracy. We count the votes, and the winner wins. And if you lose, STFU and live with it.

Posted by: Ted K. at January 03, 2012 06:30 PM (s2gMT)

42
This is the same sort of argument leftists use to "prove" the mainstream media doesn't have a liberal bias.

Except that one (a liberal MSM) can be demonstrated by evidence in the form of specific examples. The other is the fantasy of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade who can't bear to see the true cause of their consternation in the mirror.
Other than that- yeah- exactly the same.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 03, 2012 06:30 PM (SY2Kh)

43 Paul's plan may be the only realistic way to allow an opt-out for younger workers out of those entitlement programs, while at the same time ensuring that people that paid into system get the benefits they paid for.
Altering those entitlement programs will be a hell of a lot of work.
Unfortunately, Herr Doktor has shown while he was in Congress that he isn't interested in working hard to reform government.

Posted by: fluffy at January 03, 2012 06:31 PM (O6q63)

44 Unfortunately, Paul's plan may be the only realistic way to allow an opt-out for younger workers out of those entitlement programs, while at the same time ensuring that people that paid into system get the benefits they paid for.
Except for the fact that it won't pay for those benefits and those people did not pay for their benefits. They paid for the benefits of retirees on the tit during their own working lives. But other than that, spot fucking on.
Here is your spray bottle of Paul`s Own vinegar and rEVOLution bumpersticker.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2012 06:31 PM (DiqH3)

45 So Mitt Romney is more fiscally conservative than Ron Paul? Now I've heard everything.

Posted by: schizoid at January 03, 2012 06:31 PM (Jh4fI)

46 Sure, it's not all pre-ordained....

Has anyone seen Ace and Vince McMahon in the same room at the same time?

Posted by: wooga at January 03, 2012 06:32 PM (vjyZP)

47 it's Ron Paul, doing what he does bests, offering fantasy solutions and
chickening out from discussing the actual problems facing us, preferring
to focus on paranoid bugaboos such as the TriLateral Commission

Even worse -- if I-Owe-Ya goes to Dr Ron as I suspect it will, it's might just be because of the American voter choosing the easy batshit crazy solution they haven't really thought through over the more complex problem of how to rein in spending exceeding revenues by the trillions of dollars -- not the paltry billions that Dr Ron is so hung up on.

Whether I-Owe-Ya goes down in the record books as a protest vote or actual belief in the chicken-bone and animal sacrifice voodoo of Dr Ron remains to be seen. Either way, it's bad news. Very bad news.

Posted by: The PenIs Mightier at January 03, 2012 06:32 PM (phlKA)

48 Look arguing logic with Ron Paulbots is futile.

It's all about being a Renegade!

WooooHoooo!!

Posted by: tasker at January 03, 2012 06:32 PM (r2PLg)

49 My favorite thing about Ron Paul? He saved us from wild bands of marauding pre-teen black children stabbing us all with HIV syringes back in the 90s.
Posted by: Truman North at January 03, 2012 06:29 PM (I2LwF)

Luap Nor has protected me for many years from all those little people hiding in myair-conditioner vents.

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 06:33 PM (xSHjK)

50
Chit you got it wrong Ace, Huckabee was the only one that could stop McCain, but Romney would have had to drop out. The idea that it takes a liberal squish republican to beat a liberal squish republican is incorrect. It takes a conservative. Now we have a huge lot of conservatives that are splitting the vote to let the liberal squish of a Romneycare win the nomination.
Get Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman out of the race and see which of the Newt or Santorum can coalesce the non-Mitt vote.
Perry decided to go all Huckabee the last few weeks, overtly pandering to the evangelicals to try to take Iowa, I would expect as much Perry hatred as I've seen Huckabee hatred on here.

Posted by: dogu at January 03, 2012 06:34 PM (gUGI6)

51 Ron Paul 2012: because Charles Johnson ran out of blogging material

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 06:34 PM (vuzx2)

52 The only way for a regular white person to get AIDS is from a malicious gay. Ron Paul told me that back in the 90s.

Posted by: Truman North at January 03, 2012 06:34 PM (I2LwF)

53 Pardon me, but I'm dumb. I see the "Real Problems" being the rather obvious problems. I'm not smart enough to look past the huge wave of unfunded liabilities and see the "Real Problems" beneath those.
Who are ``The Jews`` , Ace.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2012 06:34 PM (DiqH3)

54 31
Indeed, lowandslow, just as there is no group of manipulators that
controls the media and news reporting process.

Do these media manipulators get into peoples house and force them to watch MSNBC? They must, just the GOP manipulators force voters to vote a certain way.

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 06:35 PM (GZitp)

55 Just lie back and think of Watertown.

Posted by: Mittens at January 03, 2012 06:35 PM (QKKT0)

56 So Mitt Romney is more fiscally conservative than Ron Paul? Now I've heard everything.

Mitt can do math.

Unless this is math: We can make a $14 trillion economy work on $200 billion in gold reserves or "All that foreign stuff" can pay for Medicare.

And point to one--JUST ONE instance of Paul successfully sponsoring fiscally conservative legislation over his career.

Fuck off, dickless--my patience with you dipshits is at an end.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:35 PM (7utQ2)

57 Zenith of a freakshow

Also, Krauthammer is actually trying to make a case for Santorum. Fuck me sideways.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:36 PM (zLeKL)

58 I loved this article till it said Paul had no entitlement plan. I get principled disagreement, but just clicking to his website will prove that wrong

ENTITLEMENTS:Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while
allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other
welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need
to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently
relying on the programs.

Posted by: that guy at January 03, 2012 06:36 PM (tuUOs)

59 If Ron Paul does well there's gonna be a serious run on tin foil.
Prepare yourselves.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 03, 2012 06:36 PM (HBqDo)

60 Two or three keggers, a boy band or two- during the caucus..

and the Paulbots are defeated.

Scheduling Conflict.

The Establishment-should have done that....

Posted by: tasker at January 03, 2012 06:36 PM (r2PLg)

61 The only stock I see improving under Ron Paul is eyebrow toupees such as he wears. I liked him in one debate for about .5 seconds, then his insanity reared.

So, let's review:
He would build a fence at the border to keep us in not illegals out. He would gut the defense, making it easy for Guam to invade if we survived the Middle Eastern nukes he pacified and welcomed. He would do away with the federal reserve, where we pay taxes with produce and barter and trade services like in the olden days of the silver dime, I guess. My God in Heaven, protect us.

I pray every day for the defeat of Obama 2012. That is all I ask for, along with the health and well-being of my family this year. To heck with any New Year's resolutions: our resolution and vow should be to defeat him.

By the way, I don't think this caucus in Iowa means any more than straw polls, based on who won last time, etc. It is pure political news, not a bellweather.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 06:36 PM (baL2B)

62 Here's a suggested theme song for the Ron Paul voters:

Crazy On You

You're welcome. As a side note, that appears to be Luke Skywalker on guitar.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 03, 2012 06:37 PM (BhuDE)

63 I think I saw a variation on this headline at one of the Soros blogs:


"Fables: The Liberal Media aren't responsible for caricatures of Republicans as heartless, racist, lying bigots; Heartless, racist, lying, bigoted Republicans are responsible for caricatures of all Republicans as heartless, racist, lying bigots"

Posted by: Ortho at January 03, 2012 06:37 PM (Wfwje)

64 Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while
allowing young workers to opt out.

AHEM: What part of "YOUNG WORKERS ARE AT THIS MOMENT PAYING FOR THE GEEZERS" do you not understand?

An unserious, intellectually dishonest plan is not a fucking plan.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:38 PM (7utQ2)

65 Just Lie Back and think of Watership Down...

you are the rabbitz.

Posted by: Mittens Screws Up at January 03, 2012 06:39 PM (r2PLg)

66 My during-Caucus sustenance iscanned beer and these weird looking frozen chunks of pretzel stuffed with cheddar that you pop in a toaster for ten minutes. Not very promising.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 06:39 PM (Qjh0I)

67 I wonder how much Team Romney paid ace to write this?

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 03, 2012 06:39 PM (lVGED)

68 Well now we all know Ace is part of the Bilderbeger cabal and that why he supports Perry. Those establishment scary people are using chemtrails to control us an the yetis!

Luap Nor 2012

Because only he loves freedom.

Posted by: Big T Party at January 03, 2012 06:39 PM (hC5jI)

69 Why does RP still get traction? Read Goldstein's "Seriously Iowa? Ron Paul?" at Protein Wisdom. An excellent synopsis. Like it or not, I think he nailed it.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 03, 2012 06:39 PM (eHIJJ)

70 When you wingnuts are ready, I'll be here.

Posted by: Mittens at January 03, 2012 06:39 PM (QKKT0)

71 Do these media manipulators get into peoples house and force them to watch MSNBC? They must, just the GOP manipulators force voters to vote a certain way.


See? Even lowandslow now admits that there's no liberal media.

Posted by: Ortho at January 03, 2012 06:40 PM (Wfwje)

72 I got a robocall from Ron Paul's people chastising Santorum on wanting to raise the retirement age.

Principled Libertarian my ass.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 06:40 PM (73tyQ)

73 My during-Caucus sustenance is canned beer and these weird looking frozen chunks of pretzel stuffed with cheddar that you pop in a toaster for ten minutes.

Gross! I mean, canned beer?

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:41 PM (zLeKL)

74 Mr. Roboto

Campaign theme song.

Posted by: Mittens Screws Up at January 03, 2012 06:41 PM (r2PLg)

75
I think I saw a variation on this headline at one of the Soros blogs [...]

I think the problem is that there's some straw in the argument: that is, because the Establishment was ineffectual in electing their candidate in 2008, then there is no Establishment. All that's really been proven is: if there is an Establishment, then it's a stupid one.

Which, actually, I'll agree with. Republicans aren't called the Stupid Party for nuthin'.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 03, 2012 06:41 PM (bjRNS)

76 70
When you wingnuts are ready, I'll be here.


Posted by: Mittens at January 03, 2012 06:39 PM (QKKT0)

Not so fast,we'll tell you when they're ready.

Posted by: Teh Estabilshment at January 03, 2012 06:42 PM (GZitp)

77 ENTITLEMENTS:Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.
Posted by: that guy at January 03, 2012 06:36 PM (tuUOs)

Six of one, a half dozen of the other. Where's the money going to come from, Ron's ass?

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 06:42 PM (xSHjK)

78 It's one thing to say the whole game is fixed and there is some master conspiracy. That's stupid.

It's another thing to notice when the establishment apparatus adds complexity and makes bizarre calls with no added benefit, which only seems to help insiders with access. For example, VA's primaries have always been hard to get onto, and Newt and Perry submitted what would have worked in the past many elections because of how those rules were handled. The rules were changed to make things much harder, and some of the people making these calls just happen to favor the guy with an operation already in VA much readier to deal with them.

The more complex they make it, the less likely reformers are to survive in this minefield. It's a stupid situation made stupider, and Romney's state chair didn't wake up one day just wanting to make it stupider for no reason at all. He wanted to make it harder for any not-romney reformers, whoever they may be. Do this 100 times in 50 states and they run out of money a LOT faster and are crushed.

Fix? No. Just a little pressure here and there, adding up to people like Bob Dole, John Mccain, etc, having an advantage. Of course, since such folks are moderates and democrats fare much better against moderate Republicans in presidential contests, the real sum is Barack Obama.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 06:42 PM (rQ/Ue)

79 So what you are saying, Ace, is that it was really all the work of the Joooss?


I agree!

Posted by: Ron Paul at January 03, 2012 06:42 PM (tB2tX)

80 Hey, call the SSA and ask how much money is in the account for your number.

That's what Ron Paul (and every Democrat) want people to believe.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:43 PM (7utQ2)

81
I did my "shopping" at a gas station. Saved three whole minutes of driving time.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 06:43 PM (Qjh0I)

82

See? Even lowandslow now admits that there's no liberal media.

Posted by: Ortho at January 03, 2012 06:40 PM (Wfwje)

Yeah that's what I admitted. You dishonest fuck.

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 06:44 PM (GZitp)

83 WeeeeeeEEeEeeee arrrrrrrrrrrre theeeeeeeeee Proooobbbbbllleeemmm!!!!'

Luap Nor 2102

Posted by: Big T Party at January 03, 2012 06:44 PM (hC5jI)

84 @81: Those cheese-pretzel things are pretty tasty. But make sure you save one for the gas jets.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:44 PM (zLeKL)

85 Six of one, a half dozen of the other. Where's the money going to come from, Ron's ass?

The four billion or so in aid to Israel will pay for everything. Also, free Starbucks for gentiles on Tuesdays.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:44 PM (7utQ2)

86 It just cracks me up. I go post on the Breitbart sites occasionally, if there was ever a crowd ailing from Flavor of the Month (week?) disease, it's that one.

I expressed skepticism of Cain when he was riding high, just to get shit on by them. I reminded them that Newt is a dirtbag when he was riding high, just to get shit on. I remind them today that Santorum isn't quite the conservative he makes himself out to be (Arlen Specter, anyone?) and sure enough, just like clockwork...

There fucks are all pissed that the media is choosing Romney for them, meanwhile they are utterly incapable of actually finding a candidate to support.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 03, 2012 06:44 PM (KI/Ch)

87 72
I got a robocall from Ron Paul's people chastising Santorum on wanting to raise the retirement age.Principled Libertarian my ass.

But you know who did advocate raising the retirement age?

That's right, Senator Rand Paul. Link is to the Ron Paul Forums, so argue against that, Ronulans!

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 06:45 PM (73tyQ)

88 And so it begins, on this first work day of 2012.

The JEF on prime time tonight, aided by the MFM, trying to drown out whatever bleats will be coming from Team Mittens.

Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at January 03, 2012 06:45 PM (ybkwK)

89 Dustin, sure, there is some kind of an Establishment. But note the Establishment is rarely united in opinion.

Elements of the establishment may push here and there, but it's silly to think they control anything.

Ultimately McCain won in 2008 because voters would not rally around the only alternative with a mathematical shot to beat him (Romney). Instead, Huckabee stayed in to keep his supporters from going to Romney, because he hated Romney and liked McCain.

But we keep talking about The Establishment forcing us to do dumb things.

I'd like a chance to support Perry, who I believe is a plausible not-Romney. But Iowa seems determined to eliminate him from consideration, and give me only one guy I would leave the party over (Paul) and another guy who seems much more interested in soft stuff like "family values" than in balancing the goddmaned country's account-books.

if the Iowa GOP does that, and leaves me in Romney's camp, was that the Establishment?

Posted by: ace at January 03, 2012 06:46 PM (nj1bB)

90 "ENTITLEMENTS:Honors our promise to our seniors"

I never promised anything to seniors. They promised it to themselves when they used up social security to pay for a bloated democrat government instead of paying the taxes. And then they even added on a mountain of debt.

No, the USA doesn't owe seniors entitlements. Not a penny. That's a lie. They wrote themselves a huge check and forged the names of their kids and grandkids on the bottom.

It is a Ponzi Scheme.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 06:47 PM (rQ/Ue)

91 RIN!!!!11!!

Posted by: ☠ Rex Harrison's Hat ☠ at January 03, 2012 06:47 PM (4136b)

92 It's another thing to notice when the establishment apparatus adds
complexity and makes bizarre calls with no added benefit, which only
seems to help insiders with access.

Agreed. These kind of rules support the idea that a candidate is Next In Line. A candidate (like Romney or Paul) who doesn't stop campaigning after the previous election has an organizational advantage over the candidates (like Perry) who weren't really planning on running for President until late 2010.

Now, the Presumptive Heir will have an advantage of a pre-built organization anyway, but the rules (which, it has been noted, the Heir's minions have established) make it progressively more difficult for an upstart to replace the Heir.

The Heir still has to perform, but the terrain is slanted against the upstarts.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 03, 2012 06:48 PM (bjRNS)

93 I'm glad Ace pitched this post in the key of Ron Paul, because otherwise I get the feeling that a lot of people around here simply wouldn't accept it. For evidence look no further than the hysterical reaction to Perry's Gingrich's failure to get on the VA ballot, and all the conspiracy theories that immediately went around about how "The Establishment" had used skullduggery, dirty tricks, secret rule changes, and general meanie-ness to ensure that only Romney (and...Ron Paul?!?) made it. When in reality it was a failure of their respective campaigns, no more, no less.

But the point is strong nonetheless: guess what, folks? The reason Romney seems to be riding high right now is because the conservative/GOP primary base doesn't necessarily reflect your exact concerns. I keep trying to hammer this in, and I can understand why it isn't a popular point (nobody wants to be told that they're a tiny minority who cannot swing elections by themselves -- on the internet, people want to believe they're Strong and Powerful when Working Together For Change), but it remains true nonetheless. A lot of folks LIKE what they see in Romney, even if they have reservations, or even if he doesn't set hearts on fire. A lot of people LIKE the idea of "a guy who can actually win an election" as opposed to dressing the GOP up as a suicide bomber and hitting the detonator in November 2012 in order to be a pure and holy martyr for True Conservatism.

And they're the ones deciding this election. Not the mythical Master Puppeteers of the establishment.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 06:48 PM (hIWe1)

94 I'm at the point where I'm trying to find a straw to grasp.

Perry 2012.

For the love of god, Perry 2012.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:49 PM (zLeKL)

95 Heh, Olberdouche just tweeted that Countdown won't be on tonight after all.

Posted by: booger at January 03, 2012 06:49 PM (EjNp5)

96 Citing Mona Charen in the National Review as proof that there is no establishment is like citing Obama as proof that nobody plays golf anymore.

Also, does this mean Ace has formally given up on Perry?

Posted by: Ian S. at January 03, 2012 06:49 PM (tqwMN)

97 Damn, I am voting for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday (open primary).

I know he is batshit insane but this is too much fun. I want him to explain the pink money with the IRS surveillance bands in just one debate.

Posted by: Clarence at January 03, 2012 06:49 PM (z0HdK)

98 The four billion or so in aid to Israel will pay for everything. Also, free Starbucks for gentiles on Tuesdays.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:44 PM (7utQ2)

Ah, yes. The numbers are coming together now.

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 06:49 PM (xSHjK)

99 I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo: "The JEF on prime time tonight..."

Why? So he can update us on his golf scores from "A Christmas in Hawaii"?

But remember there is no media bias or complicity. The JournoList never happened.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 03, 2012 06:50 PM (eHIJJ)

100 A lot of folks LIKE what they see in Romney, even if they have reservations, or even if he doesn't set hearts on fire. A lot of people LIKE the idea of "a guy who can actually win an election" as opposed to dressing the GOP up as a suicide bomber and hitting the detonator in November 2012 in order to be a pure and holy martyr for True Conservatism.
----
Yes, and that's why he's consistently polling at 25%. For chrissakes, Jeff B!

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:50 PM (zLeKL)

101 I've sent my most diplomatic wingman in here to straighten you all up!

Take it away Jeffy B!

Posted by: Mittens Screws Up at January 03, 2012 06:50 PM (r2PLg)

102 >>>I expressed skepticism of Cain when he was riding high, just to get shit on by them. I reminded them that Newt is a dirtbag when he was riding high, just to get shit on. I remind them today that Santorum isn't quite the conservative he makes himself out to be (Arlen Specter, anyone?) and sure enough, just like clockwork...

The party is spasmodic right now. All these passions and these fantasies of perfect candidates (rubbished as soon as some facts start getting out).

Passion is important, but we as a party have been denigrating reason and steadiness of temper for a long time. We as a party keep championing "feelings" and the like over sober rationality.

It is actually becoming a sort of anti-conservative thing to doubt feelings & faith (in politics) and champion some rationality and analysis.

I think part of this is just people trying to psych up the crowd in favor of their candidate at the moment. But a lot of it seems deeper, that we've decided the brain is a liar and it's all about "heart."

I don't champion the brain like some do. I think the heart and "feelings" are actually much more important than rationalists believe (rationalists' belief in reason alone is itself irrational).

but we seem to be in a mind where everything is rah-rah passion and excitement. Good decisions are rarely made under such circumstances.

Posted by: ace at January 03, 2012 06:50 PM (nj1bB)

103 All of this analysis of the Republican midgets and their chances in Iowa is kinda like marveling at the architecture and craftsmanship in the foyer of the West Bumphuck Public Library.

Yeah, it is a library foyer.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 03, 2012 06:51 PM (HBqDo)

104 if the Iowa GOP does that, and leaves me in Romney's camp, was that the Establishment?

The Establishment has made no serious move to reform the primaries. They like the game the way it's played.

That Iowa went 54% for Obama in 2008 doesn't enter the calculation at all.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 03, 2012 06:51 PM (bjRNS)

105 ..god move hiding behind aces' skirt there Jeffy!

Posted by: Mittens Screws Up at January 03, 2012 06:51 PM (r2PLg)

106 Just had a few of the pretzel things. They were pretty good. A quick 15 seconds in the microwave was needed to get the cheesefully melty, but all in all a thumbs up.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 06:51 PM (Qjh0I)

107 "Elements of the establishment may push here and there, but it's silly to think they control anything."

That's right. It's chaotic, and the insiders naturally will have eachother's backs and do better than outsiders (or reformers). It's not like a group of guys determined Mccain would be the nominee last round, and even though I think they would REALLY love Mitt to win this round, the power to make that happen doesn't exist. There is no 'establishment' if we're talking about such a powerful entity.

"But Iowa seems determined to eliminate him from consideration, and give
me only one guy I would leave the party over (Paul) and another guy who
seems much more interested in soft stuff like "family values" than in
balancing the goddmaned country's account-books."

It's unfortunate, and no, this isn't the 'establishment' doing that. It's people rejecting 80-90% friends, cutting their nose off.

"if the Iowa GOP does that, and leaves me in Romney's camp, was that the Establishment?"

Yeah, what we're seeing here is that the TEA party has some fundamental weakness, I think because by nature it is uncontrollable and mindless. It is being routed naturally.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 06:51 PM (rQ/Ue)

108 ^good^ move...

(drank coffee this morning sheesh...)

Posted by: Mittens Screws Up at January 03, 2012 06:52 PM (r2PLg)

109 Yes, and that's why he's consistently polling at 25%. For chrissakes, Jeff B!
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:50 PM (zLeKL)

Yes amongst Republican voters, but he is also consistently polling very well, often ahead, of obama.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 06:52 PM (i6RpT)

110 An unserious, intellectually dishonest plan is not a fucking plan.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:38 PM (7utQ2)
That may or may not be true, but do you have a better alternative to eliminate those entitlement programs? Remember, we're just looking for a serious, intellectually consistent plan bro.

Posted by: Classical Liberal at January 03, 2012 06:53 PM (nEkz4)

111 Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 06:52 PM (i6RpT)
--
How I wish I could be like you and Jeff B. I find myself sometimes picturing Mitt as the candidate, and trying to muster some kind of enthusiasm but it's not happening.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:54 PM (zLeKL)

112 " dressing the GOP up as a suicide bomber and hitting the detonator in
November 2012 in order to be a pure and holy martyr for True
Conservatism."

Rick Perry is not pure right wing kook. He's a moderate by some measures and he's got a great record. Supporting him was not some kind of stupid self destructive statement.

Perhaps you're referring to someone else, like I guess Paul.

I think most people reject Romney because he is so bad on the issues, if you look at his record and ignore the words of a flip flopper. He's just so liberal.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 06:55 PM (rQ/Ue)

113 And they're the ones deciding this election. Not the mythical Master Puppeteers of the establishment.

Yesssss, well said. That's exactly what we want them to think.

Posted by: The Omnipresent All-Powerful Ruling Class at January 03, 2012 06:55 PM (yBtkG)

114 Heh, Olberdouche just tweeted that Countdown won't be on tonight after all.

Preening, ineffectual jackass. He'd make a great conspiracy-mongering presidential candidate, but we already have one of those.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 06:55 PM (7utQ2)

115 I seriously question Romney supporters' genuine opposition to Obamacare.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:56 PM (zLeKL)

116 That may or may not be true, but do you have a better alternative to eliminate those entitlement programs?

There may not be an alternative. Check out PJ Media's budget tool, and Vodkapundit's solution.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 03, 2012 06:56 PM (bjRNS)

117 The Establishment has made no serious move to reform the primaries. They like the game the way it's played.

Another lie. The GOP made all the early primary states half their delegate counts and proportional delegates to dilute their effect.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 06:56 PM (73tyQ)

118 And ironically enough, as I was writing my #93, Dustin (who else?) was typing out a typical whinge about how the VA ballot access rules MUST have been a conspiracy to keep poor Rick Perry down.

What's particularly insulting about that argument (and all of these "Establishment is keeping us down, fight the man!" cries) is that they pointedly rely upon ignorance and garbling of facts. For example, anyone who actually knows what the campaigns were told (by Perry Gingrich's own admission) could not actually maintain that there was some "last minute secret rule change"...but because that knowledge would completely devastate Dustin's ability to cry conspiracy, he's made it a point to, for example, read the Perry camp's court filings. Or inform himself on what the actual rules the VA GOP sent to each campaign were (as opposed to reading some partisan blog spinning theories and spreading falsehoods).

Like 9/11 Truther theories, the "Evil Establishment" claptrap feeds on a subset of people who very carefully keep themselves from learning too much, for fear they might have to let go of their cherished consolatory myths.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 06:56 PM (hIWe1)

119 115
I seriously question Romney supporters' genuine opposition to Obamacare.


Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:56 PM (zLeKL)

What?

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 06:57 PM (GZitp)

120 What might be happening is something else.

The public confuses long complicated answers that involve obfuscation as -

intelligence.

Obama and/or Romney because of their records can never give clear concise answers.

And, they both trained at Harvard in order to have that skill...

Posted by: tasker at January 03, 2012 06:58 PM (r2PLg)

121 I'm trying to be realistic, there's just no way in hell RP gets the nomination - no way. It would be as absurd as some foreign-born, affirmative action, Kenyan-born, Indonesian-raised, community organizer getting the nod.

So he let some racially, derogatory statements pass by him. He sucks at math and struggles with basic economic concepts. Well, if RP gets the nod, voila - status quo - we can do no worse it appears.

Posted by: David Duke at January 03, 2012 06:59 PM (ScD5a)

122 Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 06:57 PM (GZitp)
---
Yes, I don't think Romney supporters want or care to have Obamacare repealed all that much. How else can you explain support for the guy who fucking put a similar version into place, and defends it as conservative?!

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 06:59 PM (zLeKL)

123 anyway, yeah, how can the right bash the establishment if it's going to reject Perry, a 90% ally? If it's going to rule out all the guys that can win a general because they are offended at his few lapses, how can we then be ticked off that the 'establishment' generally has their act together and doesn't reject Mitt just because of much more absurd lapses of policy?

The Tea Party appears to be a failure, at least in presidential politics. I don't say that to be inflammatory.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 06:59 PM (rQ/Ue)

124 Everything Ace said is fake. Tomorrow everyone will be talking about how Mitt came into the ring and demanded that the Newt face off in a cage match and when Mitt picks up Newt and throws him into Callista's Niece, Ron Paul tags and hits Bachmann in the boobs.
That's the kind of news the People want.

Posted by: CBS News at January 03, 2012 07:00 PM (z+hCt)

125 I think part of this is just people trying to psych up the crowd in favor of their candidate at the moment. But a lot of it seems deeper, that we've decided the brain is a liar and it's all about "heart."

-----------------------------------------------------------

It's not even that. It's that intellectually, in the realm of cold facts, every single GOP candidate sucks big hairy balls. Every. Single. One.

You know the tune, here's the lyrics: in an election in which government healthcare is deeply unpopular with the general electorate, Romney insists it's TEH AWESOME. Rick Perry thinks we're heartless when his brain isn't visibly drizzling out his ears. Newt is widely blamed for the ultimate failure of the 1994 GOP "Revolution", and has a small laundry list of other issues. Luap Nor is both crazy and not actually very fiscally responsible. Bachmann was kind of OK until she embraced Teh Crazy. And so on.

At that point, on a pure Spock-like level, we have no candidate to vote for. And since that's not especially attractive, people are fleeing to emotional arguments. They seem to work for the Democrats, after all.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 03, 2012 07:00 PM (tqwMN)

126 "It is being routed naturally."

I'd say it's being incorporated naturally into the GOP. Which can look a lot like routing.

But it doesn't mean the Tea Party has a fundamental weakness (well, maybe if you're someone who wants Tea Party to become a separate and dominant political party it does). It has moved the GOP on the Congressional, state, and local level rightward, and would be kingmaker now if there actually was a strong candidate who is also conservative for it to get behind.

People are just impatient, the media makes it that way.

The next GOP nomination contest whether in 4 years or 8 will produce a Tea Party candidate who will have at least an even shot at winning.

Posted by: deepelemblues at January 03, 2012 07:00 PM (Jov5i)

127 This year, most of the Republican field is strongly conservative.
There's a myth for the fucking ages, unless "most" means Bachmann and Santorum, both of whom are thoroughly dismissed by the GOP establishment, which exists despite any effort to poo-poo it, and by a lot of the "opinion-makers" on television and the web. If you include the much-maligned Herman Cain you almost get a simple majority.

Ron Paul is a libertarian whose foreign policy is borderline insane, and Romney and Newt are statists who love them some big government. Hunstman is, simply, a Democrat. Perry is a bit to the right, but I wouldn't call him a strong conservative.

Of course, a lot of people called Bush a conservative, and they were completely wrong.


Posted by: cranky-d at January 03, 2012 07:00 PM (H2G0R)

128 That Mosbacher chick was just kidding about "knowing who their nominee was".

Posted by: sad really at January 03, 2012 07:01 PM (68ZYu)

129 Forget it Ace. It's Iowa.

Posted by: daybrother's movie reference at January 03, 2012 07:01 PM (z+hCt)

130 Another lie. The GOP made all the early primary states half their
delegate counts and proportional delegates to dilute their effect.

Don't call me a liar, dude. If you actually pay attention to what the early primaries do, you'll see their power is not really diluted.

Candidates still spray money all over the place to try to get momentum, because fourth place doesn't confer any. Iowa will still knock somebody out of the race.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 03, 2012 07:02 PM (bjRNS)

131


And the crying in the beer commences. Jingos - you're days of party control
are over. What's really ironic - and ever so perplexing to you Jingos - is that
Ron Paul has huge military support. Quit drinking the brain-dead Red Republican
Kool-Aid and get with the program. Don’t be a MSM RNC Tool.


Respectfully,


A true Reagan Republican.


Posted by: ghri@gmail.com at January 03, 2012 07:02 PM (WEMRH)

132 >>>I seriously question Romney supporters' genuine opposition to Obamacare.

Oh what kind of bullshit is this? There isn't a SINGLE Romney supporter on this site or anywhere in the conservative blogosphere who supports Obamacare. The thing is, we don't buy into your "fantasy evil" version of Romney, the one who supposedly would get elected and then destroy himself, his Presidency, and the Republican party, merely in order to maintain Obamacare despite the fact that he's said over and over that he would repeal the shit out of it.

This is what Ace means when he talks about the danger of Right currently being this need to privilege "feelings" and "emotions" (read: anger, rage, hate) over actual thought and political calculus. Know why I like Romney, in part? Because he DOESN'T appeal to this crowd. I don't want a guy who runs on rabble-rousing. I want someone who actually analyzes things and breaks them down and searches for the best possible solution, even if there isn't always a perfect one. I don't want a Bachmann or a Paul.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:02 PM (hIWe1)

133 The Tea Party appears to be a failure, at least in presidential politics. I don't say that to be inflammatory.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 06:59 PM (rQ/Ue)

What the Hell you mean by that? You wanna step outside and say that again?

Posted by: drunk guy at January 03, 2012 07:03 PM (z+hCt)

134 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:02 PM (hIWe1)
---
I stand by what I wrote. He called the individual mandate conservative. I believe he'd sign a repeal bill into law, but then he would try to "re-work" it. With an individual mandate. But, hey, I'm vetting my preferred candidate. Are you?

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 07:04 PM (zLeKL)

135 Don't call me a liar, dude. If you actually pay attention to what the
early primaries do, you'll see their power is not really diluted.

You said they didn't do anything. They made fundamental and substantial changes.

You just don't like the fact that the Establishment That Runs Everything isn't actually an Establishment That Runs Everything enough.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 07:05 PM (73tyQ)

136 despite the fact that he's said over and over that he would repeal the shit out of it.
Dredge up that quote for me, JeffB.

Posted by: garrett at January 03, 2012 07:05 PM (CSyi3)

137 117 The Establishment has made no serious move to reform the primaries. They like the game the way it's played.Another lie. The GOP made all the early primary states half their delegate counts and proportional delegates to dilute their effect.Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 06:56 PM (73tyQ)

Forget it - he's rolling. It's always more comforting to believe that you're the victim of some Establishment cabal than have to admit that that GOP primary voters are split, most probably don't agree with your particular set of views, and being human they're likely to do stupid, irrational things and just plain fuck up.

But being thwarted by teh Establishment Conspiracy does feel better.

Posted by: Mوtenloch at January 03, 2012 07:06 PM (pAlYe)

138 How can someone not support Obamacare and support Romney? Maybe because they lived in MA for his entire Governorship, including Romney's vetoes and the Dem/Union push for single-payer. Does that mean he's to the right of Micheller Bachmann? No, but it doesn't mean he's lying and will immediately sacrifice his re-election chances by not repealing/waiving Obamacare. That he went to Harvard and Obama went to Harvard is irrelevant. While Romney was starting up Bain, Obama was passing out "Free Mumia" pamphlets. Entirely different worlds of accomplishment.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 07:06 PM (Qjh0I)

139 What I'd love some conservative candidate to propose is something I've been thinking about lately -- to do once elected -- because he'd never win if he proposed it before the election. We have hundreds of millions sucking at the government teat. We have a government forcing millions of businesses to issue 1099's to individuals so that they can capture every possible revenue stream.

It's about time that the recipients of the governments (actually the taxpayers) large-ass (largess?) be issued a 1099 for the free shit they get. I pay with my after tax dollars for food while someone else swipes a card and that's not considered taxable income? Bull-fuckin-shit.

1099 each and every one of the suck-ups. There's no fucking reason in the world that someone making 50k per year should be paying money while someone making 20k and receiving the equivalent of another 30k in benefits shouldn't be paying just as much money.

Posted by: The PenIs Mightier at January 03, 2012 07:07 PM (phlKA)

140 What's really ironic - and ever so perplexing to you Jingos - is that
Ron Paul has huge military support.

That is ironic considering that Paul will have to slash military salaries to get the budget down to where he wants it.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 07:07 PM (73tyQ)

141 You know what, screw off Jeff B. I've asked you time and again to make the case for Romney, and I try to get specific answers from you and...nothing. It's fucking retarded. Again, I seriously doubt that you care if Obamacare is repealed.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 07:07 PM (zLeKL)

142 Does Ron Paul have the Alvin Green endorsement yet?

Posted by: Killerdog at January 03, 2012 07:08 PM (CZrbJ)

143 So is this where we lube up for our latter-day overlord?

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 03, 2012 07:08 PM (9AVhU)

144 Obama was passing out "Free Mumia" pamphlets. Entirely different worlds of accomplishment.

That's mighty generous of you.

Posted by: garrett at January 03, 2012 07:08 PM (CSyi3)

145 Dredge up that quote for me, JeffB.

I love ya, garrett, but I'm not your errand boy. He's said this in pretty much every debate, and it's also a regular part of his stump speech. He's gone into specifics, too: 1.) waivers on day 1; 2.) repeal on (metaphorically speaking, it'll be when the Congress gets him the bill) day 2. He has even specified that if the Senate tries to filibuster then he'll push the GOP to pass a repeal using the same reconciliation trick they used to ram it through in the first place.

As a general principle, candidates don't go into such explicit detail about the mechanisms of repealing a bill they secretly intend on keeping. All we need to do is 1.) get Romney elected President; 2.) get at least 51 GOP Senators.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:08 PM (hIWe1)

146 Yeah, what we're seeing here is that the TEA party has some fundamental weakness, I think because by nature it is uncontrollable and mindless. It is being routed naturally.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 06:51 PM (rQ/Ue)

Really? I'd like to hear your definition of the Tea Party. Because the TP is not any kind of an organization but a mindset; core values, if you will. And it's shared by millions of people that have never attended a TP meeting or rally. That's really all it is.
This primary season is really no different than any other primary season in the past, except, now, we have a medium (the intertubes, talk radio, etc.) where everyone can express their opinion over a broader range.
What we're seeing from the TP mindset is a growing frustration with the role of government into the minutia of our lives. Having said that, there's still going to be a spectrum of opinions on how to eliminate this intrusion. The TP mindset is very much alive and well.

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 07:09 PM (xSHjK)

147 "I love ya, garrett, but I'm not your errand boy. "

Garret wins again.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:09 PM (rQ/Ue)

148 Seeya upthread

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 07:10 PM (zLeKL)

149
Why the spelling of "the" as "teh"? I make this mistake all the time but why does it appear to be purposively done?
Thanks -

Posted by: ghri@gmail.com at January 03, 2012 07:11 PM (WEMRH)

150 I think you are wishcasting, JeffB.
He's dealing you vagueries and you are filling in the blanks with (your) hope(s).

Posted by: garrett at January 03, 2012 07:12 PM (CSyi3)

151 "Really? I'd like to hear your definition of the Tea Party. Because the
TP is not any kind of an organization but a mindset; core values, if
you will. "

Of course. I agree totally. I've been to a lot of rallies because I'm conveniently close to many, and I recognize it's just grass roots.

There is no organization to it.

It seemed to be so powerful in 2010, but it's not able to hold together on presidential politics because it's not an organization at all.

That's my point.

The proto-tea party of past years had the same problem. Conservatives hold conservatives to a high standard, and usually reject 100% of them in presidential elections, splitting to the four winds.

The moderates don't mind settling, though. That 23% or whatever... they will vote Romney even if he named Hillary Clinton his running mate. Even if he was found to have attended a college socialist club. They will deal with it. I doubt Romney can win with that (Newt seems to be pulling off something impressive this year), but there is some organization involved.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:12 PM (rQ/Ue)

152 I don't say that to be inflammatory.

Yo, dude. You see up on the top where it says spit on your hands, hoist a black flag, and begin slashing throats?

I don't think that means to pre-apologize for pissing someone off. Grow a set and let it fly.

Posted by: Internet Tough Guy Local #2869 at January 03, 2012 07:14 PM (phlKA)

153 Well said Soona -

Posted by: ghri@gmail.com at January 03, 2012 07:15 PM (WEMRH)

154 Honestly, we don't mean to offend anyone. We welcome any and all arguments for opposing views and want nothing more than to have reasonable peaceful discourse with rivals of good faith.

On the other hand, screw off, you fucking retards.

Posted by: Emos 4 Rick at January 03, 2012 07:16 PM (yBtkG)

155 btw, if by 'repeal', Romney means to repeal and replace Obamacare with another ind. mandate laden health insurance takeover, then it's not really a repeal.

And yeah, that's his aim. He will 'negotiate' with democrats and 'repeal' with something almost as bad because that is how Mitt 'leads'.

This will cement into place Obamacare just like Nixon helped cement into place LBJ's policies.

The spectrum of ideology will be shifted radically to where 'the ind mandate is conservative' is the right side of the mainstream.

That's what Romney means to do. His waffling on Obamacare makes it rather obvious, too. I know, I know, but Romney promised!!!!

So his fans say, but Romney promised "never to waver" on abortion rights, and also claims he broke that promise the very first chance he got. He actually says "very first".

Who in the hell places value in Romney's promises?

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:16 PM (rQ/Ue)

156 You just don't like the fact that the Establishment That Runs Everything
isn't actually an Establishment That Runs Everything enough.

No, I'm annoyed at being called a liar, and pointing out one interpretation of the evidence.

(And, as I've already mentioned in post 75, it is entirely possible that the Establishment are simply idiots. What seems obvious to me about Iowa's scheduling might not be obvious to "seasoned political professionals".)

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 03, 2012 07:16 PM (bjRNS)

157 149
Why the spelling of "the" as "teh"? I make this mistake all the time but why does it appear to be purposively done?
Thanks -
Posted by: ghri@gmail.com at January 03, 2012 07:11 PM (WEMRH)

For the same reason that "Porn" is spelled "Pron".....stupid convention; Like saying, "Axe" for "Ask". Although "kitteh" is a newer stylistic idiogramic thingamabob.

Posted by: guy who pretends to know stuff at January 03, 2012 07:17 PM (z+hCt)

158 >>>You know what, screw off Jeff B. I've asked you time and again to make
the case for Romney, and I try to get specific answers from you
and...nothing. It's fucking retarded. Again, I seriously doubt that you
care if Obamacare is repealed.

I gave a specific answer in #145, and I've tried to make the positive case for Romney OVER AND OVER AGAIN here. The thing is, every single time I make that case...it passes completely uncommented upon or unengaged. At best, it gets the equivalent of "meh, I don't buy it." Well I'm sorry if that's the case, but stop it with this "you never make a positive case" crap.

I can make it in a thumbnail right now: Romney has a lifetime's worth of experience devoted to turning around lost causes and financial/economic disasters in the business world. He knows how to attack insanely difficult and complex problems and get buy-in from the opposing party (which, I hate to break it to you, we are going to need in order to save this country -- if you fantasize about the Republicans 'going it alone' you don't get how democracy works). He's incredibly smart, hardworking, and thoroughgoingly decent. If Obama is the epitome of unearned vanity and self-regard, Romney is damn near the inverse: a guy who has 'earned it', over and over, throughout his entire career, in every field and endeavor, and yet still doesn't strut around like he's cock of the walk. (I honestly credit his Mormonism and upbringing: he was raised right, basically.) Do I wish he were more of a blood-and-guts conservative? Damn right I do. But in a more important way I think he's exactly what the nation needs right now: a guy who can actually work towards a solution as opposed to posturing, or alternately disappearing from the scene and dividing people Obama-style.

I honestly think he has the potential to be a truly great President. I'm not saying it's guaranteed, or even likely (these things are always about odds and percentages and given the challenges we face the odds have to be thought of as daunting). But the potentiality is actually there. I don't see that with any of the other candidates, Perry included. And I sure as shit don't see it in Obama.

So that's a positive case.

Also, I will skip the typical back-and-forth namecalling here, but when you say that you seriously doubt whether I care about the repeal of Obamacare, that's a goddamn slander and you ought to retract it if you care even a whit about fair play. Nothing I have ever said around here, EVER, could give anyone that impression. Unless the new metric you're choosing to apply, in your anger and despair, is "supporting Romney." (And hey, remember: I didn't used to support Romney. I backed Pawlenty, then Perry, and would have gone for Christie or Daniels had they run. I chose Romney by default.)

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:19 PM (hIWe1)

159
Look - it's really simple, at least when it comes to calling Iowa's results. It all hinges (and always has, since 1961) on the contenders meeting with a six--year-old kid named Anthony (and everything Anthony does is er, um, good....yeah, real good, you betcha) and how that goes. It's all there in the original Serling/Bixby study on the unique caucus procedure that wags have dubbed "wishing into the cornfield."
Frankly, there's no way under that scenario that Luap Nor doesn't end up taking up residence amidst the towering grain stalks, possibly with Santorum and Bachman to keep him company.
Unless there's yet another one of those surprise upsets from the Isaac/Malachi coalition that vaults He Who Walks Behind the Rows to front-runner status.
C'mon, people, this is established political wisdom for Dave Burge country.

Posted by: A. Pendragon at January 03, 2012 07:19 PM (XDdB5)

160 "
I don't think that means to pre-apologize for pissing someone off. Grow a set and let it fly.


Posted by: Internet Tough Guy Local #2869 at January 03, 2012 07:14 PM (phlKA)"
I don't intend to be so pathetic as to prove I have balls in internet debates. I actually enjoy persuading people, and I didn't mean that the Tea Party itself is a failure when I note they are being routed pretty badly in this primary as a result of what the Tea Party is and isn't.I prove my 'manhood' when I support my family and when I served in the military. I don't need to prove it to the internet.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:20 PM (rQ/Ue)

161 Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:12 PM (rQ/Ue)

There hasn't been one primaryvote that's been officially reported, and yet you have the whole scenario mapped out to the point where you're willing to sell conservatism down the road because of the MFM/DNC/DC elitistssaying the TP is dying. Because those are the only people that are pushing that meme.

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 07:22 PM (xSHjK)

162 Thank you guy who pretends to know stuff

Posted by: ghri@gmail.com at January 03, 2012 07:22 PM (WEMRH)

163 Not terribly off topic, but this afternoon I finally registered as a Republican so that I could vote in the Fl primary whichmay - for the first time - have some impact on the final candidate.
Santorum is painful to listen to... He needs a speech coach or something - his tempo is like fingernails on a blackboard.

Posted by: rabidfox at January 03, 2012 07:23 PM (3k8I0)

164 I don't think there is a GOP establishment.

I think there is a northeastern, Ivy League establishment. (With marginal participation of the service academies.) You can be a grade A super genius, but if you went to Ohio State, Taylor University, or Franciscan University, you will be relegated to the second tier.

All I have to do is go back and look at the comments about Harriet Meiers: "She went to SMU! Unacceptable!"

Obama was deemed to be ok by a great many Republicans because he was a Harvard Grad.

We currently have the spectacle of Ann Coulter serving as a mercenary for Romney, having formerly pushed Christie and after spending many years presenting herself as a true-blue conservative. (Check her comments on Harriet Meiers.) One of the earliest criticisms of Palin was that she went to an Idaho college. Perry is ignored because he went to Texas A M. I think the reason so many hated Bush was that although he was a Yale and Harvard grad, he identified with Midland, Texas values.

And here we have Romney, who is judged to be the perfect candidate by people like Coulter, and of course he is an Ivy league graduate as well.

I personally think this is not a conscious conspiracy, but rather a mind set shared by people who got into these schools and spent 4 years hearing how much better they are than 98% of the public.

But you will never convince me it isn't there, because I have seen it constantly since George Herbert Walker Bush was elected.

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 03, 2012 07:23 PM (GoIUi)

165 Romney thinks the government can solve problems, and not that government usually causes the problems it is supposedly trying to solve. That's enough reason right there not to vote for him.

The fact that he provably says whatever he thinks it will take to get elected, and in doing so appears to have no core principles, pretty much finishes the argument against him.

He'll probably still win the nomination, though.

Posted by: cranky-d at January 03, 2012 07:25 PM (H2G0R)

166 Is this where I ask why we can't all have single payer auto insurance? After all it is a basic human right.
And is this Mittens person going to require all citizens to carry personal liability insurance? I think that is a good idea. at the last rally I was just about to throw a molotov cocktail and this really aggressive (probably a Tea Partier) ran up from the sidewalk and knocked it out of my hands. I was only slightly burned but when I complained he said, "sue me!". I think he was just a victim of not having single payer personal liability insurance. He owes me money for my burned mime outfit and if this Mittens person goes to work for President Obama he needs to make sure that all the people who have money buy insurance.

Posted by: lost Kos at January 03, 2012 07:25 PM (z+hCt)

167 The Establishment Isn't Forcing Crap Candidates On Us; Crap
Candidates and Crap Voter Decisions Are Forcing Crap Candidates On UsEXACTLY!

I've asked all along why, if conservatives want to win so much and are so popular and hate the establishment so much, they can't just find and field a good candidate.

Not an electoral loser like Santorum who comes across as churlish; not a Gingrich who, while I like him 'cause I'm kind of like him, has a good record but isn't really that conservative and floats too many ideas instead of concentrating; not a Rick Perry who can't speak properly nor seize the initiative and attention in a debate; not a Herman Cain who, you know (and couldn't understand foreign policy either); and for God's sake, not libertarian (I like libertarianism) lunatic Ron Paul. And Bachman? No experience, says crazy things, sleizy in her attacks on the other candidates.

These are ALL allegedly conservative tea party supporting candidates, and they can't fucking beat unpopular, once pro-abortion, anti-Reagan, flip-flopping MITT ROMNEY.

Whose fault is that? Romney's? Rove's? Jeb's?

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:25 PM (YiE0S)

168 Miss Marple, for me the idea of a GOP establishment and the East-Coast elite establishment is one and the same.

Well said.

Posted by: cranky-d at January 03, 2012 07:26 PM (H2G0R)

169 And your formatting thing here sucks, Ace -- it looked fine to me before I posted. Since that annoyed me so much, I'm posting it again:

The Establishment Isn't Forcing Crap Candidates On Us; Crap Candidates and Crap Voter Decisions Are Forcing Crap Candidates On Us

EXACTLY!

I've asked all along why, if conservatives want to win so much and are so popular and hate the establishment so much, they can't just find and field a good candidate.

Not an electoral loser like Santorum who comes across as churlish; not a Gingrich who, while I like him 'cause I'm kind of like him, has a good record but isn't really that conservative and floats too many ideas instead of concentrating; not a Rick Perry who can't speak properly nor seize the initiative and attention in a debate; not a Herman Cain who, you know (and couldn't understand foreign policy either); and for God's sake, not libertarian (I like libertarianism) lunatic Ron Paul. And Bachman? No experience, says crazy things, sleizy in her attacks on the other candidates.

These are ALL allegedly conservative tea party supporting candidates, and they can't fucking beat unpopular, once pro-abortion, anti-Reagan, flip-flopping MITT ROMNEY.

Whose fault is that? Romney's? Rove's? Jeb's?


Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:27 PM (YiE0S)

170 "Romney has a lifetime's worth of experience devoted to turning around lost causes"

No he doesn't. Bain did better WITHOUT him. Other people did that.

MA was more liberal and intrusive after Romney. Claiming Romney turned MA around is ridiculous, but this is the closest example to what kind of president he'd be that is available.

But thanks for trying, at least. This is much more intelligent than when you claimed rejecting Romney is something like suicide bombing just to be pure. Also a lot better than when you made up that claim that I blamed Romney for the Cain attacks (when I said the opposite). Sometimes you seem to need a few minutes to get off the high horse and actually attempt to debate, but you're actually a decent commenter when you actually get there (to those who aren't ignoring you).

Why is Romney a better candidate than Newt?

Romney claims he stood up to the democrats and failed repeatedly, never taking the case to the people like a Chris Christie or a Rick Perry (such as when Perry got Tort Reform via ballot measure over the SCREAMS of Texas lawyers). Newt was part of meaningful victories.

The GOP house in the 1990s is one of the best places to seek answers to today's problems. MA in the mid 2000s is one of the best places to seek examples of how the feds went wrong (by emulating the high debt and economic control concept).

Newt is also much more intelligent than Romney, and while he has his share of gaffes and flip flops, he's not Romney level gaffetastic "for pete's sake" or flip floppy.

If you want to actually win something in 2012 better than "anyone better than the current disaster", I think you should consider who is the most conservative candidate who can win.

Unless you think only Mitt Romney can win (which makes no sense, as the election is about Obama) then you probably don't think Romney is the most conservative candidate who can win. I think one should ignore the talk and look at the records, and Romney has a dismal record of gun control and intrusion into other basic rights, like economic choices.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:29 PM (rQ/Ue)

171 I prove my 'manhood' when I support my family and when I served in the military. I don't need to prove it to the internet.

If I had a dollar for every person who misrepresented himself on the internet as something they really weren't I'd be wealthy beyond imagination. But you hit the right chords with the right tempo... a little hard to dance to, but I'd give it a 47.

Posted by: Internet Tough Guy Local #2869 at January 03, 2012 07:30 PM (phlKA)

172 "These are ALL allegedly conservative tea party supporting candidates,
and they can't fucking beat unpopular, once pro-abortion, anti-Reagan,
flip-flopping MITT ROMNEY."

Newt is destroying Romney, but other than that, you have a good point. It's pathetic that my man Perry couldn't crush Romney, and responsibility for that is on both Perry and on the voters for how they evaluate people (the way they evaluate people is why showbiz Obama is president).

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:31 PM (rQ/Ue)

173 I proved my manhood when I led the SEAL team that took out Bin Laden.

Just sayin', is all.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:31 PM (hIWe1)

174 And your formatting thing here sucks,
Ace -- it looked fine to me before I posted. Since that annoyed me so
much, I'm posting it again

.....splains a lot.....


Posted by: ontherocks at January 03, 2012 07:33 PM (HBqDo)

175 Bringing soldiers home from Germany is DAFT. We should have thousands of soldiers in every country on every continent JUST IN CASE we are attacked by any person! This is just common sense, which nutbars like RON PAUL want to destroy.

Imagine if a Muslim JIHAD had a missile and shot it at Wichita! Only our soldiers in South Korea and Guam could counterattack, and RON PAUL would have them sitting at home, knitting scarves!

BOMB IRAN NOW!

Posted by: Attacking Iran Is Defense at January 03, 2012 07:35 PM (gj4aA)

176 "If I
had a dollar for every person who misrepresented himself on the internet
as something they really weren't I'd be wealthy beyond imagination. But
you hit the right chords with the right tempo... a little hard to dance
to, but I'd give it a 47.


Posted by: Internet Tough Guy Local #2869 at January 03, 2012 07:30 PM (phlKA)"Sorry, pal, I simply do not need to prove my toughness to you. Whether I am badass or not has nothing to do with how aggressive I get in my arguments online.In my experience, it's the guys who get aggressive about little matters from the safety of their keyboards who are truly pathetic in real life. you can't always know. Maybe some of these raging infernos is a SEAL or something.
I don't have anything to prove, though. I take care of my own and I feel I've done my duty to my country. You seem to feel some reason to suggest I'm making that up, which I do not care about, but even if I were, I'm still right that those are the true measurements of manhood. Not necessarily military service, but some kind of willingness to stand up and be part of something you believe in, and taking care of one's family. Internet badassery can't enter into it. Sorry, pal.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:36 PM (rQ/Ue)

177 Miss Marple@164,

Good points. The northeastern politico-media complex is powerful and I don't just mean as an industry. It's a regional behavior ingrained in the culture. Sure, an aberration like Reagan sometimes comes along to upset the applecart, but it surely isn't what the "elites" would have drawn up. Recall at that aberrational time it was the northeastern Bush wing that demonized Reagan.

This isn't some conspiracy-minded rant. The political season begins in the NE and the political off-season trains there. A regional, big city/government bias would be expected which is to say every national race is borne of a generally statist gene pool.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 03, 2012 07:38 PM (eHIJJ)

178 "I proved my manhood when I led the SEAL team that took out Bin Laden.

Just sayin', is all.


Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:31 PM (hIWe1)"
I never claimed anything like that, Jeff. My point was that people who feel the need to show how tough they are online are misguided, and probably doing it because they can't prove it in person. There is no proving how badass you are online.If you're calling me a liar, be a man and do it. If you're not, why are you passive aggressively suggesting I'm a liar?

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:39 PM (rQ/Ue)

179 Since Perry isn't going to win I'd be willing to vote for Monty's dog if he will run against Obama. Sure Mittens signed away the second amendment in perpetuity and he even thought it was clever to force people to buy insurance in some Overlord paternalistic orgy of Rule. And yes, he lied when he said that plan saved money since the feds shoveled tens of millions into the State to make up the afterbirth runaway shortfalls. But he will be the nominee. the question is: Can the Conservative wing pack the House and Senate and send a President Mittens "The Messageâ„¢"? Can the insane Paulians make their voices for small government heard? And am I out of cat food and do I need to go to the store?

Posted by: Daybrother at January 03, 2012 07:40 PM (z+hCt)

180
More so online than elsewhere, there grows an ever greater divide not between leftor right buthysteric or sober. Specifically,far too much energy that should be channelledagainstthe left is diverted to talking down nutters who claim to betrue bearers of the conservative flame but speakin the language of the far left (C. WrightMills, Mosca Pareto's elite theory so loved by the self-proclaimed "99%).
There's a good reason Paultards freely mingle about in ocupooper encampments; different bugaboos, same processing.

Posted by: Tad Blatherton at January 03, 2012 07:41 PM (PFmqE)

181 >>>If you're calling me a liar, be a man and do it. If you're not, why are you passive aggressively suggesting I'm a liar?

Um...actually, I wasn't trying to do either. I was just goofing around.

You ARE a rather excitable lad when it comes to GOP horserace stuff around here on AoSHQ, though. I'd criticize you more for that but...yeah. Pot, kettle, grass houses stowing thrones, all that. (Hmm...the liquor seems to be kicking in...*hic!*)

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:42 PM (hIWe1)

182 Nice comment, Miss Marple.

Remember those billionaires who said 'we're going to put something together with Romney' and 'Romney is the guy' and all that?

It's almost as though they meant it.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:42 PM (rQ/Ue)

183 I wasn't going to watch Current anyways, not with the Politico livestream with Mike Allen and Debbie Jinglehiemmer Schmidt.

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 07:42 PM (GZitp)

184 "Um...actually, I wasn't trying to do either. I was just goofing around.

You
ARE a rather excitable lad when it comes to GOP horserace stuff around
here on AoSHQ, though. I'd criticize you more for that but...yeah.
Pot, kettle, grass houses stowing thrones, all that. (Hmm...the liquor
seems to be kicking in...*hic!*)


Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:42 PM (hIWe1)

Yeah, my bad actually. And yes, I am excitable because our country is in deep shit. We either reverse course on spending, or the country is going to fall apart. I am conservative and think liberals cannot be relied on to fix this mess, obviously.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:43 PM (rQ/Ue)

185 Dammit, wrong thread, too many windows open.

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 07:43 PM (GZitp)

186 Newt is destroying Romney

Was, Dustin, was.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:44 PM (YiE0S)

187 "Sure Mittens signed away the second amendment in perpetuity and he
even thought it was clever to force people to buy insurance in some
Overlord paternalistic orgy of Rule. And yes, he lied when he said that
plan saved money since the feds shoveled tens of millions"

Billions. About twenty.

Anyway, yeah, of course he's better than Obama, but jeez.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:44 PM (rQ/Ue)

188 Holy shit does brandy benedictine hit fast. Gonna be an alcoholic stain on the floor before 8:00 EST the way things are going.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:45 PM (hIWe1)

189
186
Newt is destroying RomneyWas, Dustin, was.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:44 PM (YiE0S)
To Newt's credit, he sounds like he's trying to take Mitt down with him, though it'll probably only help to hasten Newt's demise.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 03, 2012 07:46 PM (KI/Ch)

190 I proved my manhood when I rescued an entire classroom of children from a burning schoolbus plummeting over a cliff and when I served as a covert operative for a certain classified highly-trained special-missions force in its efforts to derail a global terrorist organization using a snake for its mascot.

Of course, I don't need to tell you all about any of this because I have nothing to prove.

That's what makes a man. A Manny Manny Man Man Man.

Posted by: Dustup at January 03, 2012 07:46 PM (yBtkG)

191 "Holy shit does brandy benedictine hit fast. Gonna be an alcoholic
stain on the floor before 8:00 EST the way things are going."

Take E, man. It's the only way to get through these things with a smile and a desire to hug your TV.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:46 PM (YiE0S)

192 "Was, Dustin, was.


Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:44 PM (YiE0"

Well, we'll see. It'll probably take all the way to Florida (not that far) to see if you're right. I grant you have a point. If Romney is so bad,then anyone who can't crush him with the GOP sucks at this. That's fair.

I think Newt can do it. I guess Perry can't, which sucks.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:46 PM (rQ/Ue)

193 So National Review--one of the leading mouthpieces of this allegedly mythical establishment--insists there is no establishment, and even if there was, IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.

Try harder, Ace.

Posted by: tsj017 at January 03, 2012 07:47 PM (vOH26)

194 I'm not going to bother with the comments. So what this writer is saying is that because the Establishment doesn't always get what they want (i.e. their favored candidate winning the R nomination), it doesn't exist?

Then who are all those people buzzing around Washington and state capitals? You know those hierarchies that are topped by Senators, Congresscritters, Governors, lobbying firms, law firms, think tanks, media outlets, etc. and so on and so forth... these people don't see themselves as any sort of established group of people who's jobs depend on them getting their way in politics?

None of that exists? Or are they trying to tell us there is no monolithic hive mentality that automatically buzzes with their desires and goals, so they have to find some way other than osmosis (I know, I'm mixing metaphors) to get their way?

Bull. Shitzu! Of course it's real! How stupid do you think we are (don't answer that)? Mitt is their guy, everybody knows it. Who cares whether McCain was or not. They got their guy this year, and conditions coalesced well enough that they're going to get their guy across the finish line. The first one, at least. We'll see how well they do with that other guy's Establishment. Or are you going to tell us that doesn't exist either?

Posted by: BurtTC at January 03, 2012 07:48 PM (Gc/Qi)

195 To Newt's credit, he sounds like he's trying to take Mitt down with him,
though it'll probably only help to hasten Newt's demise.

I like Newt, as I said. He's my first choice, and after that I'm lost.

I actually like Santorum's personality (I have a staunch, hold my ground, argumentative despite what it does to one's popularity streak), but his social conservatism is really beyond the pale. I'm not talking just opposing homosexuality, but consensual sex in one's home! I happen to like consensual sex. Lots and lots of consensual sex, so this is a big issue for me.

Bachman's sleazy in how she attacks other candidates, and inexperienced. Paul's nuts 40% of the time, and I like to keep crazy in candidates below the 5% or so level. Rick Perry's not good at campaigning nationally, and etc., and etc., and I think he has bad political judgment, like in his "Strong" ad.

So it's Newt, hopefully for me. I like Romney's business competence, but I think he's unelectable in the general.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:51 PM (YiE0S)

196 "Of course, I don't need to tell you all about any of this because I have nothing to prove.

That's what makes a man. A Manny Manny Man Man Man.


Posted by: Dustup at January 03, 2012 07:46 PM (yBtkG)"
I didn't say anything like that. Of course, your man Jack Straw got very internet tough guy, saying he'd knock my teeth out if he could because I criticized the use of bilderberger conspiracy truther goofs (I never saw that guy actually use those goof's links, but he took extreme offense so I guess he did).Yeah, I am proud I served in the army. Nothing heroic, but honorable service. When people exclaim how I'm being too polite and need to grow some balls, I think that they should look for better ways to prove themselves than to try proving themselves online.Of course, you, Undead, said you'd campaign against Rick Perry if he were the nominee "trashing that aggie fuck all the way to election day" just because Buzzion kicked your ass in a stupid internet argument. That's because you take this internet shit a lot more seriously than you should.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:51 PM (rQ/Ue)

197 Billions. About twenty.
Anyway, yeah, of course he's better than Obama, but jeez.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:44 PM (rQ/Ue)

Thanks for the correction. I could not remember the numbers---only that they were horrendous.

But Jeez. But Jeez indeed.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 03, 2012 07:51 PM (z+hCt)

198 Well, we'll see. It'll probably take all the way to Florida (not that
far) to see if you're right. I grant you have a point. If Romney is so
bad,then anyone who can't crush him with the GOP sucks at this. That's
fair.I think Newt can do it. I guess Perry can't, which sucks.

I hope you're right, Dustin.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:52 PM (YiE0S)

199 >>>Take E, man. It's the only way to get through these things with a smile and a desire to hug your TV.
Great idea, man. Just did.

[waits for it to hit]

DUUUUDE...I LOVE YOU, RANDOM. WE ARE SOOOOO ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH. CAN'T YOU FEEL THE VIBES? LET'S HOLD HANDS AND VOTE FOR ROMNEY IN NOVEMBER...TOGETHER.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:52 PM (hIWe1)

200 Just a reminder about Georgette Mosbacher saying, in her best Leona Helmsley voice, "We all know who's going to be the nominee, don't we?"
(She is a fundraiser for Romney this year.)

What, besides her connections to the Washington establishment and her money, make HER the big opinion maker?

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 03, 2012 07:53 PM (GoIUi)

201 I'm a man 'cause I fap like a man. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 07:53 PM (xSHjK)

202 For the record, I'm going to say right now that I think Santorum will edge out Romney in IA. This will spur a whole host of "ZOMG ROMNEY ISN'T INEVITABLE AFTER ALL!" commentary until people realize that Santorum has no money, no national organization, and no electoral appeal outside of IA and perhaps the deep South.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 07:55 PM (hIWe1)

203 "This will spur a whole host of "ZOMG ROMNEY ISN'T INEVITABLE AFTER ALL!""

But saying Romney isn't inevitable is a weak claim requiring only weak evidence. If Romney can't beat obviously pretty shoestring guys... if, in fact, he's not even doing as well as he did in 2008 by and large... he isn't inevitable.

And actually, I think Santorum surging will help Romney. The most hope people have in the various Not Romney factions, the more split they will be.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 07:57 PM (rQ/Ue)

204 I'll be pretty shocked if Santorum pulls it out, Jeff. But certainly Perry won't.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 07:57 PM (YiE0S)

205 No, Jeff B. Nobody is going to say that. You can never tell what the schizophrenic voters in Iowa will do, but nobody, including Rick Santorum, believes he's a real candidate for President. Maybe he's just doing this to pick up chicks or something, but seriously, whatever happens tonight, Rick Santorum is still going to wake up tomorrow, look himself in the mirror and say "what a girlyman fraud you are," just like he does every other morning.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 03, 2012 07:59 PM (Gc/Qi)

206 Sure, I served. But hey, I'm no hero. When you're In The Shit the way I was, crawling through mud and your buddies' entrails day after nightmarish day, you're too busy thinking about how you're going to get through it all to make it to your bedroll and a packet of rations each night with all your limbs intact. You don't think about things like honor, duty, intrepid testicular valiance. Even though I had all of that. In spades. Not that I'd brag about it.

Aw heck, I'll just leave it at that since I don't like to talk about myself. Much. Nothing to prove here.

Posted by: Dustup at January 03, 2012 08:00 PM (yBtkG)

207
Posted by: BurtTC at January 03, 2012 07:59 PM (Gc/Qi)


Ummm, bullshit!

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 08:00 PM (YiE0S)

208 Hey wait a minute! 20 billion times all 57 States is only about 1.15 Trillion! Thats nothing! I'll issue an Exo Order to raise taxes by that much.

Posted by: Barry at January 03, 2012 08:00 PM (z+hCt)

209 Ace is right.

Posted by: lisa murkowski at January 03, 2012 08:00 PM (sHY5w)

210 207 -

That is absolutely brilliant. I stand corrected.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 03, 2012 08:03 PM (Gc/Qi)

211
That is absolutely brilliant. I stand corrected.

Your comment didn't deserve more. It was stupid.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 08:06 PM (YiE0S)

212 Santorum has good self-esteem, is a family-and-country-and church devoted man, and has the courage of his convictions. Your description of him was not befitting the man.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 08:08 PM (YiE0S)

213 You are welcomed to visit our wesite, where has many kinds of <a href=" http://www.nike-shoesonline.com ">air jordan shoes</a> for you better selection. <a href=" http://www.nike-shoesonline.com ">nike air jordan shoes</a> was made with the patent leather and advanced technology, which favored by many people. This shoes is very comfortable that can be wear for a long time, and you not feel uncomfort. <a href=" http://www.nike-shoesonline.com ">nike shoes online</a> as one of the classical type, the colorway is fashion and refeshment, which will make you be catched out easily among the crowd.

Posted by: air jordan shoes at January 03, 2012 08:09 PM (hScRU)

214 This can be The <a href=" http://www.moncler-downjacket.org ">moncler jackets</a> Springtime Autumn Coats for the market place For You. These <a href=" http://www.moncler-downjacket.org ">moncler coats</a>adult males reduce With Their Simple, usual And classy model And style That appear About being commencing being even more And even more Popular.<a href=" http://www.moncler-downjacket.org ">moncler down jacket</a> It Seemed To have got obtaining A brand name title New course of action Trend.

Posted by: moncler down jacket at January 03, 2012 08:15 PM (hScRU)

215

And that, by the way, isn't enough money to keep them funded,

Actually it will be enough money. After cutting defense by that much, the US population will eventually be substantially lower so we'll be able to afford those entitlements.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 03, 2012 08:15 PM (CLIf7)

216 "Aw heck, I'll just leave it at that since I don't like to talk about myself. Much. Nothing to prove here.


Posted by: Dustup at January 03, 2012 08:00 PM (yBtkG)"
Again you lie about what I said, while also lying about what you've said. It's pretty stupid. In no way did I puff myself up. I'm proud of myself for things that are unrelated to how badass I come across online.You never can win an argument though. You have to reduce the debate to slinging nastiness. That's the Romney Fanatic way. You just plain need to get a life.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 08:16 PM (rQ/Ue)

217 212 -

Ok, he's your guy, I get it. But I've spent way too much time around way too many frauds who look and act and dress just like him. Ironically, I would agree wholly with your characterization of 'Church devoted." As for "courage of convictions" I would more likely describe it as pig-headed, closed-mindedness, but I think we're essentially describing the same thing, so no point arguing.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 03, 2012 08:19 PM (Gc/Qi)

218 Ok, he's your guy, I get it.

No, he isn't. And I don't even like his devoted to church thing, and am not personally even into monogamy, much less social conservationism (except for being pro-life). But what you said about him not believing he could be or should be President is wrong, I believe. Now, maybe he shouldn't be President, but I'm quite sure he believes he could and should.

Posted by: Random at January 03, 2012 08:21 PM (YiE0S)

219 I proved my manhood the first time I pulled my pud at age ELEVEN!
Beat that sissies!

Posted by: Bustin' at January 03, 2012 08:23 PM (h/Ope)

220 We have witnessed plenty of Swoosh runners which contains earned a lot of upgrades, as well as the <a href=" http:// nikefree-runshoes .com ">cheap nike free</a> is always to be launched within the <a href=" http://www. nikefree-runshoes .com ">nike free run</a>, on this springtime to the 2011 NBA Season. because identify suggests it make reference to King James' present on-court kicks of choice, most importantly the <a href=" http://www. nikefree-runshoes .com ">nike free run shoes</a> on the versatility which you will knowledge at their shoes.

Posted by: nike free run at January 03, 2012 08:23 PM (hScRU)

221
Mona Charen, born in 1957 in New York City.B.A. Barnard CollegeJ. D. The George Washington University Law SchoolFirst Lady Nancy Reagan - speechwriterJack Kemp - speechwriter 1988Columnist Boston Globe, AJC, The Washington Times, NROWeekly commentator - CNN The Capital Gang



Fables...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 03, 2012 08:47 PM (3wBRE)

222 "Posted by: Bustin' at January 03, 2012 08:23 PM (h/Ope)"

Awesome IP hash thing.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 08:54 PM (rQ/Ue)

223 No amount of argument will overcome willful blindness. It's been readily apparent for some time that the credentialist in you has been screaming to get out, so let's just have at it.

Posted by: Kerry at January 03, 2012 09:24 PM (AYfPj)

224 Great article Ace. I greatly agree that crappy voter decisions make us have crappy elected officials. I find that if we made it politically profitable to act like a responsible elected official.

Posted by: Draki at January 03, 2012 09:30 PM (d1ecK)

225 I am not clear if I totally understand the full thought pattern behind this.

Posted by: ePub ebook for android at January 03, 2012 10:16 PM (jct/m)

226 I never thought the Republican establishment picked McCain. I always thought it was the Media, by carefully crafting what stories went out to the dullards who vote based on what their television tells them.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 03, 2012 11:15 PM (i0App)

227 Thanks for sharing such a nice post
regards...

Website design company bangalore

Posted by: Domain Registration at January 04, 2012 01:58 AM (GEGD/)

228 Nothing persuades conservatives to vote for a RINO better than telling them they're feeble-mindedRonulansif they don't.

Posted by: Born Free at January 04, 2012 03:17 AM (cHulT)

229 corkscrew travel mug electric bike LED panel LED screen LED light Gas RC Car fluorescent lamp for some time that the credentialist in you has been screaming to get out, so let's just have at it.

Posted by: Linda at January 04, 2012 04:09 AM (/crZa)

230 Pipe fitting pipe fittings carbon steel pipe fittings
Carbon steel pipe fitting Steel pipe fitting Butt welded elbow Pipe fittings
A234 wpb pipe fitting Seamless elbow Equal tee 180 degree elbow
Carbon steel pipe fittings 90 degree elbow Pipe bend Pipe tee
Butt weld pipe fitting Pipe elbow Steel pipe fitting Seamless pipe fitting
Butt welded pipe fitting Butt welding pipe fitting pipe elbow ansi b16.9

Posted by: pipe fittings at January 04, 2012 05:06 AM (m+Sf+)

231 What about 2000? Did the establishment pick George W. Bush? It might seem so, based on primogeniture. But the comfort with Bush came from the grassroots up, not from the top down. Bush himself acknowledged that he was enticed to run not by fat cats at a private club but by the polls.

Balderdash. GWB is a nice guy, but heavy-duty Texas folks pushed him hard. Recall that most (R) folks thought that he was a pleasant bumbler early on.

Posted by: dad29 at January 04, 2012 08:19 AM (4hgxp)

232 Maybe there simply are no true conservatives that can pass the media destructive onslaught.

Maybe there just aren't that many conservatives or conservative leaders.

Maybe at the heart of it most Americans now want big government and protection of the social programs they now depend upon.

Just maybe the Republican party at the national level is controlled by people who seek power at all costs.


Posted by: Dave at January 04, 2012 09:44 AM (hm8tW)

233 I find it hysterical Ace links one of the establishment's mouthpieces to claim the establishment doesn't pick the candidates. Fuck off you pussy.

Posted by: Fuck Off at January 04, 2012 11:13 AM (mJ950)

234 منتديات تسريحات مكياج ازياء فساتين رسائل وسائط مسجات توبيكات وظيفة وظائف ديكور بلايز رجيم رشاقة حلويات معجنات نكت ديكورات رمزيات صور رمزيه توبيكات ملونه صور العاب خلفيات ميك اب صبغات للشعر اكسسوارات كروشيه تطريز خياطة تفصيل اهداف صور غريبة انمي هيدرات مشاهد ايفون جالكسي بلاك بيري تصاميم يوتيوب بث مباشر رابط نقل

Posted by: df at January 06, 2012 05:46 AM (GVWS4)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.05 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0114 seconds, 242 records returned.
Page size 153 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat