1

The reason Joe The Plumber caught on was because he called Obama on his communist principles. Something that sorry shit head of a piss poor candidate McLame would not do.

 

Yes, it is true that he is not a good war correspondent, but then again, neither is anyone in the MSM.

 

No Joe the Plumber is not the issue with the Republican Party or the conservative movement. The fact that the squishie SOBs have been able to nominate fucking liberals for almost every run for office is the problem.

2

ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES

ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES

You said it yesterday. Address issues people care about. Take the right stance. Everything else will follow.

You can't start at the end and work your way back.

3 Spot on.  The GOP leadership seems more interested in being seen as everyman populists than they are about, you know, actually governing in a consistent, conservative manner.  Hence their time in the wilderness, which, if they keep listening to these Beltway experts, might be significantly longer.

It seems as though the party leadership has gotten too caught up in the media caricature of themselves, and, through trying to go against stereotype, do nothing but reinforce it.  Sad.

4

It's that bugaboo, I think, that caused Jindal to deliver his rebuttal in such a false way. He was trying to channel his inner Bubba rather than just being himself.

 

A lot of here think that the squishie McCain type handlers are the ones that delivered that speech to Jindal and that is why it was such a piece of shit. They will not allow Palin to be Palini or Jindal to be Jindal.

5 The problems are McCain, Specter, et. al.  We have so-called leaders who are just a hair away from being Democrats.  I so wish we had term limits on every national political seat.  Once in power they're there to stay, and they all do so by following the same bullshit plan - earmarks and pork.  Ronaldus Maximus, we turn our eyes to you. 

6 What a bunch of morons, our party elite are.

try this:

Defend the brand.  Point out our strengths.

For example, why didn't W and Mackerel yell at the top of the lungs in October about their efforts to regulate fannie freddie.  They just let the GOP brand take the full recession on themselves.

Rush was right, these too embarrassed to be Republicans but are still our mouthpiece types should just leave.  They do more harm than good.   Instead, their helping the democrats by destroying our side's most effective speakers.

7 Yeah, heaven forbid average citizens should have a say in the direction of the party.  We need to continue to listen to the pundits and elites because that has really been working for us so far.

Joe caught on because he is one of us, as is Palin.  Nothing wrong with that at all and it does not prevent us from also having a good slate of ideas on the issues.

8 Yeah - no sh*t there's something wrong with the party.  It's full of lying, self-interested sock puppets for whom, like the dems, doing anything that might in the slightest endanger their political tenure, even if its the right thing to do, is beyond their capacity to comprehend.  The party is full of gutless, morally corrupt professional politicians.  What we need are some statemen who are willing to do the right thing even when the stand they take might succeed (vs. only when they know their votes are meaningless).

9 ...In other words - probably some politicians a lot like Joe the Plumber.

10 Ruffini's piece is symptomatic of "smart people" versus *everyone else* that I faced when I ran for president. I promised lower taxes, stronger defense, smaller and less intrusive government, basically. My deregulation efforts succeeded in giving the country Rush(and later Hannity, Ingraham, Savage, Styen, etc...).

I delivered, with varying degrees of success on all of my simple promises, and brought in more revenue to the government in history to that point(which Democrats immediately over-spent)as a result of tax cuts. I was called "slick marketing and packaging", "populist", "amiable dunce" and much worse. Of late my party tries to disavow my methods and their success. The Ruffinis of the world think they are smarter than the American people, when the GOP, run by these "smarter-than-everyone-else-in-the-room" elitists is a walking, fly-blown, undead corpse.

11 Interesting post by Ruffini.  However, I'm not sure we have to reach back so far in history or peer so deep into philosophical roots to understand the Joe the Plumber phenomenon.

McCain was our nominee.  While heroic, brave, and stubborn, he had not been a leader of anything for quite a long ime, and he did not come across as very smart.  Period.

Joe the Plumber would have played a minuscule or no role at all had Giuliani or Romney, or even Thompson been the GOP nominee.  And though I hate almost all of the criticism of Sarah Palin, it's obvious that Giuliani, Romney or Thompson would not have picked her as a VP.

The bottom line is: We didn' have a smart leader at the top of the ticket laying out any kind of conservative case for governance.  I think that explains Joe the Plumber (and 10,000 other anomolies of the election) better than anything else.

12

Link doesn't work for me. I'm confused.

's that bugaboo, I think, that caused Jindal to deliver his rebuttal in such a false way. He was trying to channel his inner Bubba rather than just being himself.

Oh: The identity-politics thing is pretty widespread among the elites of the party (both actual and self-anointed), obviously

Is it lambasting the trend toward populism or the leaderships entrenched elitism? Or both?

Same deal, different flavors I guess.

13

Romney would most likely have been the same as McLame because he was  just as liberal as McLame was. Romney may have been slightly more combative and more articulate but his policies would have been the same.

 

Giuliani would have been much worse.

14

Reagan's Ghost at February 26, 2009 10:32 AM (NKxaH)

Reagan was popular because of what he belived in. The issues. He could speak about them inside and out, and did for 30 years prior to runing for president. He made a consistent argument for voting Republican.

No one thought a Hollywood actor was "one of us." They thought he was right.

15 Using Joe The Plumber as a negative example is stupid elitism. So many people identify with Joe because they face exactly the same things he faces, and feel exactly the same way about those things. Ruffini...Who is he? If I'm some schmoe glancing in on the political scene between making my living and paying most of it back out on April 15th am I going to give a rat's rosy red rear-end about this Ruffini person or what I heard and saw Joe saying. Ruffini is just stupid to act like an elitist and use a popular and mistreated average guy in a negative way. STUPID!

16 U guys are so lame that it's not even fun to troll here, which is why I spend all my time trolling here!!!

17

Anybody remember back a few elections ago when Lamar Alexander ran for president, and during the Republican primaries he would wear nothing but flannel shirts?

It was a joke, and a fake blue-collarism is the last thing the Republicans need to do. Especially those who were never blue collar. No shame in that.

But pretending to be... anybody can spot a fake. ("But what about Obama?" rebuttal coming, I know, I know...)

Palin wasn't fake. She was raised by school teachers and grew up in Alaska. That's cool. Jindal is bookish, a Rhodes Scholar, and maybe a bit of the lovable nerd. That's cool, too.

I have a feeling that by 2010, after two years of monolithic Dem power, the country will desperately be looking for grownups.

Republicans need to be the grown ups who talk about issues, not personalities. Besides, the one thing that we will never beat Obama at is being a hip personality trendy with the cool kids.

18

Seems like The Next Right is having trouble handling the extra traffic....Page doesn't load.

19 @Vic: I'm not so sure.  In any case, I was more commenting on the rise of Joe the Plumber.  Can you see Mitt, Rudy, or Fred referring to Joe the Plumber a hundred times in a debate?  Doubtful.

20 CJ, you may not be old enough to remember the Moral Majority, but they MOST certainly thought "He is one of us". THAT is populism, and a big chunk of the Gay Old Party's present problem. I can't blame you, though if you learned your history in public schools...

21 The simple Republican (Conservative) message should be constructed for only one constituency:  American Citizen.

Conservative policies are harmful to no citizen, and create an environment that allows anyone who will take responsibility for themselves to be successful regardless of their religion, color, ethnicity, or current economic status.

If creating separate classes based on some useless distinction and arguing that their individual interests are not aligned with the majority becomes the Republican strategy, I'm out- and we will lose.

22

"The GOP has always been entirely identity politics."

As opposed to say, the Democratic Party, with its "four pillars"* of: Women, Homosexuals, Unions and Minorities.

* per former Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile

I think the whole liberal 'if you don't have enough money it's because your rich neighbor isn't paying enough taxes' just might maybe perhaps fall under the heading of "class warfare."

23 I hate to step on peoples' wonkishness here(or not), but being populist and being right are NOT incompatible.

24

We need to continue to listen to the pundits and elites because that has really been working for us so far.

Joe caught on because he is one of us, as is Palin. 

As did BUSH.

As did.... Huckabee.

As did straight-talkin' '00 McCain.

I agree with you about the elitism thing. And maybe the populism thing is a fresh change, at least. But really it's no better or worse.

People latch onto things like "oh, anti-abortion" or "oh, supports hunting" as indentifying characteristics. Huckabee is a rabid fundie, so he must be very very conservative. He supports a fair tax, so he must be fiscally conservative! On that one issue, they've identified him as 'one of us', so any attempts to portray him as what he was - a tax-and-spending nanny-state Christian Democrat - were seen as smeers by 'one of those other folks' and disbelieved.

The problem with using 1 issue as a litmus test is when that issue turns out to be an anomaly. Especially when crafty politicians know this will happen and (like I think Huckabee did) specifically stake out 1 high profile, radical never-gonna-happen position to distract from everything else.

Politicians can try to manipulate people in this way, and be 'all things to all people'. Like Obama. But it doesn't really help anything if, instead of being manipulated, people manipulate themselves and voluntarily do the exact same thing for some shmuck everyman.

A lot of people were keen to jump on the Colin Powell bandwagon. But now they know he's not anything like they wanted - they were projecting views on an apparently blank slate.

Then people jump on other generals instead and (quite possibly) make the same mistake.

Identity politics is identity politics.

I'm as eager as the next guy to kill all the politicians and elect a random name from the phone book. Probably moreso.

But don't get duped into a Bush or a Huckabee or an early '00 McCain. Cultural quaintness is dandy, but does not neccessarily for good policy make. Just because they 'share your values' does NOT MEAN they'll share your opinions.

25

CJ, you may not be old enough to remember the Moral Majority, but they MOST certainly thought "He is one of us". THAT is populism, and a big chunk of the Gay Old Party's present problem. I can't blame you, though if you learned your history in public schools...

Yeah, I think I heard a little bit about the Religious Right and the GOP, pretty much every day for the last 25 years.

They didn't think the divorced guy from Hollywood who didin't go to church was "one of us." They liked that he advocated positions that few other politicans would, positions they liked. 

And Reagan would not have won with the Moral Majority alone. You don't win 49 states that way.  

26

Palin wasn't fake. She was raised by school teachers and grew up in Alaska. That's cool.

See?

BECAUSE she was raised by school teachers and grew up in Alaska she can't be a crafty triangulating self-interested moderate politician?

Really?

Q.E.D.? There's a mathematical proof to that effect?

I did not know being a teacher in Alaska made it literally IMPOSSIBLE for your children to be douchebags.

That's quite a job perk. I'll have to consider it.

27

The Republican party is having a serious identity crisis right now which is why it appears to be flailing around trying to find something that sticks.  And they'll continue to flail about until they come to terms with what they are now which is, at best, an opposition party with no real power.  They continue to allow O and the Dems to define their own success or failure and appear petty and childish when they counterattack because they've opened themselves up to being labelled the party of "NO".  Instead, use O's words against him; God knows he said a lot of things that are potential minefields that can be used gainst him at this point.        

The Republicans must realize that the Dems continue to flog us because they are simply more ruthless that we are and they approach their ideology with such ferver that they are effective over time because they simply wear down those that are weaker.  The reason why Palin was successful (at least in the beginning) and everyone else (including Jindal, as good as he is) has failed is because Palin FOUGHT BACK against the Obama tide with sharp barbs and coherent criticism.  People are begging to be led - what we lack are leaders with the cajones to do so effectively.    

28 The problem is that elitists not only think they're smarter than everyone else but they also need everyone else to believe it because that's where they get whatever self-esteem they have. It infuriates them when anyone has power or opinions who does not project the same burning desire to be thought of as smart that they do. But the unfortunate thing for them is that elitism is a lifestyle choice rather than a de facto indication of their superiority and they can't handle the fact that there is as much or more wisdom among people who didn't choose the same path as they did.

29 Let's face it, I love the sound of man pineapples slapping against my chin.

30 Whatever mistakes were made in the way Bobby Jindal was coached for his rebuttal, it's fortunate that it happened at this point.  He is going to have future chances to show people who he really is, a guy who has a public policy IQ that could boil water.

31 Yeah, I'm already tired of Joe the Plumber. Dittos for Bobby Jindal. I stick up for conservative fiscal and foreign policy with libs and Dems at work and I win just about everytime. The GOP needs to start sticking up for itself and figuring out what it stands for.

32 Romney never tried to be anyone he wasn't.  He acted the same as he had done as Governor of Mass and acts the same today.  I guess all that joking about him never dressing down was in fact a joke about him trying to portray himself as joe the plumber. Sheesh.  Romney had the resume, accomplishments and ability that any thinking person would love for a President to have.  The big criticisms of Romney was his religion and his appearance (too good to be true as opposed to being bad). Neither valid.  

33

The Republican Party's problem is incorrectly thinking that being right will lead to everyone knowing that they're right. Unfortunately, there's no Right-O-Meter that decides who serves in government. Voters do that, and they'll vote their impressions (or misimpressions) every time.

Consider all the times Republicans have been right: The 2001 tax rebate stimulus ("irresponsible"); removing the Taliban ("quagmire"); removing Saddam ("illegal", "fiasco", "disaster").

Now consider what the Democrats have done: "Culture of corruption!" "Eight years of failed policies!" The economy's no so good? "Eight years of failed policies!" You got struck by lightning? "Eight years of failed policies!"

Catch phrases work. The time for oratory is behind us. We need a tag line.

(I suggest something like, "This is urgent, and we're still waiting for the Democrats." Over and over and over.)

34 The minute after 50 million people decide not to send the means to enslave them into Commie Obamie's TAX CHEAT Geithner, the spending stop! All of the communism comes to an instant, screeching halt.

35 Face it, you love dumb.

Posted by: ergastularius at February 26, 2009 10:59 AM (n6bAw

I don't think anyone here loves you erg so your theory is most definitely false.

36

Face it, you love dumb

Yeah. The History Professor/Speaker of the House. Having the only trained economists in Congress for a decade. Can't compare to intellectual capacity of  a community organizer.

37 Doesn't anyone remember 2004? Republicans extended their leads in the house and senate, Bush won his 2nd term, people like Ace were even discussing a permanent "conservative" majority because of demographics and out migration from blue to red states. Seems to me that the reason for that success was that the economy was running hot, the Iraq War was (though the MSM tried mightily and subsequently succeeded in portraying it as a failure) seen as at least partially successful. Scandals, successful spin on the war, and the economy going into recession, and what do you get?

Here's my prediction:

If the economy recovers sufficiently, Dems are going to benefit in the 2010/2012 elections. If the economy is still struggling, they're taking losses. The rest of it is just a mental exercise.

38 #30 - Agreed. Personally I did not think Jindal was bad at all but then again, I am never impressed by how something is delivered but rather by what is being delivered. Jindal should just be himself, as he is during interviews, etc, and let his message filter through.

39

I'm as eager as the next guy to kill all the politicians and elect a random name from the phone book. Probably moreso.

I mean, I don't think getting some random guy from the phonebook means we'll have any better politicians.

I just think it means we MIGHT get a better politcian. Or we might not.

I like my chances. But just the same... We're fucked if we think phone-book selection eliminates the need for skepticism or watchfull oversight.

40 Romney = Romney Care. It's called SOCIALISM. Romney is symbolic of the Gay(loving)Old Party. An abortion pusher for all of his life, and enabler of gay marriage in the first state in the union. Romney = End of the GOP.

41

Two words....third party.

42 It would be nice if one of the major parties was unapologetically pro-freedom,  would it not?

43

What we have in the Republican Party is a leadership crisis. Anyone that works in leadership development, as I do, can see clearly that we are not getting leadership from republicans. For example, there is no vision of what it means to be an American. This is sorely needed at this time when Obama is intent on dismantling the economy. Second point, values. I am not talking about social values here, but the apparent inability of Republican leadership to educate the public about why American economic values are so important. We have been losing that battle for the last forty years, and now we wonder why over half the country is socialist. Third, there is no combativeness in Republican leadership. The entire country is sliding down the garbage chute, and they are intent on maintaining niceties with the Commies in Congress.

We need to see a new party in this country. One that is lean and mean. One that will scare all these gasbags. I am not talking about Nazis, either. I am talking about a party that will stand up and proclaim all that is decent and wonderful about being American.

44 Joe the Plumber became famous not because every Republican identified with him as a person but  because he had the guts to ask an honest question and to stand his ground expecting an honest answer.  Imagine - honor in this day-in-age.  Now there's an idea that will never catch on.

45 Until the GOP stops trying to fake what it thinks the rest of us want to hear and discovers a principle or two of its own it is doomed, and rightfully so.  And BTW the path to discovering itself does not lie through Brooks, Parker, Buckley, Frum and those who have happily employed them.

46

The GOP leadership seems more interested in being seen as everyman populists than they are about, you know, actually governing in a consistent, conservative manner.

Being an everyman populist is not inconsistent with governing in conservative manner. JtP caught on because he was a conservative everyman who was able to articulate the principles which the party leadership does not understand.

As for The Next Right, the few times I've checked it out it struck me as being about as "right" as The New Republic, It's another top-down GOP effort.

47

Can you see Mitt, Rudy, or Fred referring to Joe the Plumber a hundred times in a debate?  Doubtful.

No, I do see them using the circumstance that brought him to the forefront though.  They would have actually talked about Obama's socialistic ideas of spreading the wealth without invoking the name.  McCain did it the way he did because he couldn't really attack Obama, so tried an end around method by referring to Joe.

48 Its always difficult to defeat the party of the free lunch.

49

 J David at February 26, 2009 11:07 AM (NKxaH)

You want to know what our problem is.  There's your problem.

50 Oh, and I do so love the sneer about republicans loving stupid. Here's an exercise for the trolls: What was Obama's GPA at Occidental? How about Columbia? Harvard Law? I'm thinking that it was 2.0 (I know I have no way of knowing since the transcripts have not been released). If he carried a B avg we'd have seen those transcripts by now. It's almost as though he has something to hide.

51 aslkdfsdlfasoeijrwekjlweljroij!!!!

ALSO YOUR STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

52 polynikes,

Yep.  He's certainly part of it.  Of course there's also a group of people at the top of the party that feel the exact same way J David does about any one who doesn't look, act, and sound just like Romney...and never the twain shall meet.

53

Romney never tried to be anyone he wasn't.  He acted the same as he had done as Governor of Mass and acts the same today

 

You are absolutely right. He acted like a MA liberal and that was his record.

 

And RINO Rudy acted like a NY liberal.

54 While I forgive Romney for his flopfloppery to some extent, and I like Romney, I don't think he can win a general election...

Palin is hated by a lot of Romney fans... I don't understand why.  She's handled deals larger than Romney has... she's a more popular governor, and she's done a great job cleaning up Alaska's government.  Yeah, she said some silly stuff, but there is no doubt that had Romney been nominated, the press would have found something he said to make fun of.  I really think Palin's screw ups were thanks to Mccain's campaign, and to some extent, I kinda think they welcomed her getting bashed.

I wish we had someone more electable than Palin, but I think she's got a shot, and at the very least, serious GOP members should not denigrate her because she's going to have a strong shot at the nomination.  I think Romney and Palin should have a debate and let's see what comes of it.  Either of them would be a massive improvement over what we've got, but we have to win a general election to get there.

55 I wunce RED a BOOK about how things are YOUR faulet becaus you are RICH andf greeeedy!!!

56

The Obvious at February 26, 2009 11:23 AM (1g+FW)

And who would that be?

57

Vic at February 26, 2009 11:24 AM (f6os6)

You live in MA Vic?

58

We love folksy politicians because, above all, we want honesty in government. Politicians who sound like us sound more honest - whether they are or not.

Democrats, however, seem to prefer sleeze.

59 I gotta ask, why aren't the reasonable conservatives going for a third party?  A party that says that social issues are none of the government's business, so it doesn't alienate the younger generations, and one that has a serious understanding of economics and fiscal restraint?  The GOP is an awfully poor substitute for leadership in America.  Yeah, they beat the hell out of the democrats, but if we're ever going to get a new party going, isn't now the sort of time that kind of thing is possible?

60 Didn't one of the higher up players in the Romney campaign support Obama after Romney dropped out of the race?  Doesn't that speak of something to keep in mind about the man?

61

Posted by: ergastularius at February 26, 2009 11:25 AM (n6bAw)

And you fuckers seemed to have no agenda for the last four years except hoping our troops got butchered.

Seemed to work pretty well for you.

62

I gotta ask, why aren't the reasonable conservatives going for a third party?  A party that says that social issues are none of the government's business, so it doesn't alienate the younger generations, and one that has a serious understanding of economics and fiscal restraint? 

You want an anti-Reaganite conservative party. Why don't you go ahead and start one and see if anybody joins.

63 Joe The Plumber asked the question, John McCain wouldn't.

You want to be our leader, get in front of us. It's not like we changed direction. You want liberal approval and runner-up trophies, follow the liberals. One or the other.

64

You live in MA Vic?

You don't have to live there to look up his record. I have lived in NY though.

65 Look at me, still not having a job and being angry at my dad.

66

If it was up to you, apparently all the banks will fail, social security and all forms of public assistance abolished, and then...cannibalism, or something.

Close... For you.

Cannibalism for you. You'll have to eat your neighbor or something. We haven't gotten that far yet... heh, sorry! So embarassing... still writing the plan! _{I don't really give a shit honestly.}

For me, steak tortas and beer! And sex. Lots of sex. Also, X-Box 360.

67 erg sure is an A-student in taking straw-man lessons from Obama.

Dark Lord Rove in the WSJ.

Matt Welch in Reason.

Links via transterrestrial.

68 Poop!

69

buzzion at February 26, 2009 11:29 AM (Lrsi6)

You mean law professor Kmiec who was Romney's advisor on Constitutional law and was  Ronald Reagan's legal counsel too? I knew there was a reason to dislike Reagan.

70

when it comes to forking over a trillion dollars to finance
capitalists, well, heh, capitalism is beautiful.

Chocolate Jesus and the rest of the fat-cat corporatist Democratic party voted for that trillion dollars to finance capitalists. Myabe you should wander over to Kos and complain to those fuckers.

Than you should make a donation to DeMint, Shelby, and the rest of the Republicans who opposed that bail-out for the rich.

 

71 Polynikes,

Romney, McCain, Graham, McConnell, all the Bushes,... and for Parker, Buckley, Brooks and Frum...Obama.  Face it there are a lot more similarities in these people, all of them, than there are differences policy wise.  They are all believers in the government first the rest of us second philosphy.  Really polynikes the GOP's bniggest problem right now is that Obama differs from them only in degree...not in the basics of his philosophy.  Sure the Repubs say he does, but Bush clamed to be a conservative, too.

72 Oops, transterrestrial link should be here.

73 I'm still waiting for the Democrats to do something.

74

Doesn't anyone remember 2004? Republicans extended their leads in the house and senate, Bush won his 2nd term, people like Ace were even discussing a permanent "conservative" majority because of demographics and out migration from blue to red states. Seems to me that the reason for that success was that the economy was...

...9/11. People trusted (rightfully) Republicans to respond to it. Plus, the natural 'rally round the president' that occurs after an attack. Unfortunately, it allowed the GOP to coast, spend like Democrats, and leave no accomplishments after 8 years beyond tax cuts. 9/11 was why the GOP won in 2002 and, to a lesser extent 2004. Yes, the economy not being an issue was also a factor.

If the economy recovers sufficiently, Dems are going to benefit in the 2010/2012 elections. If the economy is still struggling, they're taking losses. The rest of it is just a mental exercise.

Pretty good bet. But everything that a party does outside of these extrenal factors is NOT 'just a mental exercise.' That was the attitude the Republicans took in riding the 9/11 wave, and they had nothing to fall back on in 2008.

 

75 Me and frito are going to have an oil wrestling party later. And if a thumb accidentally "slips" up my ass, so much the better.

76 Ruffini is wrong.  Joe the Plumber was not especially about him being an average Joe, so to speak.  It was about someone confronting Obama with his own positions, and Obama's response, which confirmed Joe's premise.

Sarah Palin is a pretty, well-spoken woman who shares our values, especially economic liberty and gun rights. Yes, she's a mom of 5, but that's just evidence that her faith is real. Her back story is one of having achieved success by performance and courage of conviction, not by gift. 

The 'one of us' blowback has it backwards. These people aren't our heroes because they are like us; they are our heroes because we like to think that's who we'd be and what we would say if we had the chance.

77

Didn't one of the higher up players in the Romney campaign support Obama after Romney dropped out of the race? 

Let's just accept the fact that slate of candidates we had to pick from in 2007 was very weak. Romney was not great, except that his competition were people like Rudy, McAmnesty, Huckabee, etc.

78 Ergy's getting frantic about being ignored.  Soon, the frothing obscenity.

Then the frozen fruit.

79

We need to see a new party in this country. One that is lean and mean. One that will scare all these gasbags. I am not talking about Nazis, either. I am talking about a party that will stand up and proclaim all that is decent and wonderful about being American.

This is about as spot on as I've seen, at least in attitude and approach.  Ross Perot did more with a pie chart and smart ass comments than the Republicans have been able to do since 2006.  Perot, while ultimately a disaster, was effective because people believed him and he was willing to call it like he saw it.  Sometimes he was brash but he was real which added crediblity to his arguments.  If what O is doing is such an existential threat to the Republic, inform the public as to what he's really doing.  His moves thus far have been so brazen that it won't be that hard to nail him.  Republicans needs to channel their inner Perot and call out the Dems on all of the crap that they're doing they might just be successful in labeling it for what it really is. 

 

80

ergastularius = frito?

If not they are two different cocksuckers instead of just one.

81

 I do think, however, there is something wrong with the party...

 

Well, that's a fucking understatement. Look at the new leader that was just put in place. Baby. RNC=TOAST.

 

 

82

Being an everyman populist is not inconsistent with governing in conservative manner.

Agreed. But you need the latter first. The GOP had an 8-year test of 'populism without governance' and it was not a successful strategy. It got one guy at the top of the ticket elected twice.

83 adolfo_velasquez @ 61

Amen to that. They've been calling Iraq a defeat from 3 weeks into OIF.

As to an agenda, the wish list keeps getting longer and longer doesn't it.

Now he's going to make sure everyone graduates High School and goes to college. This from a guy from Chicago, a place that as of 2004 could not graduate 50% of their high school students.

What else? Oh yeah, he's going to cure cancer (Nixon made the same pledge in 1971, guess that makes Obama Nixonian as well) Quite frankly, I'd love a cure for cancer within the next 4 years, I wouldn't even begrudge him the credit, but wasn't that just a bit ridiculous?


See no one was trying to cure cancer until Obama came along. This is leadership

84

Let's just accept the fact that slate of candidates we had to pick from in 2007 was very weak.

 

I think we actually had some good conservative candidates but we had two MAJOR problems in the primaries.

 

First, we allowed the media to define our candidates for us; i.e. “Fire in the belly myth”, this one is “fringe”, a drak horse unknown et al.

 

The other problem is the primary rules. They are structured to get the MOST liberal fucking candidate possible and to allow outsiders to determine the candidate. So far I see no big call among the Rep bigwigs to change that either.

85 Repeating the usual talking points at re-election time(violating them both before and after re-election) is not populism, that is business as usual. I don't see how anyone could possibly call El Presidente Jorge Boosh a "populist" at any point before, during, or after his presidency.

86 joe was absolutely right about obama and obama showed his true colors under questioning by joe.  all the "conservative" commentators were embarrased by joe yet he was right and they were wrong.  obama is what he has said he was.  there is no moderate there.  david brooks is a moron.  doug kmiec is a moron.  kathleen parker is a moron.  one could go on and on with other examples of "conservative" morons who were wrong while this dummy from ohio was right. 

87 A lot of here think that the squishie McCain type handlers are the ones that delivered that speech to Jindal and that is why it was such a piece of shit. They will not allow Palin to be Palini or Jindal to be Jindal.


Bingo.

The same handlers, the alleged media/PR geniuses, overcoached Palin and (probably) Jindal.  Maybe not literally the same people, but people of the same group/mindset.

Rather that forcing them into some pre-conceived mode, maybe Palin and Jindal should just be themselves and tell the GOP establishment handlers to get bent.

The GOP DC establishment (both elected and unelected) is in dire need of a near-total purge.

88 The primary issue is that the right has almost no way to get its message to the public.

This is marginally mitigated by the fact the public knows the media is biased, but that only goes so far. The public needs to be exposed to something other then leftwing strawmen to see that their is an alternative and to see what the Democrats are really up to.

Consider Obama's trillion dollar giveaway. The media hammered Bush for spending about half as much on the WoT. Deficits of a few hundred billion were a big deal. But now with Obama, deficits don't really matter, and the press could care less about how the money is actually spent and where the money is coming from (our children if it doesn't bankrupt us first).

If the media was as hard on Obama as they were on Bush, spendulus would have failed, even with Democrat majorities in Congress. Of course if the media was marginally balanced Obama would still be an obscure state senator in IL.

89

You fuckers have no answers except "we hope the economy sucks for 4 years."

When we start hoping that the U.S. loses a war, you can call us "fuckers." Until then, look in the mirror.

90

 The GOP had an 8-year test of 'populism without governance' and it was not a successful strategy.

It's hard to think of anything less populist than the GOP these last several years.

 

I don't see how anyone could possibly call El Presidente Jorge Boosh a "populist" at any point before, during, or after his presidency.

Agreed.

91

Also, you drone on and on about handouts and evil auto workers and welfare cheats, blah blah, but when it comes to forking over a trillion dollars to finance
capitalists, well, heh, capitalism is beautiful.

Stop raping that strawman, ergy.  You're sticking your peepee in the wrong hole again.

and transferred wealth from working people into the pockets of capitalists.

Get it guys?  "Working people" definitionally aren't "capitalists".  Isn't it awesome to be part of a special elite cabal of non-working, Cohiba-smoking, oppressors of the proles?  But I must confess weariness at the effort in maintaining our stranglehold on the fools, what with their titanic numbers advantage over us.

You're not a person, ergy -- you're a cardboard cutout.  Just how many times do you plan on re-auditing that JC Intro to Power Structures course anyway?

92 Being *popular* at some point, and being a *populist* are NOT necessarily the same thing. Being a "Maverick"(or perceived as one) in some personally sympathetic, empathetic way to the populace at large is populism.

93 The following was a prediction by this Ruffini character, he seemed to think Obama not accepting public financing was a huge mistake.  I guess we all know how that turned out.  His website hasn't been updated since May.  He is looking to make a name for himself it seems, mostly by marginalizing the right while pretending to be one of us.  This helps him get favorable mentions by the left-leaning crowd.  Fuck him.

Yes, Obama Turning Down Public Financing is Still an Epic Mistake

A disproportionate amount of Republican energy from now till election day will go towards lifting the Republican tide generally, branding Congressional Democrats, and tearing down the Democrats generally. This will help bring Republican candidate performance in line with McCain (this is already happening) while hardly any national Democratic ads will say "vote Democratic for Congress." When a message is uncontested like this, watch for it to move the needle.

94 This will help bring Republican candidate performance in line with McCain

Alas, he got that part correct.

95 Yeah JtP asked the question, but it isn't like McCain wasn't talking about Obama's plan to raise taxes.  He was.  The reason Joe caught on was because he caught Obama in a weak moment when he wasn't prepared and actually stumbled for the answer and it happened on TV.  That's all that happened.  He wasn't some avenging angel riding out of the sun to take on Barack.  He wasn't some everyman called to public service because of Obama's socialism.  He was a guy in his yard who asked a question.

More power to him.

I said the other day that I thought the JtP card was being way overplayed by the GOP.  I still do.  He has been built into this mythic hero who can only suffer by comparison in the long run.  I think we will start seeing the cracks appear when he runs for congress. 

I hope they are small cracks because I actually like the guy and hope he can get elected.  He seems to have something that is missing in DC - common sense.  I just think making him the embodiement of GOP hopes is short sighted. 

96 Still reading comments.

We're in a toss-up era of Big Changes right now. Newspapers are collapsing, whole segments of the media are eroding and facile, with nothing - not even the web in its current form - to replace them.

We have blip-minute celebrities like JtP given far more credit for insight than they deserve, and Octomoms given cold hard cash for making bad choices that grab headlines. So the world seems like it's insane.

But the fact is, it's not insane at all. The dominant means of acquiring information [in the Information Age!] has no established way to make itself THE go-to source for anything at all. One goes to any particular website for information, sure, but "also".

And that "also" is gossip or snark or attitude or friends, but never because one trusts THAT site over any other. You realize readily that sites can easily be somebody in a bathrobe, in a basement, with about as much access as you. And when you look around the net, you quickly see that everybody is feeding off everybody else, so what's the point? Plus, nobody in meatspace shares trust in the same sites, like they used to do with the NYT or Cronkite. Its all fractal.

The accidental end result is this: Everybody seals themselves off into echo chambers. Not much of an Information Age, but much more of an Information Manipulation Age.

Which, roundabout, brings me finally to the issue at hand: JtP is a symptom of that echo chamber, and a poster boy, equally as much as Obama is for the Left. It isn't his fault in the least, nor ours, actually. Everything done the old way is being tossed away right now which opens us all to the Big Lie.

Ultimately, JtP does not matter.

97

The primary issue is that the right has almost no way to get its message to the public.

Sorry, we HAD no message. How the hell could we convince voters candidate Obama would spend too much after what the GOP spent for 8 years? When you nominate a GOP candidate who had to read a brochure to see how conservatives think, your party is in trouble.

98 or, put it this way, the recent failures of the past 5 years aren't a result of losing an honest policy disagreement.

It is image, but not the way the fancy pants of our party thinks.

Step one, admit the mainstream media is at war with the party. 

Step two, Act accordingly.

99

It's hard to think of anything less populist than the GOP these last several years.

The message was populist. (TAXES BAD) The governance was not.

100 So if Joe the Plumber is evidence of GOP self-marginalization what exactly are Code Pink, William Ayers, Cindy Sheehan, most black leaders, Sean Penn (plus the rest of the loony Hollywood left) and any number of other morons evidence of? I mean, I was impressed with Joe the Plumber precisely because you don't expect such incisive comments to come out of the mouth of an Ohio plumber, not because he's suddenly fucking Yoda. How exactly does he make the GOP look pathetic when he could go on a three day chrystal meth binge and still sodomize Maxine Waters in a debate?

101

It is image, but not the way the fancy pants of our party thinks.

Step one, admit the mainstream media is at war with the party. 

Step two, Act accordingly.

How about someone go on Today with a chart showing what O is planning to spend vs. his tax plan, and then show the gap - the big gap that is apparent to anyone paying attention; and then ask where the hell all this money is going to come from.  Then ask Matt Lauer, " so Matt it's reported that you make $13.5MM a year, what do you think about paying an additional $1.35MM a year (or more) to the feds to pay for all of this crap (said while dropping the bloated federal budget on the floor).  How that for responsiblity and sacrifice?" 

Unless conservatives are willing to counterattack against O's media machine, then he'll continue to win.   

102 I do not see how a bunch of squishy country-club blue-blooder MSM-minded Republicrats can ever be termed as having even a populist message, CJ. At what point did we see any ground-swell of populist sentiment except when the hated Palin appeared, and exposed most of the insiders for the hypocritical, skunky, two-faced ASS-HOLES that they actually are?

103 If we really wanted to be populist, we'd start hammering home the point that Democrats are taking food from the mouths of babies to bail out banks.

Simple message.

104 In fact, I recall a whole bunch of squises squishing on the need for some new taxes, including Juan Amnesty Petain McVain.

105

The accidental end result is this: Everybody seals themselves off into echo chambers. Not much of an Information Age, but much more of an Information Manipulation Age.

I think this is a bit overstated. Check out all of the political websites. Just about every one links at some point to...a mainstream media outlet. "Everything being done the old way is being tossed out..." is a little premature. Certainly for the purposes of this discussion. Meaning, the GOP still needs to focus on policy.

106 Juan Amnesty McVain actually fought Jorge on tax cuts like he was some kind of hero, and got the nomination from the machine. What exactly is populist about what the party was doing with amnesty being rammed up our collective fannies?

107 59- I agree that a party sticking to economic issues and small government can win.  It seems to me there is a balance between indulging the fringes & not alienating the moderates (for both parties).

74- Agreed about spending like Dems.  I respect Boehner now that he's railing against the spending, including at the end against Bush.  But where was that fire during the last 4 years as spending went up?  The party got lost in the own power. 
 

108

There is much we could learn from the Democrats and the left. They have a much more "bottom up" arrangement than we do. The GOP is entirely "top down". A generous helping of Reagan-style populism is just what the GOP badly needs.

 

109 105 -
Fair enough, but I would add that I'm not necessarily pointing towards sites using MSM as an example of manipulation. I would also include things like turning off verifications to donations for campaigns.

So, I'm meaning the data itself is manipulated. Probably will happen with the census, too.

And, anyway, who trusts the MSM now?

110

One thing that Republicans are going to have to start doing is calling the Dems on their lies and calling them hard on them. There was just a liberal asshole on CNBC spouting off that every study he has seen has  blamed the “big deficits” during the Bush years on the tax cuts for the “wealthy”.

 

Nobody called him on it and it is so simple to disprove. Compare money in from taxes vs money out for expenses. The money in from taxes went up hugely after the tax cuts. It’s just that money out went up even more hugely.

 

Republicans have to start calling out these lies EVERY TIME THEY COME OUT. The Bush lied meme was never fought and soon it became the media truth.

111 Re: The 'folksy' bit:
Going 'folksy' is a loser and we shouldn't do it. If any of you read Zell Miller's National Party No More, he mentioned Dukakis's disastrous attempts to do that, and we should take heed. People know right away when they're being talked down to. Conversely, if you ARE folksy, just be that - like Palin and JtP are.

Folksy isn't the goal so much as broad inclusion must be. We can have wonks, too, we just want everybody to take their lumps like everybody else does. Thats part of why the Dems are so infuriating to many, because they're hypocrites and nobody calls them on it.

112 What the GOP really needs to do is blow up the Democrats' fiction about there being no trade-offs. I don't think you'll find a single conservative who, for instance, wouldn't cede that the left is better for the environment, for the needs/wants of labor, for the (lazy) poor, etc. They on the other hand cede nothing and somehow we have enabled these assholes to proclaim themselves the party of big government AND economic growth, of onerous environmental regulations AND prosperity, of our national interest AND globalism, of providing mortages to short bus passengers AND financial sanity. No matter what the position is the left shamelessly lays claim to benefitting both sides. We all know it, but it is not being communicated with any sort of clarity.

113 Vic @ 110

You're right about that. I have this argument all the time. I have to educate people all the time that Congress had to OK TARP I and that congress was controlled by Dems at the time. After that, I then ask them why it seems that Dems are not held accountable for the jobs they do. I then get some muttering about how republicans hate poor people and minorities. I'm telling you, that mythos is not going away any time soon.

114 Mitt? I think this whole thing works triply against Romney: He's a Mormon, he's a Northeastern elitist, and then on top of it he's not good at faking the common touch so he comes off as inauthentic when he attempts to show he's "one of us." Which he really shouldn't have to do all that much in the first place.

This is every bit as tin-eared as the leftists saying "The problem is not our ideas, it's the language we use to express our ideas."

Mitt Romney comes off as inauthentic when he tries to represent himself as anything other than just another authoritarian statist. I am sick to the gills of hearing that we should be glad and grateful that it's a right boot stomping us in the face forever instead of a left. A lot of people are.

115

@101 and 110

The biggest disappointment during Bush II was his refusal to set the record straight with facts and figures when the MSM began screeching. He never, ever pointed out the difference between the lies of the media and the truth.

If the GOP expects to regain any momentum against The Vapid One™ and his Merry Band of Socialists, someone will have to grow a real big pair in order to plainly state the facts and then show us some real strength by not backing down from the inevitable critism that will surely come from the Mr. Tingles types in the MSM.

In short, weakness doesn't win.

116 Problems with the theory that we just need to present the message.

Libs have a stranglehold on the loudspeaker.  Televised opportunities to get the message out are rare.  Either you're on a talking head cable news show with some idiot conservative host making you look like a buffoon by agreeing with you sideways and injecting some snide comment about dummocrats which doesn't sway the middle, or you're opposed by a spluttering piece of bile like Olbermann or Rosie O'Donnell who argue by shouting "nazi" at the top of their lungs.

You can do commercials, but TiVo and channel flipping make that ineffective.  Town Hall meetings are attended by the politically motivated which means they're usually not swayable.

Basically, you're trying to convince a vast group of people who don't give a flying fuck whether you're right or wrong.  They just want to get home and take their shoes off and go back to not thinking.

Obama had it exactly right in the campaign.  You have to get in people's faces and threaten something inside their comfort zone in order to shake them out of their stupor.

The basic problem is that conservatives are generally adults, both in terms of decision making and comportment.  The left attracts those who enjoy acting like petulant little shits, so getting in some suburban mom's face in front of the grocery store is actually a side benefit of their chosen political mantra while it is anathema to ours.

However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Obama's policy maneuvers bode so poorly for the immediate future of the nation that after the riot-scorched corpses have been buried, there may be a desire to see rational (and smaller) government.  The coming deflation/hyperinflation cycle will serve the purpose of shaking average voters out of their current disinterested state as their bank accounts go all Zimbabwe.  When that happens, there will be a small window of opportunity to communicate the rational basis for conservatism, federalism, and the free market before the next snake oil salesman comes along promising the proles a return to the fortunes of the past if only they'll give up their shoddy notions of freedom.

117

The GOP lost the White House in 2008 because we had a candidate in the general election that didn't fight for the win.  If he had pointed out the obvious problems with Obama (Chicago politics being the foremost, followed by his associations with radicals, and his overwhelming realpolitik naivete), and done so loudly and repeatedly, he would have won.  Instead he played the "I'm a nice guy" game, and allowed the race hustlers to convince him that if he spoke about the reality of the big O, he would be branded a racist. 

Additionally, we lost because we the voters allowed OURSELVES to be convinced that to vote against Obama would make us racists.  The average 80% citizen these days no longer gives a rat's patoot what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say.  We allow ourselves to be swayed by the media's emphasis. 

Elections in America are decided not by the fringes of the bell curve - they are decided by the large numbers in the middle.  The middle majority vote NOT for a party for President, they vote for the candidate.  They vote NOT for principals, they vote for the personality.  If a candidate has charisma, speaks reasonably coherently, and doesn't say anything stupid, he gets elected over the guy who stumbles and apologizes for himself.  Simple as that.  When McCain backpedalled on his position on the economy, and refused to defend himself, he signed his own political death warrant.   Plain and simple.

 

118

How does one whodoesn't really fit the "one of us" show how he/she is "one of us"?

Open up the dialogue about what "one of us" means -- you don't have to be a "Bubba", but you and Bubba may share a lot of similar goals and attitudes, particularly about what it means to be conservative, American, and the trip you take to becoming both (aka. "making America" -- oldest dearest story in our historical dreamtime, Republicans need to start tapping it again, Reagan did, and the Dems have stolen it -- take it back).  The Republicans need to start confronting that one head on -- have Jindal et al. come out with the "I may not look, sound like a Bubba, but Bubba and I are more alike than you think, and there are others out there just like us" -- something along those lines; a more upbeat (!) inclusive (!) take on a certain someone's "I don't look like other presidents...".  Then you market that the conservative/Republican brand is more inclusive, more free, more big tent than the opposition, and yes, it is more "American" (because you've taken back the story of "making America").

If the Republicans actually stop eating their own and wrecking their own platform, and take that approach and most importantly run with it (time to start getting aggressive) -- then they will be unstoppable in 2010 and 2012.  If they don't -- then they are toast; it will be Dem and Dem Lite until there is another revolution or this country goes down the tubes. 

 

The conservative/Republican party and movement had best start getting their ass in gear, imho.

 

 

 

 

119 This is every bit as tin-eared as the leftists saying "The problem is not our ideas, it's the language we use to express our ideas."

You realize the election of a hard left extremist like Obama tends to indicate the Democrats were correct in this regard right? They just found a guy who could obfuscate and lie well enough and he won the election - without making any compromises on a hard left political agenda.

120

The accidental end result is this: Everybody seals themselves off into echo chambers. Not much of an Information Age, but much more of an Information Manipulation Age.

This is very interesting. I can see this play two ways:

The slickest theory I've heard is that when people are confronted with too much information, they shut down and accept none. Information overload. That in the "information age" the most effective way to hide something is not to try to limit information about it, but to flood people with so much information about it it overwhelms them and because meaningless, because they can't distinguish whaat's actually relevant.

We have all the factoids we want at our fingertips - a sea of info - but no good way to sort it and determine what we actually need to know. And no way to qualify it. So to compensate, we simply block it out and ignore it.

This is perhaps relevant to the new 'Information Age', but not neccessarily to the media. Because it's not new - history repeats. Want to know what's ahead, look back.

Media use to be this way. Always was this way. The idea of conglomerated information dissemination from singular, 'objective' sources like Kronkite is a 20th century invention, and a product of the new 'scientific' Central Planning model that rose from the last New Era, the Industrial Age. It's a technocratic concept, brought about by all the Miracles of Science and the rapid advancement of technology, that it would allow us to rationally and scientifically micromanage everything from central points with the wisdom of 'experts'.

It's failed miserably and is largely discredited.

But before not too long ago - there was no central 'trusted source' on information. The way the media had allways been is you had openly biased and partisan sources (and deceitful crypto-partisan sources) all shoving you their own line. That's why the (old tech) newspapers in Europe are all openly partisan, but the (new tech) TV stations are mostly government run and 'official' and 'objective'.

But it's also crap. They aren't objective. Neither was our media. Kronkite shoveled plenty of crap - there just wasn't anyone to call him on it because everyone believed him.

It seems from your analysis that you assume this is a bad thing, that with all these 'echo chambers' we're going to get disinformed. But are you so sure you weren't being disinformed with a central source anyway? It also has potential to destroy echo chambers and expose disinformation because there are other competing voices.

2 major historic examples of cultural decentralization come to mind.

When the Roman Empire fell and the plague hit, it the result was the 'Dark Ages'.

When the protestant reformation and the printing press hit, it the result was the 'Age of Enlightenment'.

121

Reduced to the bare essence, can we say that Republicians are politians and Democrats are ideologues.  

For a majority of Republicians a cushy job was all they really wanted along with all the power and presitage that goes with it.  Having fought so hard to obtain their cushy jobs their only real goal was to hold on to them.

Their only fears are losing those cushy jobs.  That's why they are deadly afraid of the MSM and thus became weather vanes that blows here and there in accordance with the polls.  Oh they pander to their Base now and then every election time but don't look for leadership in any of these politians.  Once they been in Washington for a while, they became Trent Lott. 

  

122 18-1 @119, it's an argument, but I counter that you can't beat somebody with nobody and the Republicans put up nobody (put another way, you run a Democrat against a Democrat and the voters will take the Democrat every time).

In any case, my point was that the days when you could lure small-government conservatives into the Republican fold by being better at pretending to be a small-government conservative are long gone. What worked (alas, Babylon!) for Obama will not work for Mitt Romney, because simple appeals to emotion will not suffice.

Still, you made a fair point, and I'm glad you did -- it gave me the chance to address it.

123 All those dissing McCain, he'd be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.  He wasn't socially conservative enough for some, and he fought with both hands tied behind his back in "fairness" to the other side. But I get a tear in my eye at night, watching Cavuto,  and thinking what could have been.  McCain was about decreased gov spending, smaller gov, and he hated earmarks.

But on the bright side, Obama did not win by mandate no matter what they say.  At the time of election, GWB was very unpopular, we were in 2 wars (1 winding down & 1 barely started), our infrastructure is failing, and the economy tanking.  All at the end of 6 yrs of GOP control of all branches, and 8 yrs of GOP Pres.  All generic polls showed a democrat with huge leads over a republican.  But it can down to what, 4 points?  I think people still believe the small gov, less spending, give people control message that McCain, Palin, and JtP were shouting.  They were up against a lot (see above list). 

But, you better hurry. After 4 yrs of over 50% of the country on the dole from the gov under BO, the mood may start to change.  we've already seeen the "where's my money"  mindset expanding.

124

He wasn'tsocially conservative enough at all for some

 

Fixed that for you

125 I do think, however, there is something wrong with the party, and I'm not looking to dismiss any critiques out of hand.

The problem with Ruffini's criticism is that it's based on a false premise, namely that the GOP is elevating JTP to status of a spokesman - based on Pajamas Media elevating JTP to war correspondent. 

Pajamas Media isn't the GOP, and it isn't the conservative movement, it's at best an infinitesimally small of the latter's online presence.

If we're going to critique the party/movement, it should be based on something solid, not straw men.

126

All at the end of 6 yrs of GOP control of all branches

Not to nitpick, but this isn't true. Remember Jumpin' Jim Jeffords?

127 I dunno about that 121. The Dems are the epitome of a coalition of interest groups. Its more than ideology that has them persist in destroying public schools to the benefit of teachers, enslaving minorities in politically reliable ghettos, and letting industry rot to appease the short-sighted interests of organized labor.  They are political whores every bit as much as they're ideological. The difference is that it is easier to be liberal. The rhetoric of the underdog, of saving the planet, of peace, is easier because it is emotionally appealing. As conservatives our job is to be the "mean" ones and to accept that occasionally being wrong is part of our function, because even when the left is right about something they move too fast, go overboard, and cause all manner of unnecessary damage. But you're right that conservative politicians have lost sight of how hard it is to actually be conservative. A lot of them don't seem to have the stomach for it and take the easy way out to keep their jobs.

128 I think Ruffini's overstating JtP's "influence" here.  He's very visible in the blogosphere because Pajamas is flogging him but Pajamas ain't exactly the conservative leadership.

129

I dunno about that 121. The Dems are the epitome of a coalition of interest groups. Its more than ideology that has them persist in destroying public schools to the benefit of teachers, enslaving minorities in politically reliable ghettos, and letting industry rot to appease the short-sighted interests of organized labor.  They are political whores every bit as much as they're ideological.

Yeah. Identity politics. The dems run a patronage system.

The republicans do too, though.

But the dems even worse.

130

 McCain was about decreased gov spending, smaller gov, and he hated earmarks.

Well, he hates earmarks. That much is true. The rest is a pecular fiction which many Republicans conned themselves into believing.

131

Ruffini and the RINOs need to go join the Dhimmierats.  Jindal was great.  Everyone who calls him lame didn't listen to his speech period.  He stated the obvious and made a compelling case for it.

 

Freedom, individual liberty and responsibility as opposed to the bigotry of doft expectations ala McCain and Specter.

 

I am sick of the Big Tent morons who seem to believe moving Left makes you more attractive to moderates.  Unfortunately moderate is a code world for Liberal.  Liberal is a code world for moonbat Leftist.  Progressive is a codeword for commie.

 

Give the American people a clear choice as the GOP did in 1994 and as Reagan did and you win and win big.  Soften the brand by incorporating Leftist ideas such as "compassionate conservativism (big spending programs and bigger government) and you know the results.

 

Ruffini and his ilk need to start their own party and see who follows them.  My guess is the McCains and Snowes are ripe for their ideas.

132 @125

I disagree.

While JtP features mainly on pajamamedia (along with a non-stop barrage of American Tea Party crap) he figured prominently in the Presidential campaign and I still hear him mentioned by GOP types on interview shows etc.  He is becoming a default in the GOP.

133 Vic,
I disagree.  He may not have been "conservative enough" for some, but his stance on the war, spending, & government were not liberal.  He didn't cave recently with "the 3" on the stimulus.  and again, he's better than what we have & I don't think any Republican could have won going against the high unfavorables of that election.  

134

Well, he hates earmarks. That much is true. The rest is a pecular fiction which many Republicans conned themselves into believing.

Abso-fricken-lutely.

The guy hates earmarks which are small potatos. He'd get rid of them by regulating them out of existence and creating a new government agency to enforce it. "More laws/More government" is the answer to everything. Especially when the laws are called "McCain-[somebody] [something] Act".

Ever notice his name always goes first?

Do not call people who stampede over your first ammendment rights "small government".

135 Blowjobs! Get yer free blowjobs here!!! C'mon guys, step up. My mouth is WIIIIIDE open!!

136 I'm surprised there are still people defending the the other Soros-owned candidate, Juan Amnesty McVain. He proved what a low-life he really was when he threw his running mate to the wolves after his well-deserved beating by an illegal alien Indonesian communist dictator wanna-be.

137 Andy, you're right, I did not remember. But the average american won't either.  I had to explain to people during the campaign that the Pres does not make laws & that Dems controlled congress at the time of election. 

138 Such is the reason why I believe the GOP is a fly-blown zombie corpse. No one has learned a thing.

139 120
History doesn't repeat itself; it rhymes.

Snark aside, you're presenting the 'upside' argument - which may ultimately happen, but we aren't quite there yet.

140 J David-
OK i cannot agree with you more on that point.  & I said earlier that McCain seemed unable to fight for what he believed in. I'm just saying that as I watch the current Admin pour money down a drain, I do wish it were McCain.  I don't think most voters realized what a "change" they were voting for.

141

JTP is not a genius or a charismatic leader, he is just a typical American adult.  Here's a super-secret strategy that the GOP could follow:

Develop and expound adult policies, run adult candidates who can speak for themselves without "handlers", appeal to adults, whic most Americans are, by the way, and you will win.  Make positive proposals, but don't hesitate to call bullshit on what the leftists are trying to do.  Get your asses out of DC and talk to the people.. give us some "tough love" that isn't Dem policies in diguise (McCain), and above all don't pander to us, or to who you imagine we are.

The Republican Party has a job to do, and that is saving America, and you had better run some adult candidates we can vote for (Palin, Jindal hint, hint), and by the way start recruiting ex-military men and women to fight to good fight on the home front!!

ps. Ruffini, you can kiss my ass.

142 59% of Americans agree with Reagan's core statement: Government isn't the solution to the problem, it -is- the problem.

That one statement defines a sufficient chunk of people. And that one statement can be used to tie to a laundry list of Republican splinter groups.

Our last candidate didn't believe that. And it was clear and obvious he didn't really believe it.

We can handle candidates with a long list of defects, but this isn't one of them.

143 Juan Petain McVain leader of the Vichy Republicans. Motto: "I'm better than the alternative!"

Petain; "Well at least I'm better than Hitler!"

Yeah, there's a winning strategy!

144 For me, steak tortas and beer! And sex. Lots of sex. Also, X-Box 360.

FINALLY!   A political party that stands for my beliefs!  Might I might a minor platform suggestion though?  Add in WoW and stompy boots and I'm right there with you.

The slickest theory I've heard is that when people are confronted with too much information, they shut down and accept none.

There's also confirmation bias.  We automatically credit information from sources who share our world view as true while automatically rejecting information from those who do not as false.

Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  There's not enough time to confirm every little thing.  The problem is that it's way easier to go with the assumption than to take at least minimal efforts to determine if the sources of confirmation are generally accurate.

My problem with Ruffini's article is the either/or dynamic it presumes.  There's this assumption that Joe the Plumber and the Cato Institute cannot exist simultaneously.  That's just stupid.  There's a place for wonkish policy discussions.  And there's a place for Rick Santelli putting a face to the anger people are feeling. 

Also, when the hell did the Right turn their back on a guy being able to make a buck?  Dude, I'm all for Joe milking every last cent out of this that he can.  I thought our policy was to support such capitalistic endeavors. 
 

145 I think Ruffini's overstating JtP's "influence" here.  He's very visible in the blogosphere because Pajamas is flogging him but Pajamas ain't exactly the conservative leadership.

You're right, even though you are understating it significantly.

146 McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman, "McCain fights Bush tax cuts!", "McCain leads the 'The Gang of Fourteen'", McCain fighting drilling in ANWR during a fuel crisis...I guess all that stuff, most of which has involved elimination of Constitutional rights, and wrecking American budgets are easily forgotten.

147

This man had the right idea I think.

Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led to a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don’t have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.

 

The trouble is that todays GOP is run by and for wealthy liberals who view the average American as something to be feared and loathed. Not very different from the Democrats in other words.

148

"59% of Americans agree with Reagan's core statement: Government isn't the solution to the problem, it -is- the problem."

I also agree with a somewhat similar statement that I've heard more than once:  If government is the answer, then it must have been a pretty stupid question.

McCain is not for responsible government spending.  He couldn't get behind TARP I fast enough.

149

Well Lynn you are certainly welcome to your opinion but he is far from a conservative.

 

He’s for small government but he voted against the tax cuts and is the primary reason they are only temporary. He is for small gov but he trashed the Constitution with MF. He was “for” the war but he opposed everything that Bush did in it and then tried to take credit for the surge saying he wanted that in the beginning. In that he was a second rate liar.

 

I could list item after item showing what a non-conservative he is but it has been done already during the primaries. There is a reason a whole bunch of conservatives sat this election out.

150 With a five-minute memory/attention span the GOP is dead, I guess that's why the leadership has thrown in with the new communist regime. They fail to realize what happens to collaborators who have outlived their useful idiot status.

151

Snark aside, you're presenting the 'upside' argument - which may ultimately happen, but we aren't quite there yet.

True. Very true.

But we're also "not quite there yet" for your downside either. Heh. We're just not QUITE there yet at all.

Like somebody else pointed out, even in the echo-chambers you get tossed links to MSM. And competition. Ace has to link a lefty piece to snark on it.

And without the MSM the blogosphere isn't much... they still do most of the shitty investigative reporting. Our echo chambers mostly just replace the shitty editorializing.

The most successful cable news strategy to date has been to throw disagreeable douchebags in front of a camera and have them argue every issue they mention. Because at least that way you get the 'popcorn' angle of a good catfight for people who don't care.

A few MSM outlets have dropped the pretend 'neutral objectivity' but most still cling, and almost none declare their bias officially. We're moving... maybe to the place we're talking about, maybe somewhere else - but we're not there yet.

152

"They fail to realize what happens to collaborators who have outlived their useful idiot status."

What are you trying to say...?

153

He’s for small government but he voted against the tax cuts and is the primary reason they are only temporary. He is for small gov but he trashed the Constitution with MF.

He's for small government rhetoric.

He doesn't actually decrease the size of government. He only expands it. He always expands it.

Sometimes he gets 'small gov' chops by arguing that some expansions are too much of an expansion, and there should be smaller expansions.

But he doesn't do contractions. And he instigates a lot of the expansion.

154 J David- Good God, you don't like McCain.  I get it.  & yes, he let Palin do all the heavy lifting of the campaign so he could be the good guy.  I could go on. But the election was b/t McCain & BO.  So in reality, like it or not, McCain was the main alternative.  That may have been for you a choice b/t excruciating & f'ng excruciating. 

The problem that i see & cannot change is that you can't elect Palin or Jindal in 4 or 8 yrs & then the problems Obama has created just go away.  We, as a nation, will be paying for BO for generations to come. 

155 That's a fine statement for me too reason.

There -are- problems that government can 'solve', but there's always choices in how it is done. And if you have the perspective "How can I minimize the size of government - even while implementing this fix?" then you're going to end up with something inherently smaller.

There are plenty of liberal ideas that seem almost sane -as stated-. The -intentions- mostly sound good. But the solution they come up with -always- sucks. (Intentionally.)

Should we keep grandma off the flipping streets? Sure. Is Social Security the solution? No. Removing the limit on 401k's and giving required minimum savings levels would involve a minuscule effort by the IRS's computers. (Yes, there's still the problem of dismantling the old system, just saying there is a better system with less cash flowing into and out of the government.)

Should we have Planned Parenthood? (Well, the answer is no!) But there's no reason for it to be tied to government in any way.

156 Hey Vic- I'm not trying to argue how conservative is McCain.  & I can agree his rhetoric was more conservative than his principals, seems to always be the case.  I had 2 main choices this elections, I chose my best.  I wish conservatives would not have sat this one out, as my above post says, we are all going to pay the price.

But damn, I tried to post a positive thought about how bad the unfavorables were for a republican & how close the election really was.  I guess I should have left McC's name out, got too many people riled up. 

157 I believe the GOP-only zombies are the real "dead-enders". They forget that every party had a beginning, and MOST of those parties are long dead and buried. When the GOP accepted the exact opposite premise that started the Republican party -- and put its first president FIVE YEARS LATER -- that it is okay to traffic in humans, they DIED. The GOP is irretrievably corrupted, and is no longer a vehicle to salvation of the country. It cannot get back sufficient power even in two years to get back power, and free elections as they have always been ARE OVER. The Gay Old Party lost their last chance in this last election, actually in the '06 elections.

158

Allahpundit

One of these days Andy Levy and I are going to start a secular, hawkish, (mostly) libertarian third party.

I can hardly wait. It beats me why Malkin gives space to this stupid dick.

159 As I sit here the Bandito Nation to the south is in its last throes of death. The Republicans helped kill then, including Juan, and kept a wall from being built and adequate forces put into place to protect those who here. One of the chief culprits was sociopath McVain, whose capital city of Phoenix is the second capitol of kidnapping in the entire WORLD. McCain is a TRAITOR to the security of the USA, and one of the leaders to end it sovereignty.

160 Awesome post.

Pick a good idea.  Argue in favor of the good idea.  Never defend yourself personally.  Never snipe at your opponent personally.  Only advance and defend the progress of the idea.

People who oppose a good idea eventually look ridiculous, and the more strenuously they try to change the subject or attack the messenger, the sillier they look.

An added bonus, the public won't view you as a partisan whiner.  The public won't think that you are just trying to protect your own party's power.  The public won't think you are an ideologue or a spoilsport.

They will think you are a smart, self-sacrificing servant of the common good.  And, it will be true.  It might actually hurt particular politicians here and there, but over the long run, this is how you build a reputation worth keeping.

161

But damn, I tried to post a positive thought about how bad the unfavorables were for a republican & how close the election really was. 

 

You actually said that McCain was "about decreased gov spending, smaller gov", which is begging for a smackdown on a conservative site.

Yes, the election was somewhat close, and maybe if we had not run a Democrat in GOP drag we might have won it.

162 While we spend 2 Tril of imaginary money, and send 17,000 more troops to Afaghanistan our narco-terrorist neighbor will shortly fall...Then what?

163

Well, Lynn it's just that McCain is not a conservative at all.

In any case, after the primary we had a choice between a communist and a socialist.

And yes, I voted for McLame, or I should say Palin. Before Palin was on the ticket I had intended to vote 3rd party because there was no point in rewarding the party for nominating liberal candidates. I thought that at least we would automatically have a conservative candidate in 12 if he won.

If we keep doing that we will always get liberal candidates as the dumb assholes keep trying to beg that last undecided fruitcake while letting thousands of the base slide.

164

"The problem that i see & cannot change is that you can't elect Palin or Jindal in 4 or 8 yrs & then the problems Obama has created just go away.  We, as a nation, will be paying for BO for generations to come."

I wouldn't necessarily predict that outcome.  Really, what we need is a candidate with a track record of doing a lot with only a little money.  Someone with a good head when it comes to discerning "prudent expenditures" from "wasteful expenditures," and can not only make the hard decisions of what spendy programs need to be cut, but garner support from the American people that it is really in everyones' best interest to do so, and follow-through to completion.

There is no easy way for this country to get back into the black ink.  There is no simple solution.  It will take work, dedication, and sacrifice (on a purely governmental level).  It may even be *gasp* unpopular at times, but if we could get a leader that could help everyone to keep their eyes on the bigger prize, instead of the "what's in it for me within the next five minutes?" myopia so many in our country have now...it could work.

Doing nothing to change course...that will result in continued generational theft.  But putting a foot down as a leader, and saying "No more," could still reel the theft in, and reverse the effects.  And that person could quite possibly win by using Obama's own campaign soundbites against him.  Didn't he tell us that we would all have to cut back and make tough decisions?  Didn't M'chel say that most Americans only want "part of the pie," and would be willing to even give up some of their piece for someone else?  So who is giving up their pie right now?  Some of us?  Or are we simply gorging ourselves now, and letting our children go to bed hungry?  2012 could very much be a slam-dunk win for any financially-responsible, fiscally-conservative candidate.

165 We will see a return of the military draft this year. Some of those drafted will be to staff a National Security Force that oppresses the citizenry of the contiguous United States. Some of those drafted will be sent into Mexico to prop up a US-installed puppet gov't. Some will be sent overseas to the Mid-East, and probably some more will go to protect Euro-weenies.

166

What we need to do is elect Republicans in 2010 and 2012. It would do no good at all to elect even Palin in 2012 and hand her over to a fucking 60 vote majority Dem Senate.

We haven't had a 60 vote Republican Senate since the late 1800s which is why we have always had a liberal SCOTUS in my lifetime.

167 In the late 60s, leftists used identity politics to ram through changes and radicalize liberals.  And by the 1980s, there was a powerful backlash as people realized that the emotions were overwhelming reason.

In the 1980s, a handful of former leftists promoted the same tactics within the republican party.  The result was a radicalization of the conservative movement, built on identity politics, consciousness raising, cries of persecution, and emotional responses to politics embodied through stylized responses.  And, twenty years later, there has been a backlash because people associate Republicans with emotion rather than reason.

168

We haven't had a 60 vote Republican Senate since the late 1800s which is why we have always had a liberal SCOTUS in my lifetime.

Well.. you say "because we haven't had 60 votes, they can't"

I'd say.. because they never tried, they can't. They don't fight for it at all.

169 151, entropy - Not to disagree too much, but don't conflate weblinks with what happens in meatspace. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed, say, global warming in real life with intelligent human beings who claim to have an open mind, present disconfirming information backed up by references to sites, and get exactly nowhere. The answer is always "oh, you read it somewhere on the web. I see." The web is emphatically not a source for information. Information is by-product. What it is, is a source for eyeballs, a conduit for influence in the real world, and nothing more. If I can post something that gets somebody else to vote or get out of the house and talk to others, that's the payoff. It can be a lousy lie, an unfounded rumor, or the truth but it's all treated with the same weight no matter if its any of the three. Thats a problem. Anyhoo, gotta get out myself. Seeya's all later

170

We will see a return of the military draft this year.

 

I don’t think so. That was bullshit rhetoric from Rangel and his crowd of racist idiots in the black caucus. If he tries to push that the rest of the communists will turn on him like a rabid dog. He’ll wind up in front of the ethics committee and marginalized right out the door.

171

The result was a radicalization of the conservative movement, built on identity politics, consciousness raising, cries of persecution, and emotional responses to politics embodied through stylized responses

WTF are you talking about?

Is it story time?

In the late 1870's, Xenu began a progrom of systematic represion of alpha Thetans or some shit.. it has Jackie Chan in it... I dunno. Just trust me.

172 The problem is that "intellectualists" that the liberals like to elect and often fancy themselves are people who simply think that they are smart and superior, but are so fucking stupid that they don't know what they know. This is a huge turn off to people who realize that they don't know everything. Unfortunately, with the "feel good" education of public schools, people that go through the public school system don't know anything and think that they are smart at the same time. This has created a nation of mindless morons who think they know everything. And what they know is what people like Bill Ayers have implanted in their minds. These are the mindless followers of Barack Obama and it looks like their population has reached critical mass.

173 WTH? I formatted that better, I swear.

174 The problem is that "intellectualists" that the liberals like to elect and often fancy themselves are people who simply think that they are smart and superior, but are so fucking stupid that they don't know what they don't know. This is a huge turn off to people who realize that they don't know everything. Unfortunately, with the "feel good" education of public schools, people that go through the public school system don't know anything and think that they are smart at the same time. This has created a nation of mindless morons who think they know everything. And what they know is what people like Bill Ayers have implanted in their minds. These are the mindless followers of Barack Obama and it looks like their population has reached critical mass.

175 This is why Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin have appeal. They use simple common sense to obliterate the stupid/ignorant "intellectualism" of the left. And these are clearly people that don't know everything and don't presume to know everything. This is refreshing in today's politics.

176 You mean like the rest of the communists are turning on the Messiah for the Bush stuff he is continuing? Everything, every freedom is "on the table" when it is couched as a crisis, Vic.  Stop and look at what has been done in one month.

Anyone deceiving himself that we are not now the United Socialist Soviet Republic are living in an alternate reality disconnected to this one.

177

Trying to reinstate the draft would be cutting their own throats and the only one who has said ANYTHING about that is Rangel.

Ain't gonna happen.

178 Obama has already promoted a National Security Force(internal) during his campaign, and he and Axelrod tied free college money to it. When, and it is when not if,  Mexico falls we will have to have troops now. If it doesn't happen this year it will be next year...It IS going to happen.

179

"There are plenty of liberal ideas that seem almost sane -as stated-. The -intentions- mostly sound good. But the solution they come up with -always- sucks. (Intentionally.)"

I'd drink to that, Al.  And I think you've hit on the snare that small-government Republicans get caught up in too often.  We don't want Gramma out on the street anymore than anyone else.  But because we look to protect the wealth that a financially-responsible gramma has amassed for herself, and prevent it from being split up and given to other grammas who've blown all their own money on bunco and QVC, we're viewed as being adamantly anti-gramma, instead of (accurately) anti-foolish.

We aren't against gramma.  We're against slapping a band-aid on the underlying problem instead of looking to correct and prevent it in the first place.

180 Entropy, it's not story time.  (But it does sound like someone needs a nap).

You should look at the influence of people like David Horowitz in the Republican Party, former leftists turned Republican, who use leftist strategies to forward their goals.

For a period of time, the GOP elite ate this stuff up like political viagra.  But they did not think about the underlying ethical implications or the history of these tactics. 

Horowitz is probably the most famous of the people who were agitating for a new style of "conservative" political activism (radicalism, really).  But there were many, many former leftists who joined the Republican Party, for very good reasons.  But they, unfortunately, brought their manipulative maoist tactics with them.

181

"Obama has already promoted a National Security Force(internal) during his campaign, and he and Axelrod tied free college money to it. When, and it is when not if,  Mexico falls we will have to have troops now. If it doesn't happen this year it will be next year...It IS going to happen."

Join the ObamaCorps!

182 Our gov't is spending money we don't have, and that we won't be able to borrow from anyone else. At some point enough people will have no money they will jump at a chance to be in a military force and get paid. That is what they are trying to do. When you are hungry you will do anything, even if you are ideologically opposed.

183

Evil Bomber -

No, I agree with what your saying.

That's why I say "we're not there yet", somewhere in the information chain something comes from 'meatspace' where they still trust. Not the web. It still (normally)  must go through normal outlets at one point to reach mass audience.

As for what you're saying - they don't believe it, it's treated the same if it's a lie or true, there's no consideration just face value of it - that's the shutting out of the information. They're not receptive to it - it's like an advertisement. Noise in the background. Which may turn out to be a problem indeed.

I was looking for a speech I once read where the guy talked about this and started off by saying the chairs were an organic plastic made out of fish.

This was bullshit and everyone nodded. They bought absurd bogus info because it was irrelevant. It means nothing. That in information overload, like you say - it does not matter if it's even true or not. Facts are trivial things of amusement. If not applied, it hardly matters if they're true. And people don't know what facts to apply, so they treat it all trivially.

Can't find it... did find this lengthy but interesting article though. I think you'd find it interesting.

I think at one point he mentions Huxley worried that facts would be drowned in a sea of irrelevancy. I think in "A Brave New World Revisited" he says something like 'While civil libertarians were on the lookout for tyranny from above they all forgot about mankinds infinite appetite for distraction'.

He's pointed out that things like sexual freedoms tend to increase as other freedoms decrease. The taking away of liberty is presented as 'freeing' you up from responsibility for some triviality. Your religious beliefs are taken from you so you can be 'free' to fuck around with whatever you want.

This new social dynamic obviously will have implications for politics too, and Huxley turns out again to be prescient. I  really really don't know how the fuck he saw that one coming. I think you can draw parallels (politically or socially) to 'Farenheit 415' or 'Paris in the 20th Century' as well.

But... then again, like I said - if in 1755 you'd have told your friend 'The British are this or this' and showed him your pamphlet, he'd have said it just came from some overexcited warmonger trying to stir up resentment and ignored you just the same, based on the source.

184 When this anal stimulus rape proves to be a colossal failure our gov't will throw in with a world governing entity and we WILL surrender our national sovereignty. It is is inevidable. There are already "allies" urging it like Brown.

185

But they, unfortunately, brought their manipulative maoist tactics with them.

Like what?

186 Something wicked this way comes....be prepared for the worst....

187 Another great thing to read, Entropy, is Neil Postman's Building a Bridge to the 18th Century.  There is a great discussion about the relationship between information-->knowledge-->wisdom.

188 I think, with the advent of rifled projectiles, and packaged rations, submarines, air balloons, and motorized vehicles(one as early as 1801)the globalization of world gov'ts might have been imagined...Money has always sought power, and power has sought ultimate power, with the machinery in between the only obstacle.

189 gm, sometimes this site takes away all your line breaks.  I have no idea why, but it sucks.

190 "You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin's injunction:

'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth."

Horowitz does not really hide his tactics.  But I, personally, think that the form of argument matters as much as its content.  And, clearly, Horowitz is arguing for a style of debate which would have made our Founding Fathers cringe.

191

the globalization of world gov'ts might have been imagined...

Sure. Globalization of world gov'ts was imagined thousands of years ago. But not the change in the flow of information. That comes out of left field. Let alone the trivializing aspect of it.

192

The Founders style of debate makes modern politicians look like sissies. Just ask Burr and Hamilton.

 

193 If you seek to prevent your opponent from taking the podium, you must resort to tactics that have nothing to do with the issues at stake.

The only way to keep someone from taking the podium in this worldview is to silence them through physical force or propaganda.  If you succeed in these leftist tactics, you never have to justify your ideas to anyone.  It breeds a pathological mindset.  And it allows a set of ideas, like "conservativism" to mutate from a rational set of principles to "whatever I say it is" we just need to keep winning, no matter what it does to us in the process.  And that is inherently unjust.  It contains within it the seeds of its own demise.

194 But flenser, they believed in a man's right to argue.  And, even if it did come to a duel, this was an agreement between two men.

And if you shot someone in the back, before they had the chance to square off against you, everyone knew you were a coward.

195

 

When this anal stimulus rape proves to be a colossal failure our gov't will throw in with a world governing entity and we WILL surrender our national sovereignty

 

You didn’t see that link I posted yesterday? Boxer is already trying to regurgitate a failed U.N. treaty that hands over child raising rights to the U.N. and the Fed Gov.  Never mind that it is unconditional as hell.

196

I think, with the advent of rifled projectiles, and packaged rations, submarines, air balloons, and motorized vehicles(one as early as 1801)the globalization of world gov'ts might have been imagined...

 

"The press, the machine, the railway, the telegraph are premises whose thousand-year conclusion no one has yet dared to draw."

197

Bob Dole could have won in '96 had he campaigned on this theme:  Bring back the grown-ups.

Full disclosure:  I love me some Mitt. The guy is a real executive who doesn't seem to be a particularly frivolous person.  I like serious, I like grown-up, I like "in-charge" and I like me some Mormons.  All the ones I know are serious people.

I think the juvenile disaster that Obambi is/will be sets the stage PERFECTLY for Mitt.  If Obambi creates as much havoc as I think he will, even the stupid people will be clamoring for a grown-up to take the reins. 

I don't think Mitt needs to change a thing, other than get out there more often and remind everybody that he told us this was going to happen.  Trust me, the folks in my office (1) really, really want a do-over on the whole Mormon thing and (2) ask each other on a daily basis, "where the hell is Mitt?"

198

even if it did come to a duel, this was an agreement between two men.

Sure, two men who despised and insulted each and threw lies at each other semi-anonymously. It was not all Firing Line style gentlemanly debate back then.

199 What a great quote.  As much as I struggle to stomach ol Nietzsche, I think that we have failed to honestly discuss the implications of technical advancement.  We always just say, "Hooray!"  a new thing, and then kick our worries down the road.

200

He's pointed out that things like sexual freedoms tend to increase as other freedoms decrease. The taking away of liberty is presented as 'freeing' you up from responsibility for some triviality. Your religious beliefs are taken from you so you can be 'free' to fuck around with whatever you want.

Which is why I regard "libertarians" as the enemies of freedom. We'll be stripped of every vestige of real civic liberty of the sort this country was founded for, and they'll be dancing in the streets with joy because  they have gained all the adolescent freedoms they crave. And they'll consider that a great exchange.

 

201 Yeah, Freddy was frequently nuts, and frequently a genius. And sometimes both mixed together.

202

Ace:

 

Jindal is southern born and bred.  Perhaps you'd prefer it if he had a Yale accent?  Or maybe if he sported a Snowe accent?

The GOP will win when it gets rid of its RINOs and libertarians (dopers).  These people have no principles other than self gratification and feathering their own nests.

 

Its also good to see all the sock puppets and dhimmirats commenting here.

 

 

203 Ruffini is wrong wrong wrong. Ace you are also wrong, wrong wrong.

This is why you are wrong: identity politics is at the heart of the current political struggle.

When Democrats have think-tank articles screaming "So Long White Boy" and Harold Myerson calls for the "End to Whiteness" and Robert Reich talks about making sure no White Men get one penny from the spendulus, that's identity politics.

United around a hatred of White Men, and middle/working class White Men in particular.

The Democratic/Obama coalition is made up of the Press, White Women (mostly single), Blacks, Hispanics, and the "SWPL" crowd or status obsessed Yuppies.

To personify it: Chris Matthews, Wonkette, Sharpton, Villaraigosa, and Allahpundit.

The economic, social, cultural, and other interests are totally opposite that of the Obama/Dem crowd, what Joel Kotkin called the Gentry, and inextricably bound up in Identity Politics.

We need more Identity politics, not less, and more effective bare-knuckle ones too. Along the lines of the Jessie Helms "Hands Ad" tearing apart the Affirmative Action fault-lines.

That in a recession, preferences exclusing Whites to benefit Blacks AND Hispanics make Whites poor. Playing on what politics, really, is all about ---

SPPOILS.

This is not rocket science. SOMEONE, either a Perot-like figure, or the GOP, will figure out that as Whites decline in absolute and proportionate numbers, the pain of AA and other measures discriminating against them will be felt more, across fewer people, more intensely, and parituclarly in a recession.

Ron Paul was a nut with nutbag ideas, mostly, and look at how he did with no money or organization. Now imagine a guy who is actually smart, independent, and plays Identity Politics to still the largest Identity Group. Promises to make things work for HIM?

As a side note, the way to attack Obama's big government and that of the Dems is showing how it will only benefit Blacks, Hispanics, and the Gentry. Not Joe Average or Joe the Plumber.

Like say, back-door reparations for Slavery (tax cuts only for Blacks for "Slavery apologies" etc.)

204 I think that's a broad brush to paint libertarians with.  Sure, some are whackos, but I think most republicans are libertarian in principle.  I mean, it's like talking to a communist:  Who doesn't agree that it would be nice for everybody to live a happy life doing whatever they want? 

But, when one set of principles collides with another, an unthinking person defaults towards their bias, their ideology, their habits.  But, I think it is truly the principled person who is willing to question their own bias if two equally important principles collide.

205

Which is why I regard "libertarians" as the enemies of freedom. We'll be stripped of every vestige of real civic liberty of the sort this country was founded for, and they'll be dancing in the streets with joy because  they have gained all the adolescent freedoms they crave.

No.

Libertarians, yes.

libertarians, no.

It makes a big difference whether or not you capitalize the L.

206

"The press, the machine, the railway, the telegraph are premises whose thousand-year conclusion no one has yet dared to draw."

That was Nietzsche??? Know where?

207 Whiskey,
Stoking racial conflict is an absurd strategy for the GOP to adopt.  Identity politics ALWAYS faces a backlash.  And we are in the middle of that backlash.  You cannot get traction in a backlash.  You will be characterized by the public as fanatical. 

Look at what feminist identity politics have done to feminism:  No young woman wants to be called a "feminist."  It used to be cool.  But, it is a fad and nobody wants it anymore.  The only people who cling to it are perceived as fringe figures.

If the GOP adopts a white populist identity politics, in five years, being a Republican will be synonymous with Timothy McVeigh.  If you learn anything from the election, you know that the pump has been primed to find a link between white supremacy and Republican politics.

The only way to insulate the GOP from this kind of backlash is to focus, like Rain Man, on bread and butter issues--like jobs, education, taxes, health care, and defense.  To always come prepared with good ideas that can be applied to all people.

208 Vic, there's our disagreement. I saw it as a moderate republican vs a socialist at best, or communist at worst.

209

Stoking racial conflict is an absurd strategy for the GOP to adopt. 

Yes.

Identity politics ALWAYS faces a backlash. 

Not even.

White supremacy (or even white racial greviance) in White Guilty America? Pshhh!

I mean it's just absurd. That's like trying to tell Catholics that if they're unhappy with the church, they should try out Lutheranism Satanism.

Putting aside any other issues of it, right or wrong, just play ruthless realpolitik for moment.

What you suggest is the epitome of moral evil to a great many white people.

210 I think Nietzsche was one of those figures who really saw the future, but didn't know what to do with it.  I mean, look at some of the stuff that really is coming down the pike.  Someday, our kids are going to need microchips and cash is going be all electronic.  And every thing you buy and everywhere you go is going to be fed into a giant computer.  And they'll try to make a profile for everything.  How fast do you type and what is your key signature?  What did you eat for breakfast?  How big is your gall bladder?  Who do you donate money to?  Does your blood pressure go up when you see a woman with brown hair?

I'm not an End Times paranoiac, but you know that this stuff is coming.  And if you think about, it is absolutely freaky.   It's not necessarily evil, it is just that looking towards the future is always estranging when you live in a time of change.  The life our grandchildren lead will be virtually unrecognizable to us, unless they move to the wilderness or something.  People pretend that this is tinfoil hat stuff.  But it isn't.  It's almost like you have to be crazy to even cope with it.

211 flenser- yes compared to what we have, McC was for smaller gov. its relative. I can take 2 issues, baipa & the idea of wealth redistribution- I know who I stand with. was it perfect, no. those that wouldn't vote Mccain are the equal but opposite of Parker et al who dissed Palin. how do those sides come together?

212 I disagree, entropy.  I think that a great many white people would be quite happy to hear the GOP talk about fundamental principles like equality.  I'm sure some people think being "White" makes them special.  But the truth is, it doesn't.  Your race doesn't make you or anyone else special.  And pandering to whites as a response to the Democrat's embrace of identity won't bring us closer to principles that are consistent, coherent, and eternal.

213

yes compared to what we have, McC was for smaller gov. its relative

No, it's not relative. McCain is not for "smaller government". If you wanted to say "McCain is for bigger government but smaller then Obama" then you should have said that. Of course it sort of destroys your argument.

214

pandering to whites as a response to the Democrat's embrace of identity won't bring us closer to principles that are consistent, coherent, and eternal.

Alas, there are no principles which are consistent, coherent, and eternal. Conservative principles are simply one subset of the larger set of all possible principles, ones which happen to be held mostly by white Americans and very few other people in the world.

215

I think Nietzsche was one of those figures who really saw the future, but didn't know what to do with it. 

Maybe he did know and maybe he didn't.

He saw that God was dead - and he was absolutely right. At least in Europe.

The life our grandchildren lead will be virtually unrecognizable to us, unless they move to the wilderness or something.

Meh.. doubtful. If you had a time machine and went back in time, the first thing you'd do is be amazed at how much has changed.

The second thing you'd do is be amazed at how little has changed.

216

That was Nietzsche??? Know where?

From "Human, All Too Human".

217 You are wrong, flenser.

While language can fail to adequately express certain principles and while other phenomena defy measurement, there is such a thing as the truth.  And there are things that are morally true.  We might make mistakes in how we articulate these truths or how others interpret them, but there are some moral rules that, practically speaking, are the truth.

Human beings have rights.

If we deny this claim in favor of some crappy moral relativism, there is no point in being a conservative.  Because there is nothing to conserve.  The Bill of Rights is just some crap that people made up.  The Constitution is just a fairy tale.

To Entropy: You are absolutely right.  Human nature will not change, unless we kill humanity.  I was simply referring to technology and how thinking about technological change too much is maddening.  But, of course, people will still be subject to the same virtues and vices, even if they do find different forms of expression.

218 no flenser, smaller is a relative term. smaller than what. McC voted for the first (GWs) spending bill. yet both McC & GW are smaller spenders than BO.

219 Property rights are not relative, either.  Some people might not believe in them.  Some people might imagine things being owned in different arrangements.  And, some people might imagine owning things that cannot be owned.  But your body does belong to you.  It is directly controlled by your thoughts, or at least more under your control than anyone else's.

Refusing to believe in this is a fun word game.  Being fooled into thinking otherwise is a great deception.  Not being able to control your body as well as you'd like to due to some illness is a tragedy.  Not being allowed to because some kind of tyrant won't let you is a crime.  But your body is absolutely yours.

Sure, Nietzsche talked all that whole Will to Power stuff, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the responsibility you have over your own self.

220

You are wrong, flenser.

Empirically speaking, I am right.

 

Human beings have rights.

And they differ violently among each other as to what those rights are. You must have noticed this.

 

If we deny this claim in favor of some crappy moral relativism

It's not "moral relativism", crappy or otherwise. It's a statement of cold hard fact. People in America have rights to free speech because enough Americans think they should have it. People elsewhere in the world don't have that right because they don't think that way.

When Americans stop thinking that way, and the day does not seem too far distant thanks in large part to nonwhite immigration, then Americans will no longer have that right either.

Different people think different things and hold different beliefs. The notion that they do not do so is borrowed from the hard left.

 

221

no flenser, smaller is a relative term

Fuck off lynn. Maybe this shit flies over at the Republican Main Street Partnership.

222

But your body does belong to you. 

The inmates of the gulag and the concentration camp might beg to differ. In an case you're changing the subject.

 

Sure, Nietzsche talked all that whole Will to Power stuff, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the responsibility you have over your own self.

Uh huh. You know, your theories are more akin to the Will To Power than anything I'm saying here.

223

Re Jindal:   Didn't Bill Clinton, then an obscure Arkansas governor,  give a terrible bomb of a speech at a Dem convention???

Finished him off politically, didn't it.

Bedwetters!

 

 

 

224 Not so.  There is no empirical basis for rights beyond who can take what from whom.  Now, if you are going to insist that the only valid knowledge about human nature and the world be that which can be empirically verified, then, this is a fundamental difference in philosophy.  But it is an eccentric one.  And one no person could actually live with in practical terms. 

If you insist that any and all notions of truth be defined in empirical terms or not at all, then what can you stand on?  If I tell you that you are wrong and I believe it, does that make you wrong?  Or, would you punch me until I said you are right?  What if you can't punch me?  What if a third person comes along and agrees with what I am saying?  Then that would make your premise wrong?

Yes, rights, as we agree to talk about them are socially constructed.  But a person's right over their own body, and their right to property, by extension, is absolutely inherent in the person.  And, even if we disagree on what rights are, it is possible, through words and with enough time, to frame the terms of the discussion and come to some set of mutually understandable propositions, which can either be refuted or affirmed...  not based on your opinion, but based on the internal logic of the debate.

225

It's that bugaboo, I think, that caused Jindal to deliver his rebuttal in such a false way. He was trying to channel his inner Bubba rather than just being himself.

Whether anyone likes it or not, we live in a time where style matters as much as substance.  This isn't exactly a new development.  As long as there have been Republics, great orators have always stood out as great leaders regardless of their politics.  And style has always mattered.

Cicero was among the first to understand this and master it.  He studied it, analyzed it and even wrotes books on it, books Obama undoubtedly read (think Barackolis, his use of tricolons, etc.).  Like him or not, and I'm suspecting many here don't, he knows how to speak and it doesn't include playing down to his audience, just the opposite.

Reagan got this too.  He used soaring rhetoric, humor, mastery of the topic and the ability to identidy a common enemy, big government, as a means to make himself one of us.  Reagan never talked down to people and never had to be anyone other than who he was to attract a legion of followers from extremely diverse backgrounds.  Hell, even his fiercest opponents liked him.

We don't need a bubba or an everyman and we sure as hell don't need someone talking to us like we are children.  I'm pretty sure most of us can understand any issue our solons in DC can figure out.  We need someone who can convince us that not only does he understand our problems, they are his too.  Someone who can do it with a smile on his face and an optimism for the struggle and the future.

226 Exactly, I am saying that the Will to Power is precisely the thing that Nietzsche got right.  But people who tend to obsess over him (poststructuralists) take him in the wrong direction.  The Will to Power is often taken to mean that might makes right, but really it means that the inherent freedom of the individual and their control over their own "self" is where the rubber hits the road.  It is poor Nietzsche's attempt to defend the human in the face of an absent God, and, well, he did find in Man what can be found in God: The Will to Power.  Which might be why he was so conflicted.  Even in nihilism, there exists this strange metaphysical truth.  Even in the face of empiricism, there is this aporia.  And, in simpler times, we called this being "created in the image and likeness of God" and more, recently, being endowed by our creator with unalienable rights.

227 wow flenser, i'm amazed it took you so long before devolving into namecalling. way to win an arguement

228 This is a total dork fight.  But a funny one.

I hope I don't sound like a hater.  I make about as much sense in Ace of Spades HQ as a japanese cowboy.

I'm someone who only grudgingly votes Republican.

229

But a person's right over their own body, and their right to property, by extension, is absolutely inherent in the person. 

Only so long as they assert it. If a person consents to having their rights taken by someone else, then they lose them.

Only so long as you will not allow it to be taken, is it inalienable from you.

I can speak. You cannot take my right to speech. You can punish me for what I say, or you can even kill me for it after the fact, but you cannot stop me from speaking. Unless, under fear of punishment, I acquiesce and give up that right. Then I do not have it.

But you can't seperate it from me by force. If I won't surrender, you can only kill me, and only if you can kill me, otherwise I'll have my say.

You say you have private property rights, but what of them if I steal all your shit?

It isn't by internal logic that you determine what rights you have. It's by assertion.

230

Yes, rights, as we agree to talk about them are socially constructed. 

Than why are we arguing about it? Different social units construct rights differently.

 

But a person's right over their own body, and their right to property, by extension, is absolutely inherent in the person. 

You are taking an American social constructed view of rights and pretending that it applies always and everywhere. Most peope on earth even today would not go along with this proposition, to say nothing of past and future.

 

If you insist that any and all notions of truth be defined in empirical terms or not at all, then what can you stand on? 

What do you think your notion of truth stands on? Why do you think it should be binding on all mankind?

231

way to win an arguement

There is no argument, you stupid fuck. You're driving around the field with your goalposts in the back of your golf-cart. Have fun.

232 It is not by assertion that you have rights.

Otherwise, what would it mean if you were unable to assert your rights?  Even if you got rounded up by the Nazis and put in a concentration camp, you'd still have rights, even if you could not exercise them.

Otherwise, you would not feel that you were subject to injustice.  And, nobody would be able to argue that the Holocaust was an injustice.

No, the rights do not emanate from the ability to act.  Rights emanate from the human person.  Action is only the physical manifestation of the will, the quantifiable sign of agency.  "Consciousness," as the "post-humanists" think of it, is only another sort of empirically quantifiable sign of human freedom. 

But free action must have an original cause.  Free "consciousness" must also have an original cause.  And that cause is whatever comes before the expression.  It is not something that can be empirically known.

233 I can tell the difference between a man who would let bush tax cuts expire & a man who would increase every tax that existed & then make a few more up- yet i'm the one who doesn't know where the goal post is? yeah

234 Flenser, of course there is no argument.  There is only flenser.  And you are talking to yourself.  But maybe you don't exist either.  Because, well, the only empirical tools you have are those which can be perceived through your senses.  And, well, as these sensations are mediated by your nervous system, which may or may not exist, either, there is no way of knowing if you are not just hallucinating this.  Or maybe, you are my hallucination, thinking about this.  And now, you've gone and started cussing, because you don't like the fact that the words you type are just a social construction.  You mean in earnest, what I read as parody.  Or is it the other way around.  Who cares.  Nothing is real.

235

No, the rights do not emanate from the ability to act.  Rights emanate from the human person. 

a) How do you know this is so?

b) Even if you know this is so, how do you know which rights "emanate" from a person?

 

And that cause is whatever comes before the expression.  It is not something that can be empirically known.

You omitted to mention that it cannot be shown in a non-empirical fashion either.

236

Flenser, of course there is no argument.  There is only flenser.

Glad to see you're comng around.

 And now, you've gone and started cussing, because you don't like the fact that the words you type are just a social construction. 

Is "lynn" a sock-puppet of yours? Because I've been nothing but polite to you so far.

I'm someone who only grudgingly votes Republican.

That's odd, considering that both Bush and McCain share your view of the world.

237 Re: Will to Power in Nietzsche, you guys are getting it all wrong. It's a metaphor. [i]Beyond Good and Evil[/i] makes clear that by 'Will to Power' Nietzsche really means efficient causality. It's a shorthand for a non-reductive psychological materialism. It has nothing to do with free will, because free will is epiphenomenal. It's an illusion.

238 From Joe the Plumber to Nietzsche.... interesting.

239 54 While I forgive Romney for his flopfloppery to some extent, and I like Romney, I don't think he can win a general election...

Palin is hated by a lot of Romney fans... I don't understand why.  She's handled deals larger than Romney has... she's a more popular governor, and she's done a great job cleaning up Alaska's government.  Yeah, she said some silly stuff, but there is no doubt that had Romney been nominated, the press would have found something he said to make fun of.  I really think Palin's screw ups were thanks to Mccain's campaign, and to some extent, I kinda think they welcomed her getting bashed.

I wish we had someone more electable than Palin, but I think she's got a shot, and at the very least, serious GOP members should not denigrate her because she's going to have a strong shot at the nomination.  I think Romney and Palin should have a debate and let's see what comes of it.  Either of them would be a massive improvement over what we've got, but we have to win a general election to get there.

Posted by: barack ɐɯɐqo at February 26, 2009 11:24 AM (8jYMc)

The Romney symps on FR, Hot Air, and elsewhere are the most obnoxious, nasty, slandermongering assholes on all the internets.  And that means something coming from a /b/tard. 

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Mitt if his supporters weren't a bunch of astroturfing fucktards who spent the entire primary sliming Fred Thompson, the post-RNC period joining in with their good friends in the MSM sliming Palin, and now sliming Jindal post-election.

240

No ... Ruffini has it wrong. JTP is a symptom of a movement that has collapsed on itself. None of our "elitists" have credibility anymore. No Republican in Congress really has credibility anymore because they were in the cockpit when the plane crashed. What then happens is the movement looks to the grassroots for people with credibility - thus the rise of JTP.

I maintain that Palin has credibility - because she was assasinating corruption in both parties while the plane was crashing. The media recognized this - and did a hit job on her. That "hit job" will stick if we let it - Just like the hit job on Jindal which is only now beginning.

This is nothing to panic about - people rising from the grassroots to assume leadership positions does nothing but revitalize and cleanse the movement - and it needed cleansing. Embrace what's happening here. I'm normally pessimistic about where the country is headed - but I'm very optimistic the GOP will find it's feet again. Two years is an eternity in politics - we can do this. JTP is a good man - and he's good for the movement - he's not a "gimmick". Calling him a "gimmick" is another example of embracing the characteratures that the media draws to get you to embrace them. It happened with Palin - it's happening with Jindal - it will happen with anyone we put forward. Don't buy into it. FIGHT THE PRESS.

241 GA...  now we are arguing semantics.  Yes, "Free Will" is an "epiphenomenon" of "efficient cause"...  in other words, it is an aporetic thing that Niezsche cannot explain, but which looks a hell of a lot like some social construction caused "free will" is the side effect.

This is the human essence.  That which we share with God.  It is our "self."  But none of these words work very good.

So, we quibble over language.

242

Posted by: HondaV65 at February 26, 2009 05:50 PM (8NiWI)

Agree 100%.  The retards saying Palin is done because of an interview her adult daughter did without her consent AND the people who say Jindal is done because he gave one shitty speech need to get kicked to the curb.  Any "Republicans" who takes the side of the media over that of conservatives like Palin and Jindal in order to astroturf for Romney are treasonous quisling bastards and scum of the lowest order.

Two or three years from now, when we have 25% interest, inflation, and unemployment, and people are freezing to death in their apartments because of electrical blackouts caused by cap-in-trade scams, nobody will remember Jindal's crappy speech or Palin's interview with Couric.  And I think they will be very, very pissed with the media for selling them a unicorn that's really just a steaming pile of horse shit. 

243

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Mitt if his supporters weren't a bunch of astroturfing fucktards who spent the entire primary sliming Fred Thompson, the post-RNC period joining in with their good friends in the MSM sliming Palin, and now sliming Jindal post-election.

I don't know where you get this crap about Romney. Those were the McCain staffers sliming Palin, not the Romney ones.

And Fred fucked himself.

 

244

Aw geesh- late to the party.

IMhumbleO, any Republican in the WH would be oh SO much better than the lying sack 'o blank that we have allowed(by arguing about who wears what, who looks like what and who speaks how)into the WH and is currently wreaking havoc all over from hell to gone... but, who cares, eh?  It's not Mitt- or Guilani- or, gasp- Huckabee(that Evangalistic sob)(& my favourite).

Guess we dodged a bullet w/them, too?

I would have voted for any one of them.  Not for lack of principle- but, because they cover at least some of what i believe in, as opposed to the fella  that  not only disagrees, but is going to great lengths to re-arrange the very face of Her(yeah, America).

If we'd back our guy and pull together as opposed to splintering like a bunch of offended Dems- we'd win.

Maybe Steele can get that point of unity across.  'Cause, right now, it's what we lack.

245 I just want a candidate that wants to win.  Who doesn;t worry about the media's criticism of him (because lord knows no GOP candidate will get a fair shake - the media will use their default "he's dumb" criticism or something else if they have to), and who only cares about just getting the message out there.  Someone that will call the Dems and the media on their bullshit.  Because most voters know most of what goes on in DC is bullshit.  I just want a candidate that will fight.  Apparently thats too much for this party.

246 I don't know where you get this crap about Romney. Those were the McCain staffers sliming Palin, not the Romney ones.

And Fred fucked himself.

Posted by: flenser at February 26, 2009 07:59 PM (ry71x)

Go back and re-read my post. I didn't say Mitt himself was doing it, I said his supporters were.  Peggy Noonan, Cumdumpster Kathleen, Michael "The Self-Hating-Homo" Savage, Dan Gilgoff, Joe Scarborough, Carol Platt Liebau, Douglas Kmiec, and Cal Thomas, to name a few, were all Romney supporters, AND some of the treasonous McCain staffers who slimed her were former Romney staffers.

And the Romney supporters on FR slandered Fred at every turn.  Perhaps he did fuck himself, but if so, it shouldn't have been necessary to call his wife a whore, assert as fact that he was going to die of cancer within 6 months, and call his deceased daughter a drug-addict.  This shit was posted regularly by the Rom-Bots throughout the entire primary.

247

I didn't say Mitt himself was doing it, I said his supporters were.  Peggy Noonan, Cumdumpster Kathleen, Michael "The Self-Hating-Homo" Savage, Dan Gilgoff, Joe Scarborough, Carol Platt Liebau, Douglas Kmiec, and Cal Thomas, to name a few, were all Romney supporters, AND some of the treasonous McCain staffers who slimed her were former Romney staffers.

So, basically, anybody who says a bad word about Palin, you call them a Romney supporter.

And the Romney supporters on FR slandered Fred at every turn.  Perhaps he did fuck himself, but if so, it shouldn't have been necessary to call his wife a whore

I'm not very familiar with FR, but I doubt very much that they would allow anyone to call Freds wife a whore. From what I saw they were mostly Fred and Duncan Hunter supporters over there.  Again, you seem you have this idea burned into your brain that if anybody disses Palin, they are Romney backers. Not really. Frum was a big Palin basher and a big Rudy supporter.

248

i'd say that about proves my point.

Good thing his name is ~Steele~.

BTW- WTF is a wonk- or wonkish?

249 So, basically, anybody who says a bad word about Palin, you call them a Romney supporter.

Every one of the people I listed ARE Romney supporters.  It's not speculation. They supported him in the primary.

I'm not very familiar with FR, but I doubt very much that they would allow anyone to call Freds wife a whore.

Trust me, it happened on more than one occasion.  For some reason they didn't get banned, although the comments sometimes got removed.

From what I saw they were mostly Fred and Duncan Hunter supporters over there.  Again, you seem you have this idea burned into your brain that if anybody disses Palin, they are Romney backers. Not really. Frum was a big Palin basher and a big Rudy supporter.

I'm not saying anybody who bashes Palin is a Romney supporter.  I'm not saying that ALL Romney supporters are obnoxious assholes.  I'm saying that the most psychotic and nasty among them are Romney supporters, and they're doing it for no other reason than to clear the field for Romney in 2012.

250 Think on this...

Palin / Bolton 2012.

251 I was going to start out by saying that I'm a conservative, but I don't think I will.  That is a term with too many meanings and no way of controlling which definition someone reading this post is going to choose. 

What I will say is that I believe in liberty.  I believe that government should be limited in scope and power, that the government which governs least governs best.  I also believe that while state power has the greatest potential to become tyrannous, governments do not have a monopoly on the abuse of power.  Anytime you have too much power concentrated in the hands of too few, you have problems, especially when there are no checks and balances in place.  I don't believe that the problems facing the world have easy solutions.  I certainly don't believe that government can be used to solve those problems.  Human nature is what it is and virtually all human misery can be traced back to fundamental flaws found within all of us in greater or lesser amounts.  Human nature hasn't changed in 10,000 years and isn't going to change anytime soon.  Attempting to implement non-solutions to problems that can't be solved will only make those problems worse, or create other problems that don't currently exist.

I believe that the power of the government flows from the consent of the governed and that the right to keep and bear arms is crucial to ensuring that those elected to work the levers of government do so honestly.  Human beings have rights and these are not indulgences or privileges granted by the government, but eternal and inalienable areas of complete personal sovereignty outside the scope of legitimate state authority.  Any government that seeks to abridge these rights is evil and must be destroyed.  Those responsible for its evil should be hanged from every tree.

That being said, I also have absolutely zero desire to associate with marginally educated, provincial, Joe-six-pack types.  I don't hate them, they're just not my kind of people. 

At exactly what point did being a well-educated, informed, well-paid professional become something associated with the left?  Are competence and accomplishment really traits that the left has any rightful claim to?

Has the left really been so successful at "capturing the institutions" of education that in order to escape its noxious influence one must be an ignoramus?  Are students at our universities really leaving school knowing and understanding LESS about the world than when they arrived?

If so then we might as well kiss our nation goodbye, because we are well fucked and far from home. 

252 KB: nope. Nietzsche can explain free will, though it's not a palatable explanation to most people. We think it's free, but it's really just a succession of competing drives or affects: the 'decision' we make is simply the drive or affect that wins out.

253

Otherwise, what would it mean if you were unable to assert your rights? 

You wouldn't have any.

Even if you got rounded up by the Nazis and put in a concentration camp, you'd still have rights, even if you could not exercise them.

What is a right if it cannot be excercised? Well, you stole all my stuff, and I'm poor now, but at least I still have a right to private property.

WTF is that?

Semantically I'm just ... confused. What the hell is a 'right' that you can't use? A huffy feeling of entitlement or victimhood?

254

Otherwise, you would not feel that you were subject to injustice.  And, nobody would be able to argue that the Holocaust was an injustice

Sure you could.

The nazi's didn't think the holocaust was an injustice but JUSTICE. They thought the Jew's capitalistic impulses were an injustice.

Hippies think the bombing of Hiroshima was an injustice. You can argue anything, regardless of what is.

Lazy entitled fucks think that not getting payed as much as a rich guy - despite not doing anything - is an injustice. Does that mean he has a right to be payed as much as anyone else regardless of work?

How you FEEL about something has nothing to do with what IS. People feel all manner of things all over the place, in mutually exclusive fashion. Whether or not something is ultimately deemed unjust is, like history, written by the victors.

255

Yes, "Free Will" is an "epiphenomenon" of "efficient cause"...  in other words, it is an aporetic thing that Niezsche cannot explain

Nietzsche couldn't explain free will, but he lived a good long time before Edward Lorenz, though.

Free will can be rationally explained as the appearance of chaos in the complex system of a human psyche. If a human mind is a complex system with a sensitivity to initial conditions, and it is - as well as dynamic system in which the very way the variables interact change depending on what they are - then a lack of infinite precision in our measurements (which is impossible) will inevitably reach completely unpredictable results, which will appear to be completely chaotic.

Thus, free will.

And entropy

256 Entropy, the point that I am making is not that justice is rooted in feelings.  But that, most people, in some visceral way, do have a sense of when they are being wronged.  And usually that originated in their sense of being an autonomous entity.  And while the Nazis believed the Jews didn't deserve to live, but the Jews believed they did, there needs to be some higher standard to determine which party is right.  The ability to kill someone does not make it right.  The belief that murder is right does not make it right.  What makes it right are wrong is the value that we can discern as being inherent in the person. 

I am not saying that this is the cause of freedom.  I am saying that these are only the things we can see.  Which GA says is " a succession of competing drives or affects" and flenser says is "the ability to enforce it."  Yes, consciousness points to the existence of some kind of "decision maker."  The will to fight for your life tooth can nail points to the existence of some kind of powerful thing inside the human body.  The intuitive experience of injustice also points to some sense of what is right and wrong.  Common ethical principles among cultures also point to some internal character.  Consistency in human motivation across millenia points to some human essence.  But these are all epiphenomena.  These are not the soul, they are shadows cast by the soul.  And shadows can be distorted depending on where they land, but behind it there is still some source of light.  Some people call this God.  Others call it human nature.  But you'll never find it, because it's where your perceptions are felt.  It's like trying to look at the backside of your eyeballs.

I argue that freedom comes neither from neuroscience nor from force, but that it belongs to the human being by virtue of their humanity.  Nobody can trace back some empirical origin of freedom and rights.  I believe they come from God, but you do not have to believe in God to believe in human nature.
  But, if you pay close attention to human nature, you might start to believe in God.

257 To make point more clear:

Flenser and GA, do you believe in the Sun? 
What is it?
Have you been there?
How do you know it exists?

Because of epiphenomena:  Heat, Light, Radiation, Gravity, Theory, Tools of Measurement, and Common Sense.

Nobody has ever been to the sun, bet we believe it exists as this giant spherical object powered by hydrogen.

The same is true for the soul, human rights, and freedom.  We cannot touch the soul itself, but we can see everything that it is capable of.  And we recognize that this entity has principles that are required for it to exist in accordance with its nature, so we try our best to put these into words.  And, in my humble opinion, the US Constitution seems to recognize these rights better than any other.  ANd how do I know?  Well, it is a document that, relatively speaking, is conducive to human flourishing.

258 Entropy, I can dig what you are saying.  But don't you ever wonder if chaos theory is just the same thing as religion?  "Well, we cannot see imperceptible phenomena and we cannot understand them, but if we could, well, then we would be able to explain them."

That's what we Catholics call divine "mysteries."  We can't understand them.  We cannot penetrate them logically.  We can only approach them and measure them by their effects.  But they all make sense, because God cannot lie and God is not irrational.  They just exceed our capacity to understand them.

I am totally willing to consign free will to the realm of chaos, provide someone else doesn't come along and say, "See, humans don't have rights."  Because, how the hell do they know?  Scientists cannot find ideas, but people have them all the time.

259

But that, most people, in some visceral way, do have a sense of when they are being wronged.  And usually that originated in their sense of being an autonomous entity. 

Sure. But that depends very much on what they were socialized to expect. What they think the rules of the 'game' are.

And, as I've said, it's no basis for rights because people believe mutually exclusive things. It's untenable to give people whatever they feel like they deserve.

And while the Nazis believed the Jews didn't deserve to live, but the Jews believed they did, there needs to be some higher standard to determine which party is right. 

There is - History. 1 was right, the other was not. In retrospect we can tell which. In the present, it's a yet undecided conflict - it's not over yet. If we could 'tell' who was right, it would be. Then there'd be no more disagreement and it'd be over. It's only over when it's over, at which point it's viewed in retrospect.

 The ability to kill someone does not make it right. 

You assert that. If I assert differently and I kill you and all that disagree, then among all who remain I'll be seen as right.

But it's not simply the ability to kill... The nazi's had the ability to kill the Jews, but then other people got pissy about that. Went and killed the nazis.

But if Hitler had in fact won, 50 years later he'd be seen as a hero and an exemplar of moral virtue.

Also, you have to understand... you view a violation of personal autonomy as wrong (so do I). So do the nazis. They saw the Jews as aggressors, who had come in and overran their economy and enslaved them. They felt their autonomy was violated by the Jews. They weren't killing them just because nazis are mean pricks (they were, but that's not it). They saw it as liberating those who remain from forces (like capitalism, foreign British and French hegemony and genetic degredation brought about by miscegenation) that were supressing their autonomy.

Now you say 1 is right and not the other - who made you judge? You think 1 is right... Himmler thinks another way.  You assert that killing is wrong and it's empircal and just is - But I assert that killing is dandy and that's empirical and just is. You have no authority over me. What makes your view better then mine? There's no concensus to be reached here. You have your view and find it to be empirically, universally absolutely true. So does he.

It's subjective. Arguing is pointless. The only empirical leg you have to stand on really, is that your side is more powerful then his is. So your side has been able to asert itself as dominant. And, literally, might makes right.

No, not 'might makes for right' like the mightier side is right because it's mighty. But 'might CONSTRUCTS right'. At least in a sociological sense - in a secular world absent the hand of God.

I know you want to see a "higher standard", but there isn't one. Not this side of death. There may be a God and there may be some absolute morality and inherant rights. But God won't come down here and mediate or enforce. We'll only know when we're both dead and gone - and that's a whole different universe with different rules.

Here and now - if we disagree, we argue. We fight. And we keep doing it forever, unless and until someone WINS, and then the winner is right because he won.

There is no higher authority to apply a higher standard. God does not send down Judge Jesus to mediate disputes for a half hour a day on 'The People's Court'. There's only you, and me. Humans are the highest thing we have to work with. Authority is authority because it has power and control. The highest authority is just the human with the most power to win.

260 "If I assert differently and I kill you and all that disagree, then among all who remain I'll be seen as right."

This is not true.  Virtue is not something that can only be seen in retrospect.

The Romans executed Jesus.  The Romans then went on to murder the early Christians.  Seeing this, millions upon millions have converted to Christianity.  Why?

Because even though the Christians got killed, a reasonable person could see they were right.  Christianity challenged the predominating philosophy of the Romans and of the Jews.  Yet, for whatever reason, people from a variety of backgrounds could see that it is a better way.  Now other people may harbor biases which prevent them from seeing Christianity as an improvement.  Still others may reject Christianity out of fear of punishment or ridicule.  And still others might simply not know enough about it to see its wisdom.  But still the story of Jesus continues to inspire people to reject the philosophy which says that there is nothing that we "ought" to do, but only what we want to do, and that truth comes down to who can kill the most people.

Your theory of morality cannot account for the rise of Christianity, which had the decked stacked against it, both in terms of physical force and in terms of the prevailing beliefs. 

If people lived as nihilists, there would be no heroes, there would be no sacrifices, there would be no nations, there would be no men.  Maybe too many do live like nihilists.  It would explain why the problems in this country.  Nobody believes in anything, until they are told what to think by the evening news. 

261 Lee Reynolds

At exactly what point did being a well-educated, informed, well-paid professional become something associated with the left?  Are competence and accomplishment really traits that the left has any rightful claim to?

That is the perception, and it has a fair degree of validity. Americas managment ranks are largely staffed with liberals. Liberal assumptions permeate the workplace.


Has the left really been so successful at "capturing the institutions" of education that in order to escape its noxious influence one must be an ignoramus? 

No. But not going to college reduces the chance that you will be brainwashed into left-thought.


Are students at our universities really leaving school knowing and understanding LESS about the world than when they arrived?

Yes.

262 most people, in some visceral way, do have a sense of when they are being wronged.  And usually that originated in their sense of being an autonomous entity.

Even by your own premises, this is wrong. What we consider justice has nothing to do with our feelings when we ourselves are wronged, in our own opinion. Justice, in the classical Western sense, is when assorted third parties pass judgment on how Peter is treating Paul, not how Paul feels about it.

Your position here is identical to that of the modern left who claim that an offense has occurred as long as somebody says they feel offended. So I suspect you have not really expressed yourself well, since I don't see you as a lefty.


I argue that freedom comes neither from neuroscience nor from force, but that it belongs to the human being by virtue of their humanity.

I'd say you are asserting that more than arguing it.


Nobody can trace back some empirical origin of freedom and rights.

Sure they can. I can trace back the original American conception of religious freedom to the great religious wars of the Reformation period, and the measures people of that period took to resolve them. And so can you.

263 Virtue is not something that can only be seen in retrospect.

I wish you would refrain from making these sweeping statements which are so clearly wrong.

The notion that slavery is morally wrong is just one example of a virtue which exists only in retrospect. For the vast majority of human existence nobody saw any contradiction between owning slaves and possessing virtue. 

264 The same is true for the soul, human rights, and freedom.  We cannot touch the soul itself, but we can see everything that it is capable of.  And we recognize that this entity has principles that are required for it to exist in accordance with its nature, so we try our best to put these into words.  And, in my humble opinion, the US Constitution seems to recognize these rights better than any other.


Well, that's convenient for you. But as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the vast majority of people in the world don't believe that the US Constitution is the last best word on human freedom. In fact it's an open question how many Americans believe it.

So the problem for you is to try to come up with some means of selling your (Christian derived) doctrine to billions of people who find it alien. Or to accept that it simply is not the universal Truth which you think it is.

You can't make the problem go away merely by repeating your initial argument more vehemently. At some stage you need to come to grips with the logical problems which exist in it.

265 BT: I'm not saying I believe/disbelieve in anything. I'm simply saying that Nietzsche was being misinterpreted, not that he's right, wrong, etc.

266 If people lived as nihilists, there would be no heroes, there would be no sacrifices, there would be no nations, there would be no men.

One of your many misconceptions is this notion that the alternative to everybody believing what you believe is nihilism and the belief that nothing is true.

I'm far more unshakable in my beliefs than most, and far more zealous in defending them.  And at the same time I can wrap my head around the concept that other people may work from axiomatic beliefs very different from mine, and accept the idea that these different people should have places of their own to live and follow their own beliefs as they like.

The irony here is that the belief of Universalists like you that all men are inherently identical is what's destroying the Western idea of liberty which you think you're defending. It's the "Harry Jaffa fallacy'.

267  货架

268 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 货架

269 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

270 Air force 1 shoes
Nike air force one
Nike air force
Air force 1 mens
Air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Lebron Shoes
Cheap UGG
UGG Boots
UGG Shoes
Discount UGG
UGG Australia
UGG Sale
UGG Online

271 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

272 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

273 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

274 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

275

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

/>

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

276 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

277 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

278 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

279 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

280 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

281 Fake Watches | Fake Watches | Replica watches | Replica watches | Replica Omega | Fake Blancpain | Swiss Watch Replica | Replica Corum Watches | Wholesale Breguet Watch | Franck Muller Replica Watches | Replica Oris | IWC Fake | Breitling Fake Watches | Rolex Replica Watches | Wholesale Aigner Watch

282 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

283 Replica Watches | soccer jersey wholesale | soccer jersey supplier | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Breitling Watches | Hamilton Fake | Rolex Ladies Watch Replica | Baume & Mercier Replica Watch | Louis Vuitton Fake Watches | Richard Mille Replica Watches | Ebel Replica | Louis Vuitton Watch | Christian Dior Replica Watches | Concord Replica | Tissot Watch

284 Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Breitling Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Watches | Fake Watches | Jaeger Lecoutre Replica Watch | Alain Silberstein Watches | Luxury watches | Porsche Fake Watch | Cheap Porsche | Frank Muller Watches | Breguet Replica Watch | replica wristwatch | Ebel Fake Watch | Fake Bell & Ross Watches

285 UGG BOOTS

286 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

287 None of us are born with a set of shoes mbt shoes on our feet, but they are infinitely important to our wellbeing. Even though the commercial shoe http://www.mbter.com industry didn't get underway during the beginnings of civilization, man is believed to have constructed footwear mbt shoes 40,000 years ago. So the question isn't whether you should buy a pair of shoes... it's how should you go about buying them!
When you're shoe shopping, the task can seem overwhelming and frustrating. You just want to try on a few pairs of shoes and then get out of the store. But the reality is that you should pick out a pair of shoes mbt shoes with a lot more care than other items of your wardrobe. After all, the health of your feet are at stake!

288 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

289 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

290 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what¡¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

291 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

292 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

293 The womens mbt Tembea is a new generation lace-up with Dual Board construction and a striking style that pays tribute to the classic sneaker. It packs in all the mbt lami shoes benefits with a fresh look and feel, striking the perfect balance between health benefits ... The discount mbt Shuguli GTX is a is a sleek and stylish professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering full waterproofing from GORE-TEX. These are especially effective for those who have to stand or walk for long periods of time ...
The mbt shoes Fanaka GTX is a sporty but rugged styled shoe that combines fashionable, casual design with all the health benefits associated with the sporting style discount mbt shoes. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods ... The black mbt Bia is a classic, professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering all the health benefits from MBT design. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods of time during work ...

294 nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93

295 Replica Michele Handbags | Best Aigner bags | Replica Raymond Handbags | Replica Tissot Handbags | Seiko Fake Handbags | Best Emporio Armani bags | Best Technomarine bags | Replica Fashion Bedat & CO handbags | Luxury A Lange & Sohne handbags | Omega Replica bags | Replica Fashion Bell & Ross handbags | Replica Montblanc Handbags | Replica Piaget Handbags | Replica Fashion Longines handbags | Replica Chopard Handbags | Replica Rolex Handbags | Replica Fashion Daniel Roth handbags | Luxury Gucci Belt handbags | Vacheron Constantin Replica bags | Bedat & CO Fake Handbags | Michele Replica bags | Replica Fashion Bell & Ross handbags | Replica Rado Handbags | Bulgari Fake Handbags | Rolex Replica bags

296 nike shox for kids
nike shox monster
nike shox nz
nike shox nz ii
nike shox oz
nike shox R3
nike shox R4
nike shox R4 torch
nike shox R5
nike shox TL1
nike shox TL3
nike shox Torch
nike shox turb

297 Hair Straightener
GHD
GHD MK4
GHD MK5
Pink GHD
Pink GHI Hair
CHI Camo
Hair Straightener
GHI

298 UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots
Ugg classic cardy
UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots

299 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

300 Hair Straightener
chi hair straightener
chi flat irons
chi iron
best hair straightener
ceramic hair straightener
flat iron
pink chi hair
chi hair irons
ghd
Pink GHI Hair
GHD
GHD MK4
GHD MK5
Pink GHD
Pink GHI Hair
CHI Flat Irons
Hair Straightener
chi hair irons
chi hair straightener
best hair straightener
chi hair iron
pink chi hair
chi hair irons
Pink GHI Hair
Pink GHD
GHD
Nike Kobe Shoes
Nike Lebron Shoes
discount nike shox shoes

301 nike air max 360 shoes
womens air max
nike air max
womens air max
nike air max 360 shoes
air max
kids air max 90
kids air max classic BW
kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW

302 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009
air max ltd
nike air max ltd
air max tn
nike air max tn
air max tailwind
nike air max tailwind
womens air max 1
womens air max 90
womens air max 95
womens air max BW
womens air max LTD
womens air max TN
womens air max 360
womens air max 2003
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009

303 It seems replica watches that the watch brand Porsche Design is good at creating sporty classic watches. Many of the Replica watches from it are such watches. They are especially designed for men. Some of the products manufactured today by Porsche Design range from luggage, eye-glasses, replica watches wristwatches pens, wallets and so on, all this products being best-selling items. What makes the replica watches products of this brand so popular? That is not only because of the famous reputation of the brand, but because they display the most elegant and posh replica watches fappearance, for those who appreciate style and prestige. If you have enough knowledge of products from replica watches this brand, you would understand these reasons. Defined by modern appearance and functional mechanisms, the replica watches Porsche Design brand has remained true to its intentions as to create timepieces that would meet the expectations of our modern trends and contemporary times. People nowadays seek watches with amazing designs, but at the same time, to provide many functions and to be highly reliable. In a world of speed replica watche and dynamism, Porsche Design proposes sporty watches that managed to impress with their unpretentious designs and the amazing variety of technical functions provided.

304 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

305 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009

306 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.