Former RNC Research Director: Will No One Rid Me of This Turbulent Tea Party?

There is a sort of language you use for in-group criticism and a rougher, ruder language you use for out-group criticism. Families fight, of course, and sometimes dreadfully, but among the criticisms are reinforcement of group solidarity.

In political parties, people can criticize the Establishment or people can criticize the Grassroots (or both), but if you're still affiliated with that group -- emotionally affiliated, feeling a feeling of kinship -- you use a different sort of language than you'd use to criticize the opposite party.

Although David Frum, for example, has many positions which are simply liberal and simply Democratic, the biggest tell that he's now actually a liberal Democrat (posing as a conservative for financial reasons) is the neverending hostile, demeaning, and trolling language he uses against the right. It's not the sort of language one uses to advance a policy; it's the sort of language one uses to pick a fight. And fighting with conservatives, many ex-Republicans are finding, is a lucrative gig.

It basically comes down to respect. Do you respect the people with whom you have disagreements? If you respect them, you may disagree with a particular position of idea, but you do not disapprove of them personally.

Once you cross that line -- showing disrespect for the right, and disapproval verging on loathing for the right -- I cannot credit you as being "a maverick within the conservative movement" or whatever other crap title you might want in your CNN chyron. Once you cross that line, you're not trying to persuade, you're merely trying to pummel. Once you cross that line, you're not a reformer or internal critic; you're simply on the other side.

Which brings me to an extremely hostile essay written by someone now looking to take the David Frum route of entrepreneurial punditry, a former RNC research director named David Welch. (Sidenote: What the hell is it with guys named David?)

Although there's a few points here I might agree with, partly to mostly, there is no mistaking this for anything but an angry screed, and a formal motion for divorce.

I support no-fault divorces. But what I can't support is what I'm guessing comes next, based on the lucrative career tracks of Andrew Sullivan and David Frum before him: His claim to not be divorced at all, but a loving and devoted spouse, who just happens to keep stabbing the conservative movement in the face and neck.

IT is a shame that William F. Buckley Jr. passed away in 2008. The conservative movement could use him - or someone like him - right now.

In the 1960s, Buckley, largely through his position at the helm of National Review, displayed political courage and sanity by taking on the John Birch Society, an influential anti-Communist group whose members saw conspiracies everywhere they looked.

Fast forward half a century. The modern-day Birchers are the Tea Party. By loudly espousing extreme rhetoric, yet holding untenable beliefs, they have run virtually unchallenged by the Republican leadership, aided by irresponsible radio talk-show hosts and right-wing pundits. While the Tea Party grew, respected moderate voices in the party were further pushed toward extinction. Republicans need a Buckley to bring us back.

Buckley often took issue with liberal-minded members of his party, like Nelson A. Rockefeller, and he gave some quarter to opponents of civil rights legislation. But he placed great faith in the Republican establishment and its brand of mainstream conservatism, which he called the "politics of reality."

But his biggest challenge came from the far right, primarily in the form of the John Birch Society.

And so on. While there is a remnant John Birch Society today, and you will occasionally read people (including in the comments area of this blog) claiming "it all went wrong when they booted out the JBS," we're talking, by my guess, one person in one hundred or one thousand. A potent strain of JBS thinking -- relentless conspiracy theorizing -- remains alive, as it has always been alive, on the left and on the right and in the uncategorizable politics of the idiosyncratically discontented fringe.

Let me just clear this up for the idiots: Conspiracy theorizing is a form of magical thinking (religious thinking applied to completely non-metaphysical objects), and as such is irrational, but it is not "conservative." It is a permanent strain of human thought because human beings always have and always will have a stubborn attraction to the irrational. Showtime, a major pay cable network owned by CBS, is currently featuring a ten part leftist conspiracy-theory take on American history. Those who wish to claim that the right is overly taken by the paranoid style of politics really need to address the fact that this style of thinking is so common, and so accepted, on the left, and indulged by the center-left, that billion-dollar companies will routinely air such errant lunacies and then have their arms stuffed full of Emmys and Peabody Awards granted by other members of the liberal-dominated industry.

The difference between left and right paranoid political thought is this: The left's paranoia has much better production values. But also, much greater penetration, including into the leadership/intellectual class. The leadership/intellectual class of the right almost universally reacts with hostility to any suggestion of conspiracy theorizing. The leadership/intellectual class of the left tends to either give it soft "Questions need to be asked" support, or else outright embraces it.

At any rate, while I can't stand all the damn conspiracy theories myself, I'm not looking to brand the right as irrational demon-haunted paranoiacs as this soon-to-be-a-featured-commentator-on-MSNBC David Welch is.

I can't argue with a few of his claims -- that we need to be much better about screening the flaky and the florid out of our political nominations.

But I do take issue with his insulting, hostile, F-you suggestion as to why we've had a bunch of bad candidates: That the right consists of little else but dumb, ignorant paranoid delusionals and the party is less in need of an overhaul than an IQ test and psych battery.

By the way, let's just take note of this:

The absence of a Buckley-esque gatekeeper today has allowed extreme, untested candidates to take center stage and then commit predictable gaffes and issue moon-bat pronouncements. Democrats have used those statements to tarnish the Republican Party as anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-immigrant extremists. Buckley's conservative pragmatism has been lost, along with the presidency and seats in Congress.

The Democrats and their allied Pet Media painted one very high-profile candidate as an anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-immigrant extremist, using his previous extremist remarks to destroy him.

That candidate was... Mitt Romney.

So... yeah. Let's not jerk ourselves off that if we just nominate, for example, a moderate, soft-spoken Northeasterner who is obviously an accepted member of the educated Boston-DC axis of academic, media, and corporate elite, and who is stewed in the mores of the Northeastern Ivy League/aristocratic dominant culture, then all of our troubles will be exorcised like bothersome ghosts.


Posted by: Ace at 02:10 PM



Comments

1 And, we're doomed.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:12 PM (UK9cE)

2 Good night, America. It was fun while it lasted.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:12 PM (UK9cE)

3 Time for a new conservative party that doesn't eat at the liberal trough.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:13 PM (UK9cE)

4 Oh geez.

I'm going to go play on Pogo for a while.

My rain needs a rest.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 06, 2012 02:14 PM (piMMO)

5 Wow, you guys are slow on the take today.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:14 PM (UK9cE)

6 Finally.....

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:14 PM (UK9cE)

7 I liked this thing I wrote here.

I'm going to give myself a "Ditto, Ace."

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:15 PM (LCRYB)

8
"...the biggest tell that he's now actually a liberal Democrat (posing as a conservative for financial reasons) ..."

Frum gets paid to play a Republican in the media? GTFO!

I'll bet the next thing you'll tell me is that TitsMcCain and David Brooks are doing the same.

Posted by: Jaws at December 06, 2012 02:15 PM (4I3Uo)

9 I've said this before but I don't feel as if I've done my job for the day unless I've written one (or even two) longer, more thoughtful essay-ish posts. I feel bad when all I've done is the link-and-excerpt routine.

So, now I can fuckin' coast for the rest of the day.

Excerpt and link, here I come!!!!

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:16 PM (LCRYB)

10 Comparing the Tea Party to the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY?? OMG, clueless.

So let me see if I'm keeping track correctly. We're supposed to get rid of the so-cons, and now we're supposed to get rid of the Tea Party (read: average Americans who don't want the whole thing to go down the shithole).

Now that's a winning formula!!!!

Posted by: Cricket at December 06, 2012 02:16 PM (DrC22)

11 If wanting to follow the Constitution as written makes me a "Bircher", so be it.

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 06, 2012 02:17 PM (GFM2b)

12 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 06, 2012 02:17 PM (5DR1j)

13 I hope the squishy "moderate" (read liberal) wing of the RNC is happy when future lections have a split R - 20 3rd P - 20 sit at home P - 10 D - 50 of the vote.


Because that is where we are headed.

Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2012 02:17 PM (YdQQY)

14 Time for a new conservative party that doesn't eat at the liberal trough.

It'll be the same. Sorry, but this isn't Italy, you have two parties. You can give 'em different names, but that's what you get.

Get rid of the GOP, they'll just scramble together to the new non-Tammany party.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:17 PM (T0NGe)

15 Unemployment zooming back over 8% again. Yeah no one fucked with those numbers before the election?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (79ueO)

16 (Sidenote: What the hell is it with guys named David?)

King Saul and Uriah the Hittite asked that same question. Once.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - sees the gods of the copybook headings on the horizon at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (hLRSq)

17 Hell ace, I thought you were on vacation already. Nicepiece tho.

Posted by: Infidel at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (O/fK8)

18 Everyone that poses a threat to Democratic power is Satan.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (sGU4F)

19 (Sidenote: What the hell is it with guys named David?)

HEY!

You've just made the list, buddy. I got a sling and a stone with your name on it.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (SY2Kh)

20 It all went wrong when they booted out the JBS...

Posted by: obligatory at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (iEoiA)

21 For Frum and the LIB crowd:

Did 2010 just not happen?? This gloom and doom bullshit is really too much. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH EVERYONE??

Fact: 2 years ago the GOP hada bigger landslide than had ever occurred before WWII.

Fact: No incumbent president in AMERICAN HISTORY has lost when his challenger's party preceded him in power (one exception, Reagan)

Fact: We did not lose by a significant vote

Fact: The incumbent was elected by less votes than he got the first time

Fact: The incumbent could still successfully blame his predessor for the economy and had a galvanized, and significant, minority base.

This is not the end of the world. Retool, volunteer, and take back the party and the fucking country.

There will be a time to LIB. Now is not it. We just wonA LANDSLIDE merely two fucking years ago.

Build, do not destroy. It's easy to rant on a blog, but what the fuck are each and every one of you going to do to turn it around??

Posted by: Prescient11 at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (tVTLU)

22 The Democrats and their allied Pet Media...

Exactly! Therefore, Tea Party: guilty!

Posted by: David Welch at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (FcR7P)

23 Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 06, 2012 02:18 PM (5DR1j)

24 The absence of a Buckley-esque gatekeeper today has allowed extreme,
untested candidates to take center stage and then commit predictable
gaffes and issue moon-bat pronouncements. Democrats have used those
statements to tarnish the Republican Party as anti-woman, anti-poor,
anti-gay, anti-immigrant extremists. Buckley's conservative pragmatism has been lost, along with the presidency and seats in Congress.


The Republican Party is the red headed step-child of politics.
The Republican Party is the abused spouse that refuses to leave.
The Republican Party is the girlfriend that keeps accepting the abuse because "he's a good guy, deep down."

It's going to take a "Burning Bed" moment for us to get our country back.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (UK9cE)

25 Let it burn, let it burn, let it burn!

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (9+ccr)

26 Wanting smaller government is extreme, radical, untenable?

I guess if you're going to lie, lie big.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (08zV/)

27 >>> We're supposed to get rid of the so-cons, and now we're supposed to get rid of the Tea Party (read: average Americans who don't want the whole thing to go down the shithole).

yeah, these guys who always claim they're against the Purging of the Heretics are pretty much always calling for purges themselves.

Well, I suppose not full purges. They don't want to kick you out of the party, maybe. Mostly they just want you to STFU and follow their orders.

If you do so, they will accept your votes.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (LCRYB)

28 So the Tea Parties main issue is that we spend too much money, much more than we take in, and that this is a bad thing to do.

How again is this an extreme ideology? Have we so lost the war of ideas that advocating for a balanced budget is extreme?

Posted by: taylork at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (ppNDn)

29 He condemns the TP for its extreme moonbat positions, but offers no specifics, not one. All he does is trashtalk the people. So, okay genius, with which of the TP's positions do you actually disagree? Be specific and show your work. No? Then go away, because you have nothing to say.

Posted by: pep at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (USJNU)

30 the funny thing about the fake liberal fondness for Bill Buckley is, of course, that he was seen as far-right in his day

and this constant crap about how his Greatest Act was kicking out the JBS, Randians, etc...it's like when Reagan died and obituaries praised him for his optimism and "pragmatism." almost like, you know, they don't respect any of what he actually stood for

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (60GaT)

31 I agree Ace, the destruction of the greatest nation on Earth is just an accident.

Posted by: nip at December 06, 2012 02:20 PM (11Tdq)

32 I liked this thing I wrote here.

I'm going to give myself a "Ditto, Ace."
Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:15 PM (LCRYB)



You should like this thing you wrote here, it's quite good.


I'm fascinated to know what Republicans can say that won't be painted as anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-gay and anti-immigrant. Oh and I love that this maroon thinks that being anti-poor is a bad thing. What, he's pro poverty? I know what he's trying to say, that Republicans are anti-poor people but that's not what he wrote.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 02:20 PM (VtjlW)

33 This DC elite group think is remarkable and appears to be ensuring the collapse of the Republican party.

I'm a self-defined Tea Party member, as are most of my colleagues. I have two advanced degrees (finance, economics), work in senior management in global finance, am socially liberal (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-self defense) and fiscally conservative. We were instrumental in supporting Steve King's re-election to the House.

We're not welcome in the Republican party anymore? Because we merely demand the government not be run into an economic catastrophe, a fiscal implosion that every competent analyst has warned will almost certainly represent an existential risk to the United States?

You tell me who the extremist is here. You tell me who has the irrational views. I'll gladly join the rest of the Tea Party and leave your Republican Derangement Party, so that we can get busy forming a party based on competent financial and political practices.

Posted by: Tea Party Iowa at December 06, 2012 02:20 PM (bpONz)

34 That damned Tea Party... Can't believe they postponed the "fiscal cliff" until after the elections. And they still haven't passed a budget!

Posted by: t-bird at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (FcR7P)

35 Fast forward half a century. The modern-day Birchers are the Tea Party.
By loudly espousing extreme rhetoric, yet holding untenable beliefs,
they have run virtually unchallenged by the Republican leadership, aided
by irresponsible radio talk-show hosts and right-wing pundits. While
the Tea Party grew, respected moderate voices in the party were further
pushed toward extinction.






Wow just wow. No wonder why the Republican Party is beyond fucked

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (1Jaio)

36 Is this what Ace sounds like when he's pissed?

Posted by: L is screaming, show up damn SMOD! at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (dezPb)

37 I think people really miss the fact that the Tea Party -- by definition -- is a FisCon movement.

Yes, I know that the Tea Party has now become shorthand for whatever you don't like or "extremist" or whatever but that's not what it is.

Inasmuch as it is anything at all anymore.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (T0NGe)

38 I wonder if David Welch is also paid in butter.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (QupBk)

39 When you can't refute the application of the extremist label, you're toast. Especially when the other side is caring and handing out presents.

Bring the pain, get it over with.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (zpqa2)

40 I'm curious as to how much damage getting likes of Christine O'donnel and Sharron Angle did to the credibility of the tea party.

I think the message is spot on, but too often the messenger is bundle of crazy with a bow on it.

Posted by: taylork at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (ppNDn)

41 Yeah, I like that thing you wrote there, too, Ace. This is one of the few sites I can bear to come to at the moment.

Posted by: S. Weasel at December 06, 2012 02:22 PM (eRnpG)

42
So... yeah. Let's not jerk ourselves off that if we just nominate, for example, a moderate, soft-spoken Northeasterner who is obviously an accepted member of the educated Boston-DC axis of academic, media, and corporate elite, and who is stewed in the mores of the Northeastern Ivy League/aristocratic dominant culture, then all of our troubles will be exorcised like bothersome ghosts.

Posted by: Ace at 02:10 PM

----------

Well since this is exactly what just happened, Ace...can we now use it as an example of what doesn't work?

It wasn't the Red States who were the problem.
We dutifully fell in line and turned out to vote for Romney.

The very people that Romney was picked to appeal to...are the ones who didn't turn out and vote for him.
So it seems to me like the thinking behind pushing Romney on us all, was a double fail.

Posted by: wheatie at December 06, 2012 02:22 PM (CM59X)

43 More vacations Ace, they work.

Posted by: Jean at December 06, 2012 02:22 PM (UjSt7)

44 "I think people really miss the fact that the Tea Party -- by definition -- is a FisCon movement."

yes and no

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:22 PM (60GaT)

45 Wow just wow. No wonder why the Republican Party is beyond fucked

Why? This guy has basically said his ideas have no currency in the GOP anymore.

Good.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:22 PM (T0NGe)

46 RNC employees like this asshole is why Romney lost.

Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2012 02:23 PM (YdQQY)

47 Remember, the founder of the JBS called the president a Communist and a traitor.

It was Ike back then but the same thing goes on today.

Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 06, 2012 02:23 PM (vjq6E)

48
So, now I can fuckin' coast for the rest of the day.

Excerpt and link, here I come!!!!
Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:16 PM (LCRYB)



ace, I mean this sincerely and not snarkily (shut up I can too be sincere), I trust that your vacation involves pancakes.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 02:23 PM (VtjlW)

49 There will be a time to LIB. Now is not it. We just wonA LANDSLIDE merely two fucking years ago.


And if we'd won at all (landslide or otherwise) we'd be fine. I'm not sure the American experiment has 2 years, and I think 4 - 8 is lunacy.

Look at how much we spend, and we can't even get conservatives who are willing to draw the line in the sand saying "We don't have a 'revenue' problem, we have a spending problem." We already have debt > GDP. And that's before ObamaCare fully kicks in next year and the year after.

Let it Burn is a strategy of supreme practicality. Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. It's going to burn. I don't think we could even stop it, now. So preparing for the burning puts us in a better position to stop the fire and guide the rebuilding.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 06, 2012 02:23 PM (5DR1j)

50 Burn the media?

Posted by: EC at December 06, 2012 02:23 PM (GQ8sn)

51 One follow up from my earlier post:

Fact: Our CANDIDATE, our STANDARD BEARER is a Northeastern republican who was prochoice, now prolife, who stood in front of a coal plant and wanted to shut it down, who signed an assault weapons ban, and who, by his own proud admission, stood behind ROMNEYCARE.

I mean the very fucking secret double probation nuclear weapon that we had was Obamacare, AND WE NEUTRALIZED IT OUT OF THE GATE.

Posted by: Prescient11 at December 06, 2012 02:23 PM (tVTLU)

52

I would love to know which part of Tea Party platform is extreme.


low taxes?
smaller government?
balancing a budget?
free markets?
adhering to the laws of the land/Constitution?

which of these is extreme?

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 02:24 PM (LpQbZ)

53 can he just die in a fire already?

he has chosen the religion of the king, as he wants to stay in court.

Purge the tea party

There will be nothing left of the republican party

Posted by: Thunderb at December 06, 2012 02:24 PM (Dnbau)

54 Fact: 2 years ago the GOP hada bigger landslide than had ever occurred before WWII.

I'd say that '94 was a more significant landslide. While the GOP picked up more seats in '10, they did so by doing really well in some states, but not so well in others.

In '94, it truly was a nation-wide landslide, with GOP picking up seats EVERYWHERE. Hell, they picked up majorites in state delegations for California and Washington (even getting the California Assembly -- first and only time since 1970 that the Dems did not control both chambers).

In '94 the GOP was playing for the entire country, in '10, they just ran up the numbers in some states really well...

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 06, 2012 02:24 PM (XvHmy)

55 You know who Buckley would have hammered, this little guy David Welch.

Posted by: Jean at December 06, 2012 02:24 PM (UjSt7)

56 FUCK THIS GUY!

FUCK JOHN BOEHNER!

FUCK THE GOP!


LET IT BURN!

Posted by: General Woundwort at December 06, 2012 02:24 PM (RrD4h)

57 >>>Burn the media?

I wish I knew how. We can't even get a boycott of NBC going.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:24 PM (LCRYB)

58 I'm also pretty sure that Bill Buckley would have punched Welch in the nose.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 06, 2012 02:24 PM (QupBk)

59 He condemns the TP for its extreme moonbat positions, but offers no
specifics, not one. All he does is trashtalk the people. So, okay
genius, with which of the TP's positions do you actually disagree? Be
specific and show your work. No? Then go away, because you have nothing
to say.


THIS.

In some crowds, I guess, "Tea Party" is shorthand for "fundamentalist Christian" because...shut up, that's why.

And I guess it's still not bigotry to slime the Tea Party explicitly whereas people squirm a little at the anti-religious pogroms.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (T0NGe)

60 The TEA Party will never thrive or survive because the media won't let it. The media still runs this country.

Until the big 3 are brought to their knees and America wakes up and gets real news elsewhere, that's where it's going to stay, and this country will be nevermore.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (UK9cE)

61 The thing about the Tea Party was that it was NOT founded by a bunch of pissed off conservatives who wanted to yell at Obama. We were doing that anyway.

In it's original form it was mostly political neophytes and average Americans protesting against big government, bailouts and Obamacare. It was a genuine citizens revolt by a broad spectrum of the electorate.

It's when the hucksters, dingbats, scam artists and spotlight hogs tried to hijack it and make it their own personal army that it fell apart.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (sGU4F)

62 Burn the media?



I wish I knew how. We can't even get a boycott of NBC going.

Impossible without a collapse.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (zpqa2)

63 We should ALL remember also that the Tea Party is not a nationwide Party. There thousand of independent Tea Party groups all over the country. Some, if not most, are very good. Some are meh, and some are just plain shit.

Posted by: Vic at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (YdQQY)

64 Posted by: Prescient11 at December 06, 2012 02:23 PM (tVTLU)


*holds out hand* Give me the caps and no one gets stompyed.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (VtjlW)

65
Burn it down. Burn it all down. Starting with the party of Lincoln.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ® at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (1hM1d)

66 Incidentally, it was obvious when the liberal Mitt Romney and his thugs were silencing the party's views at the national convention, that they did not want the support of the Tea Party. Working through our Iowa delegates, we told Romney's people that their strong-armed thuggery was certain to depress voter turnout. We had people on the ground in Iowa who were furious first with being given a loser candidate, and declared that being silenced even further would result in consequences.

Romney's people ignored the warnings and own the depressed turnout. That these same overpaid hacks are now telling us they envision a party without 70% of its base is... amusing. I guess they're envious of Obama's fascist accomplishments.

Posted by: Tea Party Iowa at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (bpONz)

67 Nobody pushed Romney on you. He won the primary. The name calling by those who profess to be partial to the Tea Party is no less damaging than Welch's screed. It goes both ways. It is all or nothing for far too many people.

Posted by: polynikes at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (m2CN7)

68 >>>he has chosen the religion of the king, as he wants to stay in court.

i understand the general meaning and reference of this, but is there a more specific anecdote it is referencing? Like a specific incident?

I'm going to be very embarrassed if it's Becket.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (LCRYB)

69 "which of these is extreme?"


Yes

Posted by: slatz - Director of Something, RNC at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (mE0Rl)

70 Thanks for the posts Ace, but shouldn't you be on vacation? Relax, unwind, the world will still be burning when you get back.

Posted by: BuckIV at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (gedHR)

71 Is this what Ace sounds like when he's pissed?

It's close. Usually there's more spittle, though, and more "Yub-yub"s.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (5DR1j)

72 Remember, the founder of the JBS called the president a Communist and a traitor.

It was Ike back then but the same thing goes on today.


I think he'd've had a point if Ike had written that he "sought out the Marxist professors" in college.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (T0NGe)

73 AllenG:

We owe it to our kids and grandkids, and to ourselves, to do something. I will not yield the field.

Put yourself in a liberal's shoes in 1984 and again in 1988. They were beaten and beaten badly BY 20 FUCKING POINTS.

We hold the house. Time to use it. Time to work back again on getting better candidates and winning some swing states.

Get back to work fools.

Here's what I need:

1) registered republican voter lists in ohio showing voting patterns over the last three elections;

2) donations and vans.

Who the fuck is with me?

Posted by: Prescient11 at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (tVTLU)

74 The very people that Romney was picked to appeal to...are the ones who didn't turn out and vote for him.
So it seems to me like the thinking behind pushing Romney on us all, was a double fail.


Really? Still with the "pushing Romney on us" stuff? Just gonna ignore the entire primary season?

Look, I understand the urge to shake things up, since things didn't go so well this time, but Romney was an overall above-average candidate. Denying demographic reality isn't the ticket, not that I really know what is. Read Ann Coulter's column today, and then get ready to get on the cart.

Posted by: pep at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (USJNU)

75 El Kabong do you agree with him?

Posted by: Thunderb at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (Dnbau)

76 I'm going to give myself a "Ditto, Ace."

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:15 PM


Imma give you one, too, Ace.

I remember the JBS from the early 1960s, when it was thriving (in a very relative sense) in the part of SoCal where I lived. to almost everyone, they seemed like loons, nattering about Eeeeevil Commies, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderburgers, etc. You average conservative -- yes, there were some -- wouldn't give Birchers the time of day.

Ol' Robert Welch would probably be thrilled to see the squishes of the MFM bringing the JBS up today. They didn't do any good before, and they won't do any harm today.

We have a helluva lot to worry about now, but our enemies number the Two Davids and others of their kind more than they do a bunch of geriatric Birchers.

If we ever stop running "compromise" candidates who prize "fairness" and "process" over principles, we might actually win an election. As long, that is, as we actually push back on Free Shit, Race and Massive Vote Fraud instead of ignoring them.

Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (yKUrR)

77

So, let me get this straight. A "conservative" is one who believes in the time-honored values from thousands of years of Western Civ, such as killing gestating babies, countenancing homosexual couplings, coddling shiftless layabouts, and surrendering our core values to foreigners, instead of making them take our values.

Yeah, I see a LOT there that's "conservative."

Republican does not equal conservative, and what passes for "conservative" among the cognoscenti is an abomination.

Posted by: imp at December 06, 2012 02:27 PM (UaxA0)

78 >>>Thanks for the posts Ace, but shouldn't you be on vacation?

no that starts this weekend.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:27 PM (LCRYB)

79 Remember, the founder of the JBS called the president a Communist and a traitor.

And if someone did that today they'd be correct on both counts.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 02:27 PM (B/VB5)

80 "While there is a remnant John Birch Society today"

Ron Paul gave the keynote address at their 50th anniversary convention. They're a pretty big remnant.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 06, 2012 02:27 PM (i0vBR)

81 I might not like his tone, but he has a point. We have too many Levins, Limbaughs and Hannitys and too few Bill Buckleys.

Meanwhile, we have the leaderless Tea Party set drooling over the first idiot to recite conservative platitudes, qualifications and electability be damned. All while chanting "don't raise the debt ceiling" and "keep government out of my Medicare" in the same breath.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 06, 2012 02:27 PM (SY2Kh)

82 You know when Yahoo! has those stories about pro-athletes who earned tens of millions of dollars and then went broke?

If you read the comments everyone is in agreement that the guy was an idiot, he had a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

And yet somehow there's a disconnect when it comes to government spending. Sometimes I think we just haven't dumbed down the message enough for people to understand.

Posted by: taylork at December 06, 2012 02:27 PM (ppNDn)

83 66. Tea Party Iowa:

I have to agree that the milquetoast national convention - completely overcontrolled by Romney btw - is what did us in. that whole attitude, really.

"simmah down simmah down, the libs are right tooooo"

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at December 06, 2012 02:28 PM (F+ZCA)

84 >>>
So, let me get this straight. A "conservative" is one who believes in the time-honored values from thousands of years of Western Civ, such as killing gestating babies, countenancing homosexual couplings, coddling shiftless layabouts, and surrendering our core values to foreigners, instead of making them take our values.

what do you mean by "countenancing homosexual couplings?" What's the alternative? Please be specific.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:28 PM (LCRYB)

85 Hey,
not my fault.

ps: IIRC TFG is the 1st president ever endorsed by CPUSA, or has Vic already pointed that out.

Posted by: DaveA at December 06, 2012 02:28 PM (Xefrb)

86 AtC:

MY ALL CAPS ARE JUST FOR YOU. Former pentecostals are absolutely nutso fun.....

Posted by: Prescient11 at December 06, 2012 02:28 PM (tVTLU)

87 The thing about the Tea Party was that it was NOT founded by a bunch of pissed off conservatives who wanted to yell at Obama. We were doing that anyway.

In it's original form it was mostly political neophytes and average Americans protesting against big government, bailouts and Obamacare. It was a genuine citizens revolt by a broad spectrum of the electorate.

It's when the hucksters, dingbats, scam artists and spotlight hogs tried to hijack it and make it their own personal army that it fell apart.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 06, 2012 02:25 PM (sGU4F)


The Tea Party is not a movement or even organized groups.

The Tea Party was an epiphany where people who usually minded their own business, and were not very political, woke up to find what the left had done to America, with Obama's election being the culmination of that.

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 06, 2012 02:28 PM (XvHmy)

88 My party is the I Despise Democrats party. Big tent.

No newsletter.

Posted by: eleven at December 06, 2012 02:29 PM (KXm42)

89 Well, I suppose not full purges. They don't want to kick you out of the party, maybe. Mostly they just want you to STFU and follow their orders.
If you do so, they will accept your votes.
Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:19 PM (LCRYB)

_____

The thing about this purge is it's lunacy. The Birchers were a tiny fringe movement. It didn't hurt the Republican party at all to distance itself from them, and it boosted the Republican brand. So Buckley's move was shrewd, sort of like Clinton going after Sister Soljah (or whatever her name was).

But "Tea Party" loosely describes a HUGE group of Americans who aren't necessarily very ideological but run households and are smart enough to know you can't go on spending twice as much as you take in on entitlements.

So-cons are also a HUGE group. We're going to purge them both? What, 20, maybe 30 million people? Leaving us with a permanent minority of 40 million sure voters?

Math is hard.

Posted by: Cricket at December 06, 2012 02:29 PM (DrC22)

90 The GOP is falling apart it may be the end of the 2 party system According to the exit polls it lost the hot chic demo badly ((under 35 females) You gotta have them or you end up with just grumpy old men

Posted by: occam at December 06, 2012 02:29 PM (cWOlF)

91 We hold the house. Time to use it. Time to work back again on getting better candidates and winning some swing states.


Yeah... unfortunately the hold we have on the House is... John Boehner. o_O

What I'm doing for my kids? A family farm to wait out the burning.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 06, 2012 02:30 PM (5DR1j)

92 >>>he has chosen the religion of the king, as he wants to stay in court.



i understand the general meaning and reference of this, but is there
a more specific anecdote it is referencing? Like a specific incident?



I'm going to be very embarrassed if it's Becket.


Probably a good reference is the Empire under Julian the Apostate.

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

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:30 PM (T0NGe)

93 By loudly espousing extreme rhetoric, yet holding untenable beliefs

Does Welch give any examples of said extremeness? I'm fairly loath to invest any brain cells in reading his polemic if I can just dismiss him out of hand.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 06, 2012 02:30 PM (QupBk)

94 Herbert

antiwar types said certain things during the Bush admin. too, yet somehow, Democrats managed to win without telling them to get lost.

Buckley was building a movement from scratch, the situations aren't really analogous. it's more akin to, i dunno, telling Nixon to not accept votes from Southern Democrats.

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:31 PM (60GaT)

95 Meanwhile, we have the leaderless Tea Party set drooling over the first idiot to recite conservative platitudes, qualifications and electability be damned.

The TP *opposed* Akin. Meanwhile, moderates ran their dream candidate and dream campaign and the resulting failure was so bright it can be seen from space.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 02:31 PM (B/VB5)

96 So there WAS no giant conspiracy to steal the election? uhhhh that one might be believed by a slightle larger minority than 1 out of 100, something like 25% probably

Posted by: occam at December 06, 2012 02:32 PM (nXFLL)

97 >>>75 El Kabong do you agree with him?

Nope.

But if we're discussing why the Tea Party was smeared and not taken seriously anymore, that's my theory.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 06, 2012 02:32 PM (sGU4F)

98 I'm curious as to how much damage getting likes of Christine O'donnel and Sharron Angle did to the credibility of the tea party.

I think the message is spot on, but too often the messenger is bundle of crazy with a bow on it.
Posted by: taylork at December 06, 2012 02:21 PM (ppNDn)


LOL, you mean Boehner and Akin, right?

Or, did you mean Lindsey Graham and John McCain?

Or, did you mean...

Come on, man up.

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 02:32 PM (LpQbZ)

99 Will no one rid me of this fractured gneiss?

Posted by: King Henry of Bedrock at December 06, 2012 02:33 PM (86/8G)

100 Meanwhile, we have the leaderless Tea Party set
drooling over the first idiot to recite conservative platitudes,
qualifications and electability be damned.



The TP *opposed* Akin. Meanwhile, moderates ran their dream
candidate and dream campaign and the resulting failure was so bright it
can be seen from space.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 02:31 PM (B/VB5)


there will never, ever be a candidate that everyone agrees with. Name a time where electability didn't fuck the conservative movement in the ass?

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:33 PM (UK9cE)

101 Ha. I really, really hope you guys nominate an even more conservative candidate next time.

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:33 PM (t1NLo)

102 The TP did not fail. The electorate/culture failed the TP. It will take a reset to get the country back.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (zpqa2)

103 In it's original form it was mostly political neophytes and average
Americans protesting against big government, bailouts and Obamacare. It
was a genuine citizens revolt by a broad spectrum of the electorate.



It's when the hucksters, dingbats, scam artists and spotlight hogs
tried to hijack it and make it their own personal army that it fell
apart.


Agreed.

Either be a grassroots protest against big government, or a disciplined, organized movement led by experienced, thoughtful conservatives. You can't be both.

It just doesn't work- the rabble are good at being rabble when that's what you need, but you don't put them in charge.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (SY2Kh)

104
The modern-day Birchers are the Tea Party. By loudly espousing extreme rhetoric, yet holding untenable beliefs,...


Examples, bitch, please?

Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (jUytm)

105 "Once you cross that line -- showing disrespect for the right, and disapproval verging on loathing for the right -- I cannot credit you as being "a maverick within the conservative movement" or whatever other crap title you might want in your CNN chyron."

The Tea Party is the purest expression of fiscal conservatism. There are some kooks who are affiliated with, or try to affiliate themselves with the the Tea Party, but that's not what the movement is about. Anyone who criticizes the Tea Party's character or motivations is expressing hostility for fiscal conservatism. Period. No exceptions.

You can say "I don't like how the Tea Party is doing this" and still be a conservative. You can't say "I question the Tea Party's motives, those are some ugly people" and be a conservative. You can't. Period.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (PfSbT)

106 not really about conservative v. moderate in my mind

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (60GaT)

107 99 Will no one rid me of this fractured gneiss?
Posted by: King Henry of Bedrock at December 06, 2012 02:33 PM (86/8G)

____

Get down on you gneiss, foul imposter.

Posted by: Cricket at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (DrC22)

108


what do you mean by "countenancing homosexual couplings?" What's the alternative? Please be specific.



I'm saying that support for gay marriage is not in any realistic, logical, or philosphical sense "conservative." It may be (if you believe it) to be "pro freedom" of some sort (but even then, that's a contradiction), but it's in no way "conservative."

I hardly think that is disputable.

And the alternative is exactly nothing. No persecution, no favors, no legal impetus either way for gay "marriage." If people want a "civil union" it should not be based on some type of sexuality requirement. If gays want to be "married" let them go to the unitarian church, but no government needs recognize it as marriage.

That specific enough for you, ace?

Posted by: imp at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (UaxA0)

109 yeah, we ran a candidate that swung 40 newspaper endorsements to him, quite the outcast

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (QxSug)

110 Really, at this point anything that brings about the demise of the GOP as expeditiously as possible is something with which I find favor.

The USA desperately needs a fiscally right-of-center major party and so long as the GOP buffoonishly holds on to the title of "loyal opposition" that necessary political choice will be denied.

Posted by: DocJ at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (A5uiv)

111
And what's this loudly shit?

Who wrote this??

Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:34 PM (jUytm)

112 I keep hearing people say things like "the tea party is extremist", yet I have never heard one person point out what "extreme" ideas or policy preferences the tea party has?

Is it extremist to oppose raising taxes? To oppose increased spending? To want entitlement reform?

If that is "extreme", then continuing down the path we are on - toward bankruptcy - is what?

The problem with people like David Welch is that he does not operate at all out of a philosophical frame of mind. Like almost all of the political operatives in the GOP, they operate purely on politics. They work for the GOP for whatever reason - it was the party their parents belonged to, the GOP is domininant where they come from, they knew somebody who gave them their start, perhaps even because they lean slightly right - but not because they follow a conservative (or really any) philosophy.

Instead, their in it for the game of politics. The game of obtaining and using power. And, as far as they are concerned, the policies don't matter. thus, from their point of view, anything that seems to make it harder to get and keep power - to win elections - is bad or "extremist".

And, as I have said many, many times before, it is much, much, much easier to win elections as a liberal than a conservative. That is why almost all GOP politicians drift left. It is much easier to win elections promising people free stuff, giving away gov't largess, etc. - than telling people we can't afford it, we need to cut spending, the gov't shouldn't even be doing that.

So, I would guess that 80% or more of GOP "consultants" and other political operatives (including the candidates themselves) hate conservatives. In their mind, if we just went away and let them "reasonably" promise more spending, more free stuff, etc., it would make their jobs much easier.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at December 06, 2012 02:35 PM (sOx93)

113 If you want to keep working here, you're going to have to be cool with divorce. Or annulments, whatever. I'm in charge now.

Posted by: Henry VIII at December 06, 2012 02:35 PM (iEoiA)

114 IT is a shame that William F. Buckley Jr. passed away in 2008. The
conservative movement could use him - or someone like him - right now.


Damn those far-right extremists for insisting we nominate the deranged bomb-thrower Romney!

Double-damn those far-right extremists for insisting that Romney turn his campaign into one relentless exhibition of unhinged wingnuttery!

Triple-damn those far-right extremists for costing us another election we could easily have won if it weren't for Romney's incendiary rhetoric and bellicosity!

Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 02:35 PM (y+lrr)

115 Nice headline:

US unemployment aid applications drop to 370K



It dropped! Obama's plan is working!


F'ing idiots.

Posted by: RWC at December 06, 2012 02:35 PM (fWAjv)

116
74...Really? Still with the "pushing Romney on us" stuff? Just gonna ignore the entire primary season?

No, pep...I'm not ignoring the primary season at all.
You want to defend what happened in theVirginia primary?
And were was that willingness to play dirty during the general?


Read Ann Coulter's column today, and then get ready to get on the cart.

Coulter is in full out damage control mode these days...and trying to claw her way back to having some shred of credibility.

Posted by: wheatie at December 06, 2012 02:35 PM (CM59X)

117 The very people that Romney was picked to appeal to...are the ones who didn't turn out and vote for him.
So it seems to me like the thinking behind pushing Romney on us all, was a double fail.

Posted by: wheatie at December 06, 2012 02:22 PM (CM59X)



If you haven't see this chart, take a look.

This was a district fight.

Who elected Obama?

What's going on is that big numbers from a relative handful of precincts can swing statewide totals to democratic presidential and senatorial candidates despite widespread popular support for GOP policies in congressional and other district races. Overall, Romney won about two thirds of the county-level contests in the country, but he lost state wide counts to high turnouts and virtual unanimity in precincts where decades of redistricting have combined with the Democrat tendency toward self-ghettoization to create conservative no-go zones.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/who_elected_obama.html

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 02:35 PM (LpQbZ)

118 WFB always was an NWO stooge. Look up the original JBS roster: Koch Bros dad and John Wayne. Yes, that John Wayne. Yeah, I would hate to be associated with those guys. Give me a Skull & Bones man like WFBuckley any day of the week. How is his family carrying on? And the Koch family? Which is on our side?

Posted by: Koenig Jojo at December 06, 2012 02:36 PM (Yv6gq)

119 >>>The TP *opposed* Akin.

not true. it was a three-way split, with TP'ers voting for all three of the major candidates. You can't say "the TP opposed Akin" unless your definition is Tea Party = Sarah Palin. (Good endorsement by Palin, there, by the way; too bad it was ignored in this case.)

And there were then a bunch of TP'ers, who do over-prize the value of Defiance, who the doubled down on Akin.

Now, I love Dana Loesch, but she was a good example of someone who got a little too addicted to this #WAR notion, which seems to be often defined as simply "taking whatever position is furthest from the detestable left, even if that's actually a very bad tactical position and even if the left WANTS you to do just that." (Witness Claire McCaskill actively campaigning for Akin, and then, after his rape comments, *defending him* from the evil Republicans who wanted him to drop out. Yes, she picked her opponent, and she picked right. And some on the right didn't notice this at all, or at least ignored it, because they were snake-fascinated by the idea of just opposing, opposing, opposing.)

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:36 PM (LCRYB)

120 :::9 I've said this before but I don't feel as if I've done my job for the day unless I've written one (or even two) longer, more thoughtful essay-ish posts. I feel bad when all I've done is the link-and-excerpt routine. ::::

Ace of Spades IS...

P H O N I N G

I T

I N



Sounds like a mid-80s movie co-starring Willie Aames and features some panty-flashing but not quite nudity.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 06, 2012 02:36 PM (APmL9)

121 Ha. I really, really hope you guys nominate an even more conservative candidate next time.





Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:33 PM (t1NLo)


We haven't nominated one since Reagan, so GFY.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:36 PM (UK9cE)

122 this guy feeds the liberal pathology by telling them that their imagined boogey men, the thing that liberals react to (i.e., they react to their own stereotypes not to the world in front of them).

And for an "it's the economy, stupid," election in which Romney was pretty much center mass on social issue, it's hard to be fire breathing about him being anti-this or that when these were never issues.

oh, and they should have been but we focused on Romney's flawed strategy of being nice guy.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:36 PM (QxSug)

123
I want to know, which of my beliefs are untenable?

What part of my rhetoric is extreme?



Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:36 PM (jUytm)

124 And yet somehow there's a disconnect when it comes to government spending. Sometimes I think we just haven't dumbed down the message enough for people to understand.
Posted by: taylork at December 06, 2012 02:27 PM (ppNDn)



People quite literally believe that Federal money is magic and just appears, ex nihilo. Trying to explain that it doesn't is like trying to explain how to parallel park to me.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (VtjlW)

125
Yeah... unfortunately the hold we have on the House is... John Boehner. o_O

What I'm doing for my kids? A family farm to wait out the burning.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 06, 2012 02:30 PM (5DR1j)




Aye, there's no hope with Crying Boehner in charge. He's freakin' chomping at the bit to capitulate to Obama.



Let it burn.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (m3PvP)

126 The TP *opposed* Akin. Meanwhile, moderates ran their dream candidate
and dream campaign and the resulting failure was so bright it can be
seen from space.


It's not just about Akin.

But you go and keep fantasizing about how Tea Party favorites like Bachmann or Cain would've won where Romney lost.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (SY2Kh)

127 the worst part is that lefty people on my facebook feed will post this and do the typical left thing of "oh, now that was a good conservative..."

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (QxSug)

128 Stephen Colbert may run for Senate in South Carolina
http://bit.ly/REV3vr

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (XvHmy)

129 "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not
possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will
without their knowing about it?"--Edmund Bernays...Would be nice to see a grid, some kind of continuum, of 'conspiracy' theories,' from lizard leaders in spaceships to...cigarette
companies hiring the first self-defined PR dude to persuade women that smoking was cool.
DangerGirl you can find me at Goodreads. I owe you, and this forum.

Posted by: DCBourone at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (7J6t/)

130 You use extreme rhetoric
You have untenable beliefs

OK, so everyone clear on the ground rules? Let's start the game!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 02:38 PM (zpqa2)

131 What's going on is that big numbers from a relative handful of precincts can swing statewide totals to democratic presidential and senatorial candidates despite widespread popular support for GOP policies in congressional and other district races. Overall, Romney won about two thirds of the county-level contests in the country, but he lost state wide counts to high turnouts and virtual unanimity in precincts where decades of redistricting have combined with the Democrat tendency toward self-ghettoization to create conservative no-go zones.

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

In other words, more people voted for Obama.

Guys you lost an election, it's not the end of the world, or something that needs to be rationalized away.

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:38 PM (t1NLo)

132 This is one of the reasons my LIB attitude now extends into The Establishment Repubs.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 06, 2012 02:38 PM (IgvLC)

133
What's this guy's background & what is he doing now? I smell a rat.

Posted by: Walkers! at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (e/Cti)

134 LOL, you mean Boehner and Akin, right?

Or, did you mean Lindsey Graham and John McCain?

Or, did you mean...

Come on, man up.



Not sure I follow you. Do you think O'donnel and Angle were good candidates?

I said that the Tea Party has a good message, but the messengers are shit. That doesn't mean I like Graham or Boehner.

Posted by: taylork at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (ppNDn)

135 because they were snake-fascinated


Annnnd yoink!

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (VtjlW)

136 Trying to explain that it doesn't is like trying to explain how to parallel park to me.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD


Parallel parking is very similar to the offside rule in soccer. If that helps.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (NF2Bf)

137 Let's not forget these asshats HATED Buckley when he was around.

Posted by: Iblis at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (9221z)

138

Sponge, don't waste your time.

Posted by: imp at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (UaxA0)

139 Aye, there's no hope with Crying Boehner in charge. He's freakin' chomping at the bit to capitulate to copulate with Obama. Let it burn.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (m3PvP)

FIFY. I know I am.

Posted by: Reggie Love at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (t06LC)

140
I'm a taker and damned proud of it.

Posted by: Olaff at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (vbh31)

141 Reagan was a divorced man who allowed amnesty and raised taxes six times.

He'd be a RINO these days.

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (t1NLo)

142 >Once you cross that line -- showing disrespect for the right, and
disapproval verging on loathing for the right -- I cannot credit you as
being "a maverick within the conservative movement" or whatever other
crap title you might want in your CNN chyron. <

Conversely, once you show disrespect other party members by trying to define, for everyone, what their core values should be, defining who "is" or is not Republican or generally destroying the group for your own parochial cause, I cannot credit you as wanting to be a member of that group. I would call that dictatorial parochialism. That is- dictating to a group they should be more like you and less like themselves.

That modus operandi deplores and avoids negotiation at any cost unless it accedes to your demands. That's hostage taking or on the other side, unconditional surrender.

I am not defending Brooks, et al. Those people clearly are not "republican" in any sense. They are Democrat front groups.

I am speaking about people claiming to be "influential" leaders of groups such as conservatives who hide behind "principles" as a metaphor for their own set of personal demands which must be surrendered to before they become a member of the "group"- which is nothing of the sort.

Posted by: marcus at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (GGCsk)

143 >>>Come on, man up.

I hate this very dumb mixing of machismo into what is, or should be, a fundamentally intellectual process.

It's always "man up," show some backbone, where is your courage, etc., etc., etc.

Soldiers carrying guns in Afghanistan are manning up and demonstrating backbone. People resorting to "where is your courage" crap in political arguments are not.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (LCRYB)

144
Parallel parking is very similar to the offside rule in soccer. If that helps.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (NF2Bf)


That makes no sense at all.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (UK9cE)

145 Why my strikethrough no work? It really screws up the joke with no strikethrough.
Sock off.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (t06LC)

146 I keep hearing people say things like "the tea party is extremist", yet I have never heard one person point out what "extreme" ideas or policy preferences the tea party has?

Because 9 out of 10 people don't know what the TPs policy preferences are. They're mostly leftist clowns, moderates who are ashamed of conservativeprinciples oridiots like Ken Burns, who says he knows TP members use the N-word*, because friends of friends of his say they do.

In fact, I'll simply say that "extremist" when applied to the TP is a synonym for "racist." Nothing more nor less.

*and, yes, it's your blog, Ace, but I hate that goddamn neologism. Hiding like that only gives the word more power.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (zF6Iw)

147 @108

Uht oh..

You just rattled the head morons cage prepare for battle.

Ace and the rest of the RINO co-bloggers love themselves some gay-marriage!

The very concept of gay-marriage has been around for eons, (about ten years or so) and is deeply ingrained in the very fabric of conservatism and any rejection of this notion just signals you and other like minded individuals as knuckle dragging haters.

Posted by: General Woundwort at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (RrD4h)

148 So we get dunce1 and dunce2 on the same thread. All we need now is English-challenged Rex and it's a party.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (QupBk)

149
Ace, we demand relief, sir!

Can you at least choose a couple of more troll busters (Toby92 so we can poke and prod these goddam troll monkeys in a cage instead of it being the other way around?

Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (jUytm)

150 People quite literally believe that Federal money is magic and just appears, ex nihilo. Trying to explain that it doesn't is like trying to explain how to parallel park to me.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 02:37 PM (VtjlW)
___

You should hear the daffy in-laws go on about the "free" health care they're going to get under Obamacare. For a moment you think about making the gesture at least of trying to explain, but then you think LET IT BURN

Posted by: Cricket at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (DrC22)

151 ah, there it is. A few months ago, the conservative hero for the left was David Stockman because he didn't like Ryan's plan. Guy was plastered all over facebook.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (QxSug)

152 I read this in the last thread, but thought I would nominate for Post of the Day:

So, have we completed the five stages of grief yet, I'm pretty sure I have, plus a few more.
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
6. Apathy
6. LIB
7. Help it Burn
8. Burn it down
9. Drink a lot
Posted by: spypeach at December 06, 2012 01:34 PM (pwTow)

Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (q177U)

153 Soldiers carrying guns in Afghanistan are manning up and demonstrating backbone. People resorting to "where is your courage" crap in political arguments are not.
Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (LCRYB)

Unless you are in Egypt where carrying guns is part of the politcal argument.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (t06LC)

154 It is time for a 3rd party. So what, if it means we lose elections in the near term. We're losing them already. From this point on, I will be as hostile to the RNC as I am the DNC.

Posted by: TC at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (vYB+W)

155 Why do we always get trashed as extreme, all we want is for the government to follow its own rules under the Constitution, nothing less and nothing more. If these people don't want us, we should take our ball and leave. Constitutional conservatism will flourish under any banner, and if the Republican Party wants to ignore it, then they can enjoy being the next Whigs.

Posted by: Cato at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (wJWmk)

156 @ 137 Let's not forget these asshats HATED Buckley when he was around.

Precisely. Conservatives are only "the right sort of people" once they're no longer coming down for breakfast. And even then, most times, it's spoken grudgingly.

Posted by: DocJ at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (A5uiv)

157 #89 Beat me to it!!!

This fuckwad probably isn't even old enough to know who the John Birch Society actually was, or have any clue how Bill Buckley finally rode them out of the conservative movement. They were not just "hurting the brand," they werereally scarynutjobs and most were unapologetic bigots. I'm old enough to remember all this. My dad was a conservative Jew and brought home all kinds of garbage from the JBS and the Liberty Lobby that was borderlineneo-Nazi propaganda.

There is simply no comparisonbetween such an odious fringe group of conspiracy theorists and bigots and the modern Tea Party.

And I am just frustrated as HELL that Republicans of any stripe are playing along with this smearing and marginalization of theTea Party.

Posted by: rockmom at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (NYnoe)

158 I'm sure David is reading this by now, the crack "researcher" that he was .... So let's give him a shout out.

Posted by: Jean at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (hrAg/)

159 remember when the left was concerned about deficits? ah yes, so where's the senate?

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (QxSug)

160 Guys you lost an election, it's not the end of the world, or something that needs to be rationalized away.
Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:38 PM (t1NLo)

______

Who farted?

Posted by: Cricket at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (DrC22)

161 One little girl asked: "Lawgiver, who knows about the future?" He replied: "Perhaps only the dead."
http://tinyurl.com/bjuc7fv

Posted by: Baldy at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (opS9C)

162 I'm not trolling. I just have different opinions. Why should I be banned?

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (t1NLo)

163 Pro self-defense is not a social liberal position. Unless you're a member aof a protected group.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (YmPwQ)

164 This is one of the reasons my LIB attitude now extends into The Establishment Repubs.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 06, 2012 02:38 PM (IgvLC)

I feel the same way about the High Maintenance Conservatives.

Posted by: polynikes at December 06, 2012 02:43 PM (m2CN7)

165 What part of my rhetoric is extreme?



Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:36 PM (jUytm)


That part about fucking monkeys.

Man, I don't know I'da told that.

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 06, 2012 02:43 PM (7vSU0)

166 The left is always going to portray the right as paranoid, delusional and extreme. The question is, what do we do about it?

I do think we shouldn't be so quick to throw a huge portion of conservatives into the conspiratorial category. That further divides us as a group. There is a difference, I think, between truly paranoid people (who are rare) and people who try the best they can to fill in the blanks when pertinent information is missing.

We have an administration and a president sorely lacking in transparency. The lack of information is naturally going to lead people come up with theories about the truth is and follow whatever slim leads they can to find it. That shouldn't mean they automatically qualify as conspiracy nuts.

What is really nuts are people who don't apply common sense to human nature and to the facts as we know them. People who vote libertarian fall into that category, imo. To me they are much more dangerous than those who endlessly speculate about Obama's birth certificate.

The left doesn't disown their crazies. Why should we disown ours? Just to make them like us better?

Posted by: stephie at December 06, 2012 02:44 PM (xG0vx)

167 Parallel parking is very similar to the offside rule in soccer. If that helps.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (NF2Bf)


That makes no sense at all.
Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (UK9cE)



It does when you remember that I cannot comprehend the offside rule in soccer either. Then it's really really funny.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 02:44 PM (VtjlW)

168

Fundamentally, there is very little left to conserve. Our society has been hollowed out by three generations of horrendous academics, no sense of history, and a relentless glorifying of the "newest thing."

We have nothing left of what made this country stable and unified. We have no common faith, no common tongue, and no common beliefs. We are a dead nation, and the idea of "conserving" the fucking New Deal is the height of the perversion of language.

Posted by: imp at December 06, 2012 02:44 PM (UaxA0)

169 Well....

One thing about the Bircher types--the internet let them "find" each other--and they seem to be more of them than what they actually number in reality because--

hate has an OCD component.

Birchers will always be the nastiest, most irrational commenters on a blog--and they will outlast and chase off everyone else.

So--they are amplified like a dog whose bark is extra deranged.

And of course the MSM is only too happy to shine a spot light on them.

Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 02:44 PM (r2PLg)

170
My opinions are like my asshole. Wait, what?

Posted by: Olaff at December 06, 2012 02:44 PM (vbh31)

171 not true. it was a three-way split, with TP'ers voting for all three of the major candidates. You can't say "the TP opposed Akin" unless your definition is Tea Party = Sarah Palin. (Good endorsement by Palin, there, by the way; too bad it was ignored in this case.)

Not quite. The 3-way split was Palin vs. Tea Party Express vs. Akin. TPE doesn't have Palin's name recognition, but that cuts both ways since they also lack her baggage.

And all the guys that moderates consider to be unhelpful, including native Missourian Rush Limbaugh, called for him to step down. I just don't think you can reasonably hang Akin on anyone but Akin and Huckabee.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 02:44 PM (B/VB5)

172 There is only one party right now. The ruling party. It has an untra-left wing and a ball-less wing.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 02:44 PM (zpqa2)

173 Once you cross that line -- showing disrespect for the right, you're not a reformer or internal critic; you're simply on the other side.

Hi Olaf! What is your share of the national debt?

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (4pSIn)

174 he has chosen the religion of the king, as he wants to stay in court.

i understand the general meaning and reference of this, but is there a more specific anecdote it is referencing? Like a specific incident?

I'm going to be very embarrassed if it's Becket.
Posted by: ace


No specific quote, and not Beckett (blushing).

I was thinking of Henry the 8th and all the machinations his courtiers went through in order to agree with whatever his current thought was. And how Sir Thomas More did not and was executed


Posted by: Thunderb at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (Dnbau)

175 A few months ago, the conservative hero for the left was David Stockman because he didn't like Ryan's plan. Guy was plastered all over facebook.

In 2009 Stockman was advocating investing in things that will be good when civilization collapses - guns, bottled water, canned goods....

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (7vSU0)

176 I was actually asking for clarification on imp's suggestion that we should no longer "countenance gay couplings." Couplings does not mean marriage (marriage is a subset of couplings) and "countenance" is a lesser thing than "accept" so if you say you will not even "countenance" something, you're making a very strong statement.

His words, I was asking about them. But he says he meant "will not support gay marriage." Fine. The words he chose initially seemed to indicate something more, dare I say, extreme than that.

But it seems to just be a question of word choice. So, the issue seems resolved.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (LCRYB)

177 untra = ultra

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (zpqa2)

178 this sort of shit though is why I suggest we get ready for a long winter. There won't be another republican government for at least 20 years. So, all you have to do is live through the reign of obama and the eventual inflationary meltdown that will occur once the price of bread doubles a few more times.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (QxSug)

179 "So let me see if I'm keeping track correctly. We're supposed to get rid
of the so-cons, and now we're supposed to get rid of the Tea Party
(read: average Americans who don't want the whole thing to go down the
shithole)."

We can't win until the RNC IS the GOP! Realistically, no non-Democrat outside DC should be allowed to vote, period.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (qvify)

180 re 157: I was involved with the JBS a long time ago, and you can accuse them of some extreme positions, but the JBS was definitely neither racist nor anti-Semitic.

Posted by: mallfly at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (bJm7W)

181

Yep, the only conservatives the anti-conservatives like are either dead or fake.

/ann coulter on Democrats and soldiers

Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (jUytm)

182 "Reagan was a divorced man who allowed amnesty and raised taxes six times."

smart guy, Reagan's first wife left him. he didn't exactly have a choice in the matter.

also "raised taxes six times" -- well what taxes? different ones have different effects, and he massively slashed federal income taxes. in liberal mythology he used to be a turrible person who loved teh rich and hated blacksgays, 'til like every dead conservative they figured they could try and use him against today's conservatives

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (60GaT)

183 ampersands mayn.

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:46 PM (60GaT)

184 @166

I would only add that being truly paranoid doesn't mean black helicopters aren't actually following you. In which case, of course, being paranoid is truly the only sane option.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 06, 2012 02:46 PM (t06LC)

185 "what do you mean by "countenancing homosexual couplings?" What's the alternative? Please be specific."


You know there is such a thing as TMI. Just sayin'. /sarc tag off

Posted by: Penfold at December 06, 2012 02:46 PM (Fbt5B)

186 @175, yeah David Stockman's criticized Ryan from the right but that didn't matter, the left found an alleged reagan man to beat up ryan with. And he was promoted to being "one of the good ones"

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:46 PM (QxSug)

187 Apparently the only good conservative is a dead conservative.
Got it.

Posted by: RioBravo at December 06, 2012 02:46 PM (eEfYn)

188 Buckley's conservative pragmatism has been lost, along with the presidency and seats in Congress.

Buckley's own son's support for Obama in 2008 can now be considered conservative and pragmatic?

Posted by: Decaf at December 06, 2012 02:46 PM (TnBUi)

189 Our best hope: Given enough rope obama will hang ( figuratively ) himself

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (79ueO)

190
And Reagan was pro choice.

Posted by: a troll fucking with you at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (jUytm)

191 I'm not trolling. I just have different opinions. Why should I be banned?

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (t1NLo)


You're a doofus, but haven't reach the level of banning that I've seen.

It's fun to play kick the can.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (UK9cE)

192 Because 9 out of 10 people don't know what the TPs policy preferences are.

9 out of 10 Tea Partyers don't know what the Tea Party policy preferences are.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (SY2Kh)

193 Elections are kinda like rain dances. You can jump around and whoop and hollar, but chances are it was going to rain anyway, and all your dancing didn't make one iota of difference.

Trying to figure out why this or that candidate lost is a waste of time.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (TOk1P)

194 >>> I just don't think you can reasonably hang Akin on anyone but Akin and Huckabee.

fair enough, and you're right. If I think about it (a rare thing), it is unlikely that even with a Unified Front we could have forced Akin out (and a Unified Front is an imaginary thing anyhow).

Still, I'm annoyed at Dana and Chris and the various people who joined that side to say, "Man up, we prove how big our cocks are by the size of our defeats."

But you're right, wouldn't have changed anything had they not done so.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (LCRYB)

195 Sidebar image bomb!

http://90-e.com.ua/___/London%20Boys.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/b69spgu

http://tinyurl.com/8f9rvkn

http://tinyurl.com/ad73r3u

http://tinyurl.com/a3rlf7a

...deal with it!

Posted by: Sgt. York at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (V4lYF)

196 Given enough rope obama will hang ( figuratively ) himself
---
Taking into account his skill with an umbrella it may be literal.

Posted by: RioBravo at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (eEfYn)

197
John Birch was a Christian missionary in China, who became appalled at the way the occupying Japanese were treating his friends, the Chinese. He became involved with the Nationalist government army in terms of translating and scouting and other tasks.


As WWII came to a close, the Communist Chinese decided to make an example of him and had him murdered.


The John Birch Society was, at its core, a virulent anti-communist group, and yes, they found evidence of communism everywhere in government and society, because it WAS there. Which still made them sound loopy and paranoid (which they were). Buckley read them out of the Right because they were somewhat like Ron Paul fanatics; impossible to allie with because they were erratic, irrational and paranoid.


The Tea Party is nothing like them, as others above have noted. It is a grass roots uprising against the Leviathan Government which we now have. The Media and their masters in the Democrat Party would like nothing more than to create schism between the Republican Party leadership and the so-called Tea Party.

And this asshole David Welch (along with Frum, Victoria Toensing, and others written about here) are only too happy to play this game to build their own egos and play the hurt and wronged "Republican".

You can almost here them saying "I didn't leave the Party, the Party left me!" They are angry at the peasanst forming the Tea Party and not inviting them. The peasants have to be told their place. And especially that horrid Palin woman.

The larger problem is the overall irrational streak that is coming to take over mainstream politics as a whole, because of the Orwellian nature of the News Media, protecting the flanks of His Nibs, Barack Obama. The Massive Bullshit Media daily spouts out a vast array of half-truths and lies, and people are confused. Should I believe this or my own lying eyes?

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is not Santa Claus at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (RFeQD)

198 Am I the first here to comment that if the GOP has had it with my shit, I'll gladly stop bothering them?

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (4pSIn)

199 @182 don't bother, trolls have been saying shit like this on this blog for nearly a decade. I remember one guy in 2005 being like, oh reagan loved the Khmer roughe. uh what?

Reagan, if he were running today would be the most well spoken guy in the field able to discuss conservative values, american exceptionalism, and examples of where the left has gone bad.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (QxSug)

200 112 Monkeytoe The problem with people like David Welch is that he does not operate at all out of a philosophical frame of mind. Like almost all of the political operatives in the GOP, they operate purely on politics. They work for the GOP for whatever reason - it was the party their parents belonged to, the GOP is domininant where they come from, they knew somebody who gave them their start, perhaps even because they lean slightly right - but not because they follow a conservative (or really any) philosophy.-------------------------------------------------------------

^^^^^ This!

And it's because the ranks of "professional republicans" are full of guys like David Welch that the GOP/Romney lost this election.
The current Democrat party is run from Chicago. The Chicago Way is simple, "Don't send nobody that nobody sent."

So guys like David Welch can't get jobs with the democrats, where they belong. So they get jobs with the republicans, even tho they despise republicans but that consulting cash sure looks good. Plus they get to hang out in Washington and go to fancy parties.

But it is an endless embarrassment at those fancy parties to have to be part of the party of the Tea Party. Make the yokels shut up, and just give us you money and your votes, but shut up already, you're embarrassing us!







Posted by: Boots at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (neKzn)

201 I'm not trolling. I just have different opinions. Why should I be banned?

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (t1NLo)


We play by Democrat rules now.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (T0NGe)

202 137 Let's not forget these asshats HATED Buckley when he was around.
Posted by: Iblis at December 06, 2012 02:39 PM (9221z)

______________

Hate is an irrational thing--however it looks like a winner for Democrats.

Obama rode in on hate--and he keeps on riding.

Some Republicans even jumped on the hate train because it was easier than--logic.

BDS--it has buttered a lot of dough out there.

When we ceded to that--we lost more than we thought.

We lost--'the argument".

Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (r2PLg)

203 Come on, man up.

I hate this very dumb mixing of machismo into what is, or should be, a fundamentally intellectual process.

It's always "man up," show some backbone, where is your courage, etc., etc., etc.

Soldiers carrying guns in Afghanistan are manning up and demonstrating backbone. People resorting to "where is your courage" crap in political arguments are not.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (LCRYB)



then, woman up

;-)

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (LpQbZ)

204 I can't argue with a few of his claims -- that we need to be much better about screening the flaky and the florid out of our political nominations.

This is going to happen, from time to time. Everyone should have known this from the get-go. The Tea Party made far more progress in two years than the Progressives made up until the 60's. It is a learning process and some of those lessons are big and hard to swallow.

I know, I know.....it just came out that way.

*rimshot*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (H1M3J)

205 "Man up, we prove how big our cocks are by the size of our defeats." But you're right, wouldn't have changed anything had they not done so.
Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 02:47 PM (LCRYB)

And truly, by the last 5 years alone, our cocks are indeed massive.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 06, 2012 02:49 PM (t06LC)

206 It's fun to play kick the can. Posted by: © Sponge

Do you play with dogshit as well?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 06, 2012 02:49 PM (08zV/)

207
So David Welch must've just loved it when WF Buckley called Gore Vidal a queer on tv?

Somehow I doubt that.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:49 PM (jUytm)

208 People quite literally believe that Federal money is magic and just appears, ex nihilo. Trying to explain that it doesn't is like trying to explain how to parallel park to me.

My Empress, if I didn't already owe unyielding obeisance to you, the fact that you can correctly use ex nihilo in a comment thread would have sealed the deal. I bow before your gleaming radiance.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 06, 2012 02:50 PM (zF6Iw)

209
I'll bet my leftnut that this David Welch doesn't know anything about WF Buckley.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:50 PM (jUytm)

210
Tom Cotton won't let the Democrats steal the next election like they did in 2012.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 06, 2012 02:50 PM (tOkJB)

211 imp @ 168

Correct. The utopia project was started a long time ago, but they've finally got the go-ahead to push on to completion. The construction project will not end well.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 02:50 PM (zpqa2)

212 Hi Olaf! What is your share of the national debt?

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 02:45 PM (4pSIn)


He said earlier that he's adding to it as much as he can because he's one of the "free shit brigade."

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:50 PM (UK9cE)

213 But you go and keep fantasizing about how Tea Party favorites like Bachmann or Cain would've won where Romney lost.

Romney lost because he ran an incompetent, detached campaign. He hired pollsters who told him what he wanted to hear rather than what was happening. He had to be forced by his wife and son to give the only debate performance that mattered. He paid four times the price for the same ad time as Obama. His ORCA gimmick utterly failed. And he refused to use his own money to counter the Dems' ads because he felt he had it in the bag.

He ruthlessly dispatched his opponents in the primaries and then treated Obama with kid gloves. Idiocy.

His religious tenets of not boasting prevented him from countering the false narrative of him being a heartless "vulture capitalist." That means he wasn't fit to be president.

He agreed too much with Obama, and he let Obama get away with his usual guttersnipe "debating" techniques of the straw man and the fallacy of the excluded middle. Unforgivable.

Romney deserved to lose. And I say that as someone who wanted desperately for him to win. He blew it. The electorate isn't to blame, because the electorate is by nature a bunch of stupid people who have to have everything explained to them and illustrated with simple examples to which they can relate. Romney should've known that.

Instead, Romney took the Karl Rove advice of letting the self-evident magnificence of his ideas explain themselves. Romney was lazy and complacent, and he lost because of it.

Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 02:51 PM (y+lrr)

214 Yeah. And if Romney isn't enough evidence that Welch is full of crap, I give you California the last few elections. If you think Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Liz Emken and company were the frothing nutters, you've lost your last grip on reality.

Buckley was about standing athwart history yelling "Stop!", first, to the Left. Second, to the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Third, at most, to folks like the Birchers and the Randistas. Not to minimize the importance of declowning the Right, but let's not kid ourselves that it was a bigger or tougher job than fighting the Left and the squishes.

Posted by: Rich Fader at December 06, 2012 02:51 PM (Qe+H7)

215 I'm not trolling. I just have different opinions. Why should I be banned?

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (t1NLo)


From some of your comments your crude, obnoxious, and not particularly original.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 06, 2012 02:51 PM (79ueO)

216 37 I think people really miss the fact that the Tea Party -- by definition -- is a FisCon movement.

Originally, yes. But then everyone who was "Republican, but looking for a less tarnished brand" started flirting with the Tea Party.

Nowadays, try going up to a self-professed Tea Partier and declaring that gay marriage, abortion, and marijuana regulation should all be left to the states. Better yet, set foot over at HotAir or read anything by Ed Morrisey or Michelle Malkin. You will be quickly disabused of the notion that there is ANY true FisCon movement. It's all a bunch of baloney; the Tea Party is now merely the "stingy wing of the SoCons".

Posted by: wooga at December 06, 2012 02:51 PM (/aD1n)

217 So was William F. Buckley Skull & Bones, or not? Yeah, let's hold him up as a symbol of personal freedom. Break free folks. There is no 2 party system in DC. State level, sure, but DC? Nope. And you know this, but refuse to accept it because that is when things get frightful. Well, time for a wake-up call. If 08 and 12 elections didn't show you what is going on, nothing well. It is a rigged game.

Posted by: Koenig Jojo at December 06, 2012 02:52 PM (Yv6gq)

218 "So... yeah. Let's not jerk ourselves off that if we just nominate, for example, a moderate, soft-spoken Northeasterner who is obviously an accepted member of the educated Boston-DC axis of academic, media, and corporate elite, and who is stewed in the mores of the Northeastern Ivy League/aristocratic dominant culture, then all of our troubles will be exorcised like bothersome ghosts."


AKIN/O'DONNELL 2016! For the win!!!!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 06, 2012 02:52 PM (XkWWK)

219 This is now a world where David Brock is a role model for success.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows pragmatism has pwned your asses at December 06, 2012 02:52 PM (Lxw+T)

220 Do you play with dogshit as well?


Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 06, 2012 02:49 PM (08zV/)


Wow, that's a stretch.

Not sure where you're going with that and what that has to do with the game "kick the can" but, Ok.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:52 PM (UK9cE)

221 Sorry, Copyrighted Sponge. You aren't allowed to talk to Olaf. I am his very jealous boyfriend and I will get my answer.

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 02:52 PM (4pSIn)

222 At this point it's not whether or not I'm leaving the GOP, it's where do I go instead? Do I register libertarian? I don't think so - I hold some libertarian views, but some of my more socially conservative views wouldn't jive with theirs. Do I go independent? Do I give up completely? I don't want to, but where the hell am I supposed to turn to find someone who comes even close to voicing what I believe, and who has the guts to actually DO something about it?

I'm not even being sarcastic about this, folks. I don't know where to go now. All i know is I can't go back to the GOP without a DAMN good reason.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (4df7R)

223 lol@"pragmatic"

Reagan rejecting detente -- pragmatic

Buckley supporting Goldwater -- pragmatic

Buckley criticizing Eisenhower from the right -- pragmatic

Buckley initially being friends with Joe McCarthy -- pragmatic

Buckley writing that Yale professors were undermining faith in God -- pragmatic

it's not like the most right-wing position is always best obviously, but these attempts to rewrite Buckley as Mr. Moderate are extra-lame

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (60GaT)

224 He had to be forced by his wife and son to give the only debate performance that mattered. He paid four times the price for the same ad time as Obama. His ORCA gimmick utterly failed. And he refused to use his own money to counter the Dems' ads because he felt he had it in the bag.

____________

Where did you read this?

Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (r2PLg)

225 if you recall, reagan spent years speaking on behalf of general conservative issues back when even the donks were mostly anti-commie (yes, asshole olaf, JFK was big anti-com) and even the union thugs were anti-com.

The idea that one sin among a GOP politician is a sign of rino'ism is silly.

We've lost, we got our ass kicked, and we're never going to get back into power but look at who we ran against.

Obama promised spending cuts and no middle tax hikes in 2008

In debate, lied ass off about libya. had biden laugh at the idea that tax cuts bought revenue increases.

Had an economic policy so laughable that even SNL made fun of it (teachers, yo, teachers).

he ran on everything and nothing, going to the right of the GOP when he needed to. Oh, and obama backed off of the ghey marriage issue too.

point being, i dunno, I forgot.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (QxSug)

226 Unless you are in Egypt where carrying guns is part of the politcal argument.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 06, 2012 02:41 PM (t06LC)


or perhaps that's just their form of jerking off...

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (LpQbZ)

227 I think the Republican Party will not prosper as long as its current so-called leadership is in place. These people do not represent the majority of their voters, nor the interests of anyone but themselves in their eternal quest for the warm and fuzzy feeling of being liked by the people who are tearing our society to shreds. Trying to win with the current set is like banging your head against a cinderblock wall expecting to knock it down, it just leads to pain and frustration.

If the party will not reform, we must form a new party, and siphon everything worthwhile off the old one while it continues its death spiral.

Posted by: Cato at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (wJWmk)

228
Tax cuts for the rich only help the rich. Reagan's trickle down economy was a myth.

Argue with me and prove me wrong.

Posted by: a troll fucking with you at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (jUytm)

229 You people hate me because my grandparents were immigrants!!!!!11!1!

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (/YJYi)

230 217

lawl

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (60GaT)

231 Emotions or tugs at emotions seem to be what work in campaigns. It probably has always been this way. It's just the emotions (for lack of a better word) are now so coarse and low - envy, pity, hate, fear. Used to be things like pride and honor. Just get people to do the right thing, using cheap ploys (example pitiful charity commercials). The Dems know how to do this, because they know what their people want, and they know how to manipulate feelings. We need more Larry Tate and less Rainman.

Posted by: Baldy at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (opS9C)

232 As obvious and repeated as it is, the leftist media is the reason the Tea Party is falsely labeled radical. It all comes down to who controls the modes of communication.

Posted by: polynikes at December 06, 2012 02:54 PM (m2CN7)

233
then, woman up



;-)

Posted by: beach a kindle at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (LpQbZ)


Cowboy Up?

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:54 PM (UK9cE)

234 Reagan was a divorced man who allowed amnesty and raised taxes six times. He'd be a RINO these days.
Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:40 PM (t1NLo)



Jack Kennedy was a Catholic who believed in low taxes and a strong national defense. He'd be a Rethuglican these days.

Now go play with Mommy's anal beads, troll.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 06, 2012 02:54 PM (zF6Iw)

235 I'm not trolling. I just have different opinions. Why should I be banned? Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (t1NLo) We play by Democrat rules now.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:48 PM (T0NGe)


Brilliant line, I'll have to use it in my daily life.

Posted by: Decaf at December 06, 2012 02:54 PM (TnBUi)

236 I don't know where to go now.
-----
Please send me cash and I will get you enrolled in the National Party as soon as we're setup...

Posted by: RioBravo at December 06, 2012 02:54 PM (eEfYn)

237 Come on David chime in, the water's warm

Posted by: Jean at December 06, 2012 02:54 PM (g2ldK)

238 Not sure where you're going with that and what that has to do with the game "kick the can" but, Ok.

Posted by: © Sponge


Do what you want but if you engage trolls, they just keep coming back with more shit.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 06, 2012 02:55 PM (08zV/)

239 215 I'm not trolling. I just have different opinions. Why should I be banned?

Posted by: Olaf at December 06, 2012 02:42 PM (t1NLo)


From some of your comments your crude, obnoxious, and not particularly original.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 06, 2012 02:51 PM (79ueO)



To say the least.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at December 06, 2012 02:55 PM (H1M3J)

240 I feel the same way about the High Maintenance Conservatives.


Posted by: polynikes at December 06, 2012 02:43 PM (m2CN7)


Who, the people who are pissed that we lost an easy election and are getting pretty fucking sick of The Establishment's losing strategies and loser operatives?


Call me an HMC then.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 06, 2012 02:55 PM (IgvLC)

241 Let it Burn is a strategy of supreme practicality. Prepare for the
worst, and hope for the best. It's going to burn. I don't think we could
even stop it, now. So preparing for the burning puts us in a better
position to stop the fire and guide the rebuilding.


You Let it Burn idiots are hilarious. Not one of your predictions from a month ago turned out to be right, but now you've got a new set of predictions that puts you in the role of "guiding the rebuilding" as if suddenly you'll be recognized as a font of wisdom.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 06, 2012 02:55 PM (+lsX1)

242 It's funny how "sensible" Rockefeller Republicans like Frum who would have loathed Buckley's insurgent ideas now rush to claim him as one of their own.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 06, 2012 02:55 PM (QKKT0)

243 I have my own anal beads to play with thank you very much!

Posted by: lOaf at December 06, 2012 02:56 PM (/YJYi)

244 The Republican Party was formed in the 1850's to end the scourge of slavery. It's time to thank them for their good work and say goodbye. Saving the Federalist form of government, or stopping the slide into transnationalism or just paying the F*****G bills would all be worthy single issues to start up a new party. We don't even have to be trapped in the "conservative" box as defined by the other side. New party, New focus, New definitions we put out.

Posted by: Mark Reardon at December 06, 2012 02:56 PM (8lQzB)

245 Nowadays, try going up to a self-professed Tea Partier and declaring
that gay marriage, abortion, and marijuana regulation should all be
left to the states.


On the second one, that has always been a conservative position. Send it to the states.

On the first, the whole thing has been mashed up by the judiciary. So do you mean let the state courts decide? In which case, no.

As far as pot, suppose a state wants to ban it. How do they do it?

But, let's face it. It isn't about geriatric lesbians getting a state license or offing as many children as possible.

It's all about the legal pot.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 06, 2012 02:56 PM (T0NGe)

246 Do what you want but if you engage trolls, they just keep coming back with more shit.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 06, 2012 02:55 PM (08zV/)


But, trolls are fun to kick around.

Or did we change recently? I musta missed the memo.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:56 PM (UK9cE)

247 Romney deserved to lose. And I say that as someone who wanted desperately for him to win.

I think Romney's campaign sucked, and I'm tired of people trying to blame my white socon ass for it, but let's get realistic here: before the election nearly everyone here (and on other blogs and conservative media) thought he was brilliant and we were going to win going away. So I can't blame Romney himself for thinking the same thing.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 02:56 PM (B/VB5)

248 Barry Goldwater would be ill suited to win as a Republican today. He hated the SoCons and said so.

I would vote for BG today too.

Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 06, 2012 02:56 PM (vjq6E)

249 :::what do you mean by "countenancing homosexual couplings?" What's the alternative? Please be specific." :::

Since the usage of it as a noun means "face" I took it to mean he wouldn't blow a dude or toss his salad.

I wouldn't either, but I don't make a habit of telling people that unless they bring it up.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 06, 2012 02:57 PM (APmL9)

250 I'm not even being sarcastic about this, folks. I don't know where to go now. All i know is I can't go back to the GOP without a DAMN good reason.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (4df7R)

_________________

Two self-appointed Davids don't speak for the GOP.

I'm pretty sure you are doing exactly what David Frum wants.

Remember it was David Frum who ended up being the ultimate hypocrite of all time.

His greatest charge that he stirred up against a Supreme Court appointment was that they were not Pro-Life enough.

The very first thing that Frum jettisoned when dreaming up his new Third Party website was--

the Pro-Life position.

Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 02:57 PM (r2PLg)

251 Olaf, 'just to be clear, millions that had previously voted Obama didn't this go round.
strange election altogether.
it is Not a mandate.

Posted by: really, really pis'd off ette at December 06, 2012 02:57 PM (nqBYe)

252 Damn you Ace. You write a long screed and I'd feel like a moron if I just wrote a one sentence answer.

So, here I go. When I was an early teenager, one of the first books I found an interest in was "The Hidden Persuaders' by Vance Packard, iiirc. Perhaps some have seen Fight Club, where the topic was touched upon in a pornographic manner, but for those who haven't -- drive-in movie theaters, among others used to splice in a couple of milliseconds of images of ice cream cones, and tall beverages, or popcorn, or whatever. Not long enough to annoy the moviegoers, but enough to hit some area of the brain that registered the appropriate 'I gotta get some popcorn, NOW!' type of response. Suddenly, the concession stand filled.

I've seen the 0bama ads in my state and they do nearly the exact thing. Just a few short seconds of an out-of-context clip. Just long enough to register a knee-jerk response. Which was either; get someone to stay home, or drive them to the polls.

It's an area that the party needs to explore. It was only four state, 400,000 voter shortfall. All's fair in love and war, and this is war. Every weapon needs to be used, or countered.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at December 06, 2012 02:58 PM (feFL6)

253 I always disliked the name "Tea Party." Does that mean the short hand is Tea's? like repubican's and democrats and the official name is the Tea Party Party?

How about Franklinites? Or something with Sam Adams involved in it?

Posted by: taylork at December 06, 2012 02:59 PM (ppNDn)

254 Don't go Third Party, just go around the establishment. The left did that in regards to the Dems in Colorado, we must do the same with the GOP.

Also, some states, like WA and CA don't have party primaries, but pick the top two. At this point, in those states we should run people who are registered Independent against the Dems

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 06, 2012 02:59 PM (XvHmy)

255 it's not like the most right-wing position is always best obviously, but these attempts to rewrite Buckley as Mr. Moderate are extra-lame

Posted by: JDP


According to theleft-wing stylebook, conservatives always become 'reasonable, politically courageous,sane, etc.' the moment they are dead.

Not that he was especially conservative, but I look forward to the time when these fucktards think back longingly to the days of George W. Bush.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at December 06, 2012 02:59 PM (NF2Bf)

256 Since the usage of it as a noun means "face" I took it to mean he wouldn't blow a dude or toss his salad.



I wouldn't either, but I don't make a habit of telling people that unless they bring it up.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 06, 2012 02:57 PM (APmL9)


I have that on my business card.

IT Specialist - "I won't toss your salad, so don't ask"

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 02:59 PM (UK9cE)

257
I can hardly stomach it when I agree with Mr Gristle up above, but he's right about the whole let it burn nonsense.

The funny part is if it does all "burn" down, who's gonna rebuild it? Because you guys will busy commenting on the internet about how the remaining 10 Republicans in Congress are, as usual, rolling over for the Democrats.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:59 PM (jUytm)

258 @244. Maybe it's time to resurrect the Federalist banner.

Posted by: Cato at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (wJWmk)

259 >>>254 Don't go Third Party, just go around the establishment. The left did that in regards to the Dems in Colorado, we must do the same with the GOP.

This.

If the local Tea Party groups got involved with their local and state GOP offices, they'd be running the show in another decade.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (sGU4F)

260 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas?

Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday?

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB)

261 Read Ann Coulter's column today, and then get ready to get on the cart.
Posted by: pep at December 06, 2012 02:26 PM (USJNU)



hard cold facts from the piece


More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. As Heather MacDonald has shown, the birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks.

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 03:01 PM (LpQbZ)

262 i think part of the reason people against same-sex marriage take the anti-federalist position is because "leave it up to the states" in practice = "leave it up to the states so people from New York and elsewhere can move to other states to sue for Equal Protection until they get a favorable Supreme Court decision"

if you don't really care about it, OK, but i don't see how a patchwork of different state laws for something that's not a one-time action is really sustainable.

as far as abortion that was taken away from the states a long time ago

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 03:01 PM (60GaT)

263 point being, i dunno, I forgot.
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (QxSug)

__________________

That all the shit David Welch said about Republicans goes double for Dems--and that the MSM only focuses on the flaws of Dems.

Plus--if politicians are going over the fiscal cliff and Obama is most responsible the Dan Milbanks of the world will write an article about the guy who has been out of politics professional the longest...

Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 03:01 PM (r2PLg)

264
I have a question about the Burninging.

Will there be actually flames, or is it the type of burn one associates with a severe skin rash?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 06, 2012 03:01 PM (jUytm)

265 People who believe in Conspiracies???? das ist doch verrückt!

Posted by: Ernst Rohm, June 29, 1934 at December 06, 2012 03:01 PM (lZBBB)

266 216's post

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 03:01 PM (60GaT)

267 Not that he was especially conservative, but I look forward to the time when these fucktards think back longingly to the days of George W. Bush.

They are already fighting to preserve 'his' tax cuts.

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 03:02 PM (4pSIn)

268 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas?



Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday?

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB)


My bitchass company is only giving 1/2 day on Monday and a 1/2 day on The 31st, or you can have one whole day on either date and work the other.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 03:02 PM (UK9cE)

269 He had to be forced by his wife and son to give the only debate
performance that mattered. He paid four times the price for the same ad
time as Obama. His ORCA gimmick utterly failed. And he refused to use
his own money to counter the Dems' ads because he felt he had it in the
bag.



____________



Where did you read this?


In an article about Stuart Stevens that described how Ann and Tagg Romney basically staged a revolt and told Mitt that if he didn't change course, he'd lose. I think it was a CNN piece. As a result, Romney ignored Stevens's advice for how to comport himself in the first debate and did what his wife and son demanded.

Then he agreed with Stevens that he'd made his point and now just had to coast for the rest of the campaign. The Stevens strategy was to "run out the clock." Stevens and the other members of the Romney brain trust felt that the economy was so bad that Romney would win by default, so the main thing to do was to not rock the boat. That's why after they hired Paul Ryan., they didn't use him effectively. Hiring Ryan was a bone thrown to conservatives. In retrospect it was cheap, empty symbolism.

Stevens has been writing an endless series of excuses for why the campaign lost. He's been spinning like an Iranian centrifuge. Today he's blaming it on Hurricane Sandy.

I have no doubt he'll be hired by the next Republican presidential candidate. And if he is, that candidate deserves to lose, too.

Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 03:03 PM (y+lrr)

270 Fast forward half a century. The modern-day Birchers are the Tea Party. By loudly espousing extreme rhetoric,

I hear this BS all the time, and still no one can cite anything specific.

What the hell are they talking about?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 06, 2012 03:03 PM (sbV1u)

271 I've seen the 0bama ads in my state and they do nearly the exact thing.
Just a few short seconds of an out-of-context clip. Just long enough to
register a knee-jerk response. Which was either; get someone to stay
home, or drive them to the polls.



It's an area that the party needs to explore.



Psychological tricks aren't going to turn the electorate into limited government conservatives. The problem we face is structural. Our selling point is individualism, opportunity, and freedom from government intrusion. What attraction does that have for the mass of wretches who rely on the government to give them free shit?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 06, 2012 03:04 PM (QKKT0)

272 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas?

I'll be logged in on Monday. Mostly monitoring email.

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 03:04 PM (4pSIn)

273
Is it extremist to oppose raising taxes? To oppose increased spending? To want entitlement reform?

If that is "extreme", then continuing down the path we are on - toward bankruptcy - is what?


Pragmatic, realistic, unavoidable.

You can quibble over the pragmatism, but not the realism or inevitability. Shit will burn. Then FSA will starve. Then the fight for the future begins.

Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 03:04 PM (TULs6)

274 Two self-appointed Davids don't speak for the GOP. I'm pretty sure you are doing exactly what David Frum wants.

I'm not basing this on the Davids, or the Andrews, or the Jennifers, or anyone else's opinions. I'm basing it on my own observations. I'm tired of being insulted and kicked to the curb by my so-called party. I believe in limited government, low taxation, greater state authority than federal, etc, etc. And because of thatmembers of the Republican party regularly call me extremist, or ultra-right, or, at best, fringe. Since when did wanting to go by the principles of the Founders turn into an ultra-right wing position? Since when did that make someone a borderline terrorist? It's one thing to have the idiots on the left say it, but when the Republicans started up on it my already weak allegiance began to fade.

I'm not like the black community. I'm not going to keep going back again and again to the same party hoping that THIS TIME they'll actually do what they always say they're going to do. I'm not going to be the battered housewife.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:04 PM (4df7R)

275 OT but really cool. Bomb map of London during the Blitz. Find out where the bombs hit. The city was really pummeled. Article from The Daily Mail.

http://tinyurl.com/c3squ9h

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 06, 2012 03:05 PM (cvHsd)

276 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas?

The whole week. That's relatively common in this industry (specialized software that sometimes gets a thread on Sundays).

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 03:05 PM (B/VB5)

277 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas? Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday? Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB)

Just Tuesday

Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 06, 2012 03:05 PM (sbV1u)

278 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas? Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday?

Posted by: ace


Tuesday-Wednesday bitches! We hosers get 'Boxing Day' off, which in Canadian translates to 'drinkingat the crack of noon'.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at December 06, 2012 03:05 PM (NF2Bf)

279 >>>When I was an early teenager, one of the first books I found an interest in was "The Hidden Persuaders' by Vance Packard, iiirc.

I think I've seen that, and a knockoff book, maybe called "Media Sexploitation," about all the subliminal images in magazine ads.


>>>It's an area that the party needs to explore. It was only four state, 400,000 voter shortfall. All's fair in love and war, and this is war. Every weapon needs to be used, or countered.

I kind of agree, but here's the box the Dems have put us in: They have declared all of our hot-button, emotional, lizard-brain appeals to be Unconstitutional and Racist, whereas they use their own with wild abandon.

I was annoyed that Romney ran such a superliminal (above the limn, or threshold, of consciousness) campaign, and did not hit the public more with stuff that actually moves them. OTOH, I'm not sure what that would be. Some things I would reject myself (racial appeals), other things I think are fair game but the media would demolish a Republican for them. Like Obamaphone Woman. I don't think that's a racist thing at all. I'd prefer if she were white so I didn't have that baggage. But she's black, and she's a Star, or should be a Star for our party, as she encapsulates everything wrong with the welfare entitlement state.

But we're pretty boxed in on such emotional pitches.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:05 PM (LCRYB)

280 O/T - I just heard that mobs of Union protesters are getting pepper sprayed and arrested in my old home town of Lansing, MI as the legislature votes on right-to-work.

Those bastards can't get clubbed enough. Give 'em he'll, LPD

Posted by: weew at December 06, 2012 03:05 PM (GVFlJ)

281 >>>It's all about the legal pot.

Not for me, I've never even smoked tobacco. I only mention pot because its an area that not even Scalia will stick with the federalist position. The only true federalists left are... Justice Thomas, AllenG, and like six other weirdos down at the local strip club.

The problem with libertarians, is that once you get past the gold bugs, potheads, and people living in tire walled compounds, there isn't anybody left over there.

But pot, like abortion and gays, is a great issue to "weed out" those who really want smaller gov't from those who merely want "smaller gov't on some issues, but bigger gov't on my pet issues"' aka NeoCons and SoCons.

Posted by: wooga at December 06, 2012 03:05 PM (/aD1n)

282 268 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas?



Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday?

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB)


My bitchass company is only giving 1/2 day on Monday and a 1/2 day on The 31st, or you can have one whole day on either date and work the other.
Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 03:02 PM (UK9cE)

Tuesday-Wednesday. We fight to keep the "box" in Boxing Day. That's why our holiday party is at Jerry McNasty's Titties and Wings on Dundas St.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 06, 2012 03:06 PM (APmL9)

283 They are already fighting to preserve 'his' tax cuts.

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 03:02 PM (4pSIn)
-------That is just so incorrect. They are not the Bush tax cuts; they are the Bush-era tax cuts.

Posted by: RioBravo at December 06, 2012 03:06 PM (eEfYn)

284
Sometimes my eyes burn during allergy season. Will it be like that?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 06, 2012 03:06 PM (jUytm)

285 Fuck the GOP. We're doomed anyway; what's to support?

Posted by: ahem at December 06, 2012 03:07 PM (LLEcx)

286 >>>ince the usage of it as a noun means "face" I took it to mean he wouldn't blow a dude or toss his salad.

>>>I wouldn't either, but I don't make a habit of telling people that unless they bring it up.

I think it's best to be clear and upfront about these things.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:07 PM (LCRYB)

287 >>>Let me just clear this up for the idiots: Conspiracy theorizing is a
form of magical thinking (religious thinking applied to completely
non-metaphysical objects), and as such is irrational, but it is not
"conservative." It is a permanent strain of human thought because human
beings always have and always will have a stubborn attraction to the
irrational.

To suggest that conspiracy theorizing is irrational is to quite literally state it is devoid of rational thought on all faces. Well I don't think this is 100% true. If I were to ask you, ace, are politicians and power brokers in Washington holding confidential meetings wherein they discuss political plans and objectives which they know are, and in fact in some measure are deliberately planned as, attacks on the freedoms of every American? I would stipulate a resounding "Yes!" to that question, and consider anyone who did not to be delusional of a political reality which has existed since representative governments were reborn in the modern age. I hope you agree with that simple premise, that political conspiracies exist. That makes the search for them, at least at first face, a rational endeavor not to be casually dismissed in whole.

Where the irrationality manifests in my experience, is the love of theory that seems to take place, wherein all counter evidence is given 0 weight having obviously been fabricated by the PTB (powers that be also known as "THEY") and supporting evidence fully embraced despite serious credibility issues with the source. This is the irrational behavior associated with conspiracy theorists that once they postulate a hypothesis they assume all counter evidence is part of the conspiracy to hide the conspiracy and so they set for themselves a mind trap wherein they cannot logically escape. This issue is how many conspiracy theorists conduct what amounts to poor, incomplete, and inaccurate analysis of information using poor logical principals from a thought model not geared to deal with uncertainty, and ultimately hold very erroneous conclusions.

In the end I think the search for political conspiracy has a lot of value as an endeavor but can only be accomplished by someone with a very skeptical mentality and a background in probabilistic logic models.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 06, 2012 03:07 PM (0q2P7)

288 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (4df7R)

Constitution Party has some SoCon positions....

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 06, 2012 03:07 PM (lZBBB)

289

o/t

It’s begun: Union THUGS trying to intimidate Right to Work supporters at Michigan Capitol

This is one of those videos that will make you want to lay out these union thugs through your screen:


http://tinyurl.com/c7typ7c

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 03:07 PM (LpQbZ)

290 Ace is clearly a member of the anti-conspiracy theory conspiracy!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 06, 2012 03:08 PM (OWjjx)

291 I've seen the 0bama ads in my state and they do nearly the exact thing. Just a few short seconds of an out-of-context clip. Just long enough to register a knee-jerk response. Which was either; get someone to stay home, or drive them to the polls.

It's an area that the party needs to explore. It was only four state, 400,000 voter shortfall. All's fair in love and war, and this is war. Every weapon needs to be used, or countered.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at December 06, 2012 02:58 PM (feFL6)

________________


This is the first time--in awhile--that I have not lived in a swing state--so I have been wondering about the ads.

You really think the Dem subliminal stuff was that effective?

btw--studied the county by county votes in Ohio recently and Romney got about 10% less of the vote than McCain in about every flipping county in Ohio.

Except Medina, Co. that was the only county that had an uptick in votes for the Republican from 2008.

(Admittedly I could only stomach looking at about 12 counties and their results before I quit.)

Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 03:08 PM (r2PLg)

292 Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 03:03 PM (y+lrr)

As Joe Biden would say;

I've got three words to describe your post - Bull Shit.

Posted by: polynikes at December 06, 2012 03:08 PM (m2CN7)

293 The only answer when a society has been brainwashed into actually believing that tax cuts cost money and our own party's legislators perpetuate a fraud which claims not spending as much as you you were dreaming about doing = cutting spending, is

LiB

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 03:09 PM (zpqa2)

294

General Woundwort


I've been rattling ace's cage for years and years now. Ever since his "squadron" post about his junk.

Gol damn, that was a dog's age ago.

And he knows he can get a rise out of me with gay marriage most every time.

But we are now seeing the result that I foresaw all those years back, that normal people will start dropping out of societal participation because of gay marriage and things like it.

Almost everyone is heterosexual (95-97%). A substantial proportion of that number has a visceral reaction to homosexuality. It is not learned, nor is it voluntary. It can be unlearned, if one supposes that it is a valuable or necessary idea. But adopting a blase attitude toward for instance, homosexual activity (or learning an acceptance of it)---or such conditions as chronic welfare dependency or widespread divorce---are traits of a very narrow subset of the learned elite. Those traits have undeniably been accepted by more and more of the nation, but to what benefit?

So, what happens when people look around and see that the society in which they live is no longer the one to which they belong? They just stop caring.

SMOD, the Mayans---we all laugh, but this is indicative of the cultural shift that has occurred in part by trying to be sympathetic to miniscule subcultures and changing our fundamental societal mores to do so. We are now essentially a European country, and I don't want to live in a European country. Since I cannot afford to move, guess what? I withdraw. Not necessarily going Galt, but it could mean that. Also, no civic participation aside from voting, no desire to fund a decadent and wastrel society, no sacrifices of my blood, money, or children on its behalf. Once the heartland starts to internalize that ethos, our military recruitment will collapse, and it will become even more a vehicle for radical social experimentation. The culture will continue to shift until it alienates

These things are going to take years, and we might holbble along in the interim. Maybe not with the financial problems. But by fundamentally altering this culture, we have replaced it with an untried new social order that does not appear to have any resilience, unity, or stability. It's not all from gay marriage, but that was a key component to the massive cultrual experiment that we have now foolishly undertaken.

Good luck with all that.


Posted by: imp at December 06, 2012 03:09 PM (UaxA0)

295 Constitution Party has some SoCon positions....
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 06, 2012 03:07 PM (lZBBB)


Link me up. My SoCon side is generally contented by following the 10th amendment and letting the STATES decide on those issues through a vote by the citizens. But since we can't even get the current govenrment to admit the 10th amendment exists, that's never going to happen.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:09 PM (4df7R)

296 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas? Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday?
Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB)


Only Tuesday for me. But I will be sneaking out early on Monday for some adult beverages.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 06, 2012 03:09 PM (zF6Iw)

297 Nice work, Ace! I hope you have a lovely holiday. I'm in need of such a thing myself.

Posted by: Liberty Lover at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (encrR)

298 Angelton and his mirrors as he hunted Soviet spies in the CIA.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (cvHsd)

299 Come on and join the Libertarian Party! Now that Ron Paul is retired there won't be any more looney Federal Reserve nonsense.

We have the true Small Gov platform.

Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (vjq6E)

300
Or am I gonna feel the type of burn I get every time I fill up my gas tank?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (jUytm)

301 You know who is a RINO by the way they look for a 'cult of personality' figure on the right for their very own. Right from the git go that is not how conservatives think that's how the left thinks. They want a savior we don't care who the person is as long as they are conservative.

Posted by: bobbymike at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (wJSZn)

302 They are not the Bush tax cuts; they are the Bush-era tax cuts.

Thus the quotes around 'his'. When mocking lefties, it's more fun to leave out the '-era' portion.

Posted by: fluffy at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (4pSIn)

303 Who, the people who are pissed that we lost an easy election and are getting pretty fucking sick of The Establishment's losing strategies and loser operatives?
Call me an HMC then.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 06, 2012 02:55 PM (IgvLC)


One problem with the HMC (for lack of a better term) is that they're prone to believing in a malevolent Establishment that is causing all the Bad Things to happen.

It's an appealing theory but ultimately it's pernicious because it promotes a constant feeling of victim-hood and it short-circuits any self-reflection on the part of the HMCs.

When nothing is ever your fault and it's always someone else causing the failures, it's pretty much guaranteed that your performance will never get any better.

Posted by: Mætenloch at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (pAlYe)

304 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas?>>

We get both Monday and Tuesday and I will be taking the rest of the week from personal vacation time.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (tf9Ne)

305 We're getting off 1/2 day Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.


Also o/t but note to self - county is generally spelled with an o in it.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (VtjlW)

306 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas? Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday?

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB)


Just Tuesday.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (4df7R)

307 @274. Exactly. Being the battered spouse isn't getting us anywhere. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

We are not going to get anything we want through the Republican Party, so how do we get it?

Posted by: Cato at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (wJWmk)

308 @291: Nation-wide, Romney is up about 500,000 votes from McCain in '08.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 03:11 PM (B/VB5)

309 What does Tea Party mean anymore?

I think it has simply become the new liberal shorthand for "radical", sort of like "neocon" was the label they were using in the previous decade. Necon used to mean a domestic liberal that was a hawk on foreign policy, like Lieberman.

The Tea party started out being a popular movement when it was focused on fiscal issues. The problem is, dingbats latched on and tried to push all of their hobby horse issues in the movement as well. And then the loons came out, and people started showing up to rallies
with AR-15s strapped to their back or waving baby fetuses, which the
liberal msm was all too happy to broadcast 24/7, nevermind actual rapes
were happening with Occupy Wall Street nonsense.

We also nominated people we shouldn't have that became the face of the movement (Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Ken Buck etc.)

The point is, it was very hard to very hard to tarnish it when it
was focused on railing in excessive government spending and taxes. that's a message that resonates, but it sort of mutated into something that's unrecognizable.


Posted by: McAdams at December 06, 2012 03:11 PM (PCx72)

310 You know what's wrong with Ron Paul?

Ron Paul supporters.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 06, 2012 03:11 PM (sbV1u)

311 >>>>>People quite literally believe that Federal money is magic and just
appears, ex nihilo. Trying to explain that it doesn't is like trying to
explain how to parallel park to me.<<<<<

Some people believe that a dollar has value because someone earned it, other people believe a dollar has value because the government printed it.

Unfortunately, the latter are in charge right now.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at December 06, 2012 03:11 PM (BF5Y9)

312 Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB) ___

Monday and Tuesday

Posted by: kallisto at December 06, 2012 03:12 PM (jm/9g)

313 Also o/t but note to self - county is generally spelled with an o in it.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Shipping Sheldon/Penny right to the end. at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (VtjlW)


Oh dear.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:12 PM (4df7R)

314 "Because you guys will busy commenting on the internet about how the remaining 10 Republicans in Congress are, as usual, rolling over for the Democrats.
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:59 PM (jUytm)"



Right, and you will be criticizing internet commenters by commenting on the internet.



If you and Mr. Head above have a workable plan, lay it out there guys. Hint: Republicans' plans have failed for decades, so we'll be needing something new.


Chop chop.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 06, 2012 03:12 PM (IgvLC)

315 I think Romney's campaign sucked, and I'm tired of people trying to
blame my white socon ass for it, but let's get realistic here: before
the election nearly everyone here (and on other blogs and conservative
media) thought he was brilliant and we were going to win going away. So
I can't blame Romney himself for thinking the same thing.


Well, I can blame the guy in charge of his campaign for not running it well. How were we to know about everything that's only coming out now? And we knew in our guts that he was blowing it. There was plenty of commentary about how he was letting Obama get away with too much.

Remember when they promised us an ad blitz like we've never seen? It didn't materialize. Remember everyone saying all throughout the summer, "Why isn't he countering he torrent of ads calling him a murderer and a felon?" Why didn't he respond forcefully to Harry Reid's slanders?

We knew they were blowing it, but it's always hard to admit it when you see people on your side making such terrible, easily avoided mistakes.

But we knew. And now we're finding out it was much worse than we realized, because they were giving us false information. Remember a night or two before the election the RNC put out a statement saying the Obama campaign's GOTV efforts were nonexistent? That was a flat-out lie.

What're we supposed to do when the people we hire to represent us lie to us?

Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 03:12 PM (y+lrr)

316 I'm basing it on my own observations. I'm tired of being insulted and kicked to the curb by my so-called party. I believe in limited government, low taxation, greater state authority than federal, etc, etc. And because of thatmembers of the Republican party regularly call me extremist, or ultra-right, or, at best, fringe. Since when did wanting to go by the principles of the Founders turn into an ultra-right wing position? Since when did that make someone a borderline terrorist? It's one thing to have the idiots on the left say it, but when the Republicans started up on it my already weak allegiance began to fade.

_____________________________

Hmmmm--who is doing this?

I really do not pay attention to the MSM.

The only official GOP--I can think of are Boehner, Cantor, and McConnelll.

They are saying such things?

Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 03:12 PM (r2PLg)

317 I hate these articles. Really hate them. Why....because it just one more of a continuing series of who can we blame for losing?

Sometimes I wonder who Republicans and conservatives hate more......liberals and democrats or other conservatives and/or Republicans?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 06, 2012 03:12 PM (OWjjx)

318
228 Tax cuts for the rich only help the rich. Reagan's trickle down economy was a myth. Argue with me and prove me wrong.
Posted by: a troll fucking with you at December 06, 2012 02:53 PM (jUytm)

Sup bitch. SOOOOON.

Posted by: Laffer Curve at December 06, 2012 03:14 PM (t06LC)

319 257 I can hardly stomach it when I agree with Mr Gristle up above, but he's right about the whole let it burn nonsense. The funny part is if it does all "burn" down, who's gonna rebuild it? Because you guys will busy commenting on the internet about how the remaining 10 Republicans in Congress are, as usual, rolling over for the Democrats.
Posted by: Soothsayer at December 06, 2012 02:59 PM (jUytm)

___

Dear Sooth, I think you and Mr Gristle are confused. For most of us, "let it burn" is just another way of saying "I'm depressed"

Posted by: Cricket at December 06, 2012 03:14 PM (DrC22)

320 Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 03:03 PM (y+lrr)



As Joe Biden would say;



I've got three words to describe your post - Bull Shit.


So what?

Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 03:14 PM (y+lrr)

321 On SSM, the federalist position would be to elevate DOMA to constitutional status. Once DOMA is struck down, this is a politically viable option, given how many states still strongly vote to ban SSM.

But SoCons (Rick Santorm admitted as much at the Ames debate) will never support a federalist solution to a deeply moral issue.

Posted by: wooga at December 06, 2012 03:14 PM (/aD1n)

322 We are not going to get anything we want through the Republican Party, so how do we get it?

Posted by: Cato at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (wJWmk)

I don't know the answer, but I am in this camp. No more GOP. I think we speak for many, and it does not bode well for the future of the party. The reform window has passed.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 06, 2012 03:14 PM (zpqa2)

323 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas?

Dec 24-Jan 1. But we're British.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, ray of sunshine at December 06, 2012 03:14 PM (/kI1Q)

324 Psychological tricks aren't going to turn the electorate into limited government conservatives. The problem we face is structural. Our selling point is individualism, opportunity, and freedom from government intrusion. What attraction does that have for the mass of wretches who rely on the government to give them free shit?

You can stand up on the stage and give a three hour long speech extolling -- with exquisite logic, point by point repudiating liberals records of failure, then extolling the virtues of conservatism. No one will watch. Maybe a few of the already converted, just for the pat on the back.

The masses that want free shit, will still march to the concession stand if you hit them at the right time with the right message. I didn't see any hint of that message in any ad from the Republican party this year.

Now, I'm not saying that this is suddenly going to turn California into a red state. It's a tool, like every other tool. I have a garage and a 'tool room' in my house packed with tools. Sometimes I need one tool, sometimes I need a whole lot of them. We need to play the electoral college like a Stradivarius violin in order to win. Every tool needs to come out.

The Dems used it against us. They know it works, or they wouldn't bother. Since they don't have logic and history on their side they have to play 'dirty pool'. So should we.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at December 06, 2012 03:15 PM (feFL6)

325
BTW, Weasel Zippers has a post about Jen Rubin (another R for profit) saying she is glad "extremist" Jim DeMint is leaving.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 06, 2012 03:15 PM (n/ubI)

326 "One problem with the HMC (for lack of a better term) is that they're prone to believing in a malevolent Establishment that is causing all the Bad Things to happen.


Posted by: Mætenloch at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (pAlYe)



Who has said they're "malevolent"? The only thing I see and have seen here is that they're considered "incompetent".


This pretty much renders your observation invalid.


Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 06, 2012 03:16 PM (IgvLC)

327 306 OT, what days are your employers giving you off for christmas? Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday? Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:00 PM (LCRYB) Just Tuesday.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:10 PM (4df7R)

Tuesday. And word is no bonus this year. Yay morale.

What the fuck was my monster login again....

Posted by: Laffer Curve at December 06, 2012 03:16 PM (t06LC)

328
Tomorrow, the UE rate will probably go up a little. What will the increase be attributed to?

a) Hurricane Sandy
b) Obama's 4 yrs of failed policies
c) the world economy/troubles in Greece
d) George Bush
e) the media will say it's a good economic sign!

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 06, 2012 03:16 PM (jUytm)

329

Boehner says ideology not why members booted from committees, it was disloyalty

Some Tea Party–friendly Republicans complained this week that they were “purged” from key leadership positions, but Speaker John Boehner responded in a closed-door conference Wednesday that the members’ sin wasn’t “ideology” — it was disloyalty.



http://tinyurl.com/auqb2rj

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 03:17 PM (LpQbZ)

330 Nu thread and its been double posted. Hop on it quick.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 06, 2012 03:17 PM (cvHsd)

331 I am not officially part of any party...tea or coffee. But I can tell you that this man has no worries about me in the GOP because I have fired the lot of them.

Does it matter if you win elections if you are the same as the other party? Only to the politician.

Posted by: Mekan at December 06, 2012 03:17 PM (hm8tW)

332 thanks for letting me know the "official" days off.

I'm thinking about pushing my vacation back a week.

Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:17 PM (LCRYB)

333 @317. Obviously, we hate ourselves, because we insist on doing everything the right way, which is the hard way, then get dragged kicking and screaming into the next band-aid solution by the Left and our "leadership". Going on the dole and helping it burn would be *so* much easier, but that peculiar sense of honor we have forbids it.

Posted by: Cato at December 06, 2012 03:17 PM (wJWmk)

334 @Burn the Witch

Somebody had to say it.

I mean, I wouldn't countenance your balls, but well done.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 06, 2012 03:17 PM (APmL9)

335 @299 I did the Libertarian Party thing for 4-years. Pretty much the 3-P's party...
Pron
Prostitution
Pot
Give 90% of the LP membership those things and they pretty much don't care if the Fed.GOV is fire-bombing their church.

Posted by: DocJ at December 06, 2012 03:18 PM (A5uiv)

336 My employer used to be me, but I closed my business two weeks ago and am filing personal bankruptcy. So I've essentially given myself the month of December off.


Bankruptcy lawyer said he's seen a big uptick in small business owners filing.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 06, 2012 03:18 PM (IgvLC)

337 >>>But we're pretty boxed in on such emotional pitches.


Well it used to be a virtue in society that one could put aside emotions act in a rational manner. That was of course later dubbed as an oppressive tool of the patriarchy and it was somehow healthy to "get in touch with ones feelings" and act impulsively. To the point that society as a whole no longer has a collective ability to override their emotions and do what they rationally know is right.

Chalk up another brilliant move in the progressive master plan of oppression. Reduce humans back to emotional animals; which of course need a master.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 06, 2012 03:18 PM (0q2P7)

338 Tuesday-Wednesday. We fight to keep the "box" in
Boxing Day. That's why our holiday party is at Jerry McNasty's Titties
and Wings on Dundas St.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 06, 2012 03:06 PM (APmL9)


And that's why we all wish we were you.

I do get Christmas Day and New Years day, but the 1/2 days ahead....no Titties and Wings.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 06, 2012 03:18 PM (UK9cE)

339 The only official GOP--I can think of are Boehner, Cantor, and McConnelll. They are saying such things?
Posted by: tasker at December 06, 2012 03:12 PM (r2PLg)


It needn't be official GOP anymore than it need be official Democrats. So yes, you can point to the Davids and the Andrews and the other so-called "Republicans" in the media and punditry who dismiss the Tea Party and other grassroots movements as fringe and extreme. And then you can similarly blame the "official" GOP for not coming forward and saying, with one voice, "Don't be stupid. They aren't extremists. They're normal Americans who believe in the Constitution. If that's extremist then every one of us who swore to uphold the Constitution, including every member of Congress, the Judiciary, the military, and the President himself, are extremists."

What do we hear instead? Crickets.

Not only that, but the "official" GOP doesn't even speak out about the Democrats' embrace of the most divisive, negative, dangerous fringe elements of their own party. They let the Democrats insult average citizens as extremists while calling Code Pink and OWS "grassroots patriots," and the Republicans say NOTHING.

Sorry. Sick of it.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:19 PM (4df7R)

340 "Usurp"

The Republican Leadership's word explaining their modus operandi, applied liberally against Republican conservatives in order to protect elitist exploits. Take Boehner's excesses, terminating all fiscal conservatives from House committees. And Cornyn who eschews the new primary candidates particularly from any conservative grassroots response to Washington cronyism, aka incumbents. Now face the RNC leadership that changed the party rules against the party membership at large. Thanks to the Republican National Leadership, the GOP openly declared itself authoritarian at the 2012 Convention.

You said fine. Live and learn.

<<
"So... yeah. Let's not jerk ourselves off that if we just nominate, for
example, a moderate, soft-spoken Northeasterner who is obviously an
accepted member of the educated Boston-DC axis of academic, media, and
corporate elite, and who is stewed in the mores of the Northeastern Ivy
League/aristocratic dominant culture, then all of our troubles will be
exorcised like bothersome ghosts."

"In political parties, people can criticize the Establishment or people
can criticize the Grassroots (or both), but if you're still affiliated
with that group -- emotionally affiliated, feeling a feeling of kinship
-- you use a different sort of language than you'd use to criticize the
opposite party."

"It basically comes down to respect. Do you respect the people with whom
you have disagreements? If you respect them, you may disagree with a
particular position of idea, but you do not disapprove of them
personally."

"Once you cross that line -- showing disrespect ... and
disapproval verging on loathing ...
you're not trying to persuade, you're merely trying to pummel."
>>

Funny you'd be saying that.

Logic vs. Rationalizing -- back in the day of the 1960s-70s, coming of age as a conservative, when arguing with someone making excuses for themselves in the wrong who was denying responsibility for their own mistakes, dumping their shit on me or someone else, the criticism that cut to the quick was, "You're just rationalizing."

Go figure.

[Ron Paul is insane because Paultard.] As if libertarian-conservatism of the Classical Liberalism that created our Constitutional Republic epitomizes evil and the lack of individual responsibility.

I am not the only registered conservative voter who wants a smaller and far less obtrusive government that cuts spending and taxes in order to function as constitutionally designed, respecting the inalienable Natural Rights of people. "What we have here is" wholesale assassinations, no rule of law, and contempt for the US Constitution across the board. And the GOP leadership is in on the take.

/As if Bill Buckley didn't function in order to have his cake and eat it, too.


Posted by: panzernashorn at December 06, 2012 03:20 PM (BAnPT)

341
Will there be actually flames, or is it the type of burn one associates with a severe skin rash?

Actual flames.

I am not a cassandra. I usually reject Sky is Falling scenarios out of hand. Global warming is a crock. Mayan apocalypse - crock. Y2K? Called it - crock. Avian Bird Flu? Like all the other flus, media's pandemic du jour. Mixing in psychological techno thriller elementsups the ratings, like Media meets Andromeda Strain. The overpopulation thing was a Malthusian death crock. Peak oil was and shall remain a crock.

But you tell me, how the bloody hell does the US keep on keeping on with these deficits? They will do the only thing they can do, pop the currency bubble. It will remain controlled, as long as they can control it. But they have no backup plan, they can only keep it up as long as they can keep it up. Eventually you'll need a barrel of cash for a loaf of bread.

They're not going to kick grandma out on the street. They CAN'T let poor people starve to death or resort to cat food. The checks must go out, and the only way the checks can continue togo out is to blow up the money supply. Then the checks will go out alright, but you won't be able to buy any food with them.

Everything they do in reaction to this crisis will only make things worse. They will turn to outright thievery, siezing of assets and nationalization of factories and price controls. All of which will make things worse in the long run. The worse the economy gets the less revenue they have, and the more benefits they have to dish out because there'll be more needy unemployed. That means more and more worthless money, and more and more drastic and heavy handed economic intervention. Then what? You tell me.

What's going to happen if those EBT cards get turned down at Walmart? What will happen in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, etc. etc., if one day you turn on the faucet and no water comes out?

I'll tell you what I think will happen: the flames will be literal.

Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 03:20 PM (TULs6)

342 Come on and join the Libertarian Party! Now that Ron Paul is retired there won't be any more looney Federal Reserve nonsense.

We have the true Small Gov platform.


No thanks. It's not money or religion that is the root of most social evils. It's idealism.

I'd rather not associate with people so focused on their ideals of what should happen that they're no longer capable of separating fantasy from reality. Even if I agree with them in principle.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 06, 2012 03:20 PM (SY2Kh)

343
Dear Sooth, I think you and Mr Gristle are confused. For most of us, "let it burn" is just another way of saying "I'm depressed"

Posted by: Cricket at December 06, 2012 03:14 PM (DrC22)

Not for me. I'm resigned. I've been worrying that it was going to burn for years, and now that we've thrown gasoline onto the fire, I'm ready for the inevitable. It is my opinion that the better quality Americans, those who believe in hard work and sacrifice, will survive the fire better than will the gimme crowd.


The Chaff will burn but the kernels will survive. It is only the kernels that are capable of growing again anyway.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 06, 2012 03:21 PM (bb5+k)

344 You know what's wrong with Ron Paul?

Ron Paul supporters.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 06, 2012 03:11 PM (sbV1u)


One thing they do have, however, is loyalty. They stick together, like the Dem party. Look how many lunatics the Dem party have. Look how they are shielded, and how conservatives ended up being scoffed at Alinsky style.

Posted by: beach & a kindle at December 06, 2012 03:21 PM (LpQbZ)

345 Welch comes by his sour grapes naturally,

Bio in a 2010 Politico article

"Welch has done research for the NRSC but returned home to New Hampshire
to run John McCain's Veterans coalition in the 2008 campaign."

http://tinyurl.com/d2uvpqu


Posted by: wg at December 06, 2012 03:21 PM (UymFY)

346 Ace

**I was annoyed that Romney ran such a superliminal (above the limn, or threshold, of consciousness) campaign, and did not hit the public more with stuff that actually moves them. OTOH, I'm not sure what that would be. Some things I would reject myself (racial appeals), other things I think are fair game but the media would demolish a Republican for them. Like Obamaphone Woman. I don't think that's a racist thing at all. I'd prefer if she were white so I didn't have that baggage. But she's black, and she's a Star, or should be a Star for our party, as she encapsulates everything wrong with the welfare entitlement state. **

My counter point is that our alleged racism and so on and so forth is baked in the cake already. May as well use obamaphonelady to create disgust for obama policies.

Llarry, interesting point on debate prep thanks to Ann romney. I want to read it.

So many things were left on the table as a matter of pure policy and positioning, even if we are too white knight to go after winning social issues.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 03:22 PM (QxSug)

347 But SoCons (Rick Santorm admitted as much at the Ames debate) will never support a federalist solution to a deeply moral issue.

There's a generation gap there. Under-50 SoCons do respect the 10th amendment, in my experience. Doesn't mean we won't speak out about stuff when it does come up for a ballot, but we're generally OK with letting California continue to nominate itself for Darwin Awards.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 03:22 PM (B/VB5)

348 There's a generation gap there. Under-50 SoCons do respect the 10th amendment, in my experience. Doesn't mean we won't speak out about stuff when it does come up for a ballot, but we're generally OK with letting California continue to nominate itself for Darwin Awards.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 06, 2012 03:22 PM (B/VB5)


Not only should Cali continue to nominate itself, it should win every damn one.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:24 PM (4df7R)

349 I'll tell you what I think will happen: the flames will be literal. Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 03:20 PM (TULs6)

You're not a Cassandra. I'm not a Pollyanna, but here's the good news from that scenario....

The vast bulk of the damage will be in deep blue areas.

Winning!

Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 06, 2012 03:24 PM (sbV1u)

350 I hate these articles. Really hate them. Why....because it just one
more of a continuing series of who can we blame for losing?



Sometimes I wonder who Republicans and conservatives hate
more......liberals and democrats or other conservatives and/or
Republicans?


But you have to find out the real reason you lost, or else you'll keep losing.

For example, knowing that the Hispanic vote wasn't decisive in this election means we don't need an amnesty. In fact if the GOP supports amnesty, all it'll do is legalize millions of more Democrats.

This election was lost by a margin of about 370,000 votes in four swing states. That means Romney could easily have won. He didn't win because he did lots of things wrong, and each thing he did wrong chipped away at the number of people voting for him until he lost just enough to lose the election. With just a little more effort, he could've won handily.

He's been attacked on Bain every single time he's run for office. Why did he never develop an effective defense, when you and I can come up with one off the tops of our heads? Was it a psychological issue? Deep down, did he feel that Bain was indefensible?

I'm thinking maybe we just need careful psychological screening of our candidates. Did you hear George W. Bush the other day calling for immigration reform again? It's an idée fixe. He's literally pathological about it. He said "living in the shadows" again.

When you're dealing with mental issues, there's nothing that can be done.

Posted by: Llarry at December 06, 2012 03:24 PM (y+lrr)

351 It needn't be official GOP anymore than it need be official Democrats. So yes, you can point to the Davids and the Andrews and the other so-called "Republicans" in the media and punditry who dismiss the Tea Party and other grassroots movements as fringe and extreme. And then you can similarly blame the "official" GOP for not coming forward and saying, with one voice, "Don't be stupid. They aren't extremists. They're normal Americans who believe in the Constitution. If that's extremist then every one of us who swore to uphold the Constitution, including every member of Congress, the Judiciary, the military, and the President himself, are extremists."

What do we hear instead? Crickets.

Not only that, but the "official" GOP doesn't even speak out about the Democrats' embrace of the most divisive, negative, dangerous fringe elements of their own party. They let the Democrats insult average citizens as extremists while calling Code Pink and OWS "grassroots patriots," and the Republicans say NOTHING.

Sorry. Sick of it.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 06, 2012 03:19 PM (4df7R)

________________________

Well that's why incumbency matters. When you are "out" there is a vacuum of leadership--any self appointed muck can fill the void.

And--the media insures that the most inflammatory negative on Republican voices get heard.

Hell--when Republicans do hold the office the media shuts them out.

I actually think if we get a Republican President again he should try to go to the local media of various places--they are a little more rational.

The MSM are truly the Liberal Gate Keepers.

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

352
Let's cut to heart of the problem.

It's not that Tea Party, GOP or conservatives nominate crazy people, it's that the press is allowed to characterize them as such. Romney was being made out to be a far-right nutcase by election day, so it's no surprise they had a field day with Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

To make it worse, some people in our party, even popular bloggers, find it necessary to go along with the mischaracterization in order to build their "credibility".

That's when we lose.

Posted by: jwest at December 06, 2012 03:26 PM (ZDsRL)

353 Ah the clarity of word smithing . Thanks ace

Posted by: Rstone at December 06, 2012 03:26 PM (H6Vdo)

354 >>>Is it the Monday-Tuesday deal? Or just Tuesday?

I work a bizarre mandatory 12 hour schedule. Two on, two off. Luckily, my two-off falls on the 24th and 25 this year.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 06, 2012 03:26 PM (sGU4F)

355 I'm thinking about pushing my vacation back a week.
Posted by: ace at December 06, 2012 03:17 PM (LCRYB)

Have a wonderful vacation with Christina Hendricks in the shade on a beach with tropical drinks and warm breezes. And a good book. And no intertubes.

Posted by: Thunderb at December 06, 2012 03:27 PM (Dnbau)

356 >>>Come on and join the Libertarian Party! Now that Ron Paul is retired there won't be any more looney Federal Reserve nonsense.

90 percent of it is still pot-legalization. Though I may agree, it's not a rallying cry.

Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 06, 2012 03:27 PM (sGU4F)

357 "So... yeah. Let's not jerk ourselves off that if we just nominate, for
example, a moderate, soft-spoken Northeasterner who is obviously an
accepted member of the educated Boston-DC axis of academic, media, and
corporate elite, and who is stewed in the mores of the Northeastern Ivy
League/aristocratic dominant culture, then all of our troubles will be
exorcised like bothersome ghosts."


Put that on a plaque, Ace. Brilliant conclusion. And for the Davids, put it on an iron brand and chase 'em down like rabid dogs. Let them try to capitalize on their quest for chaos and lucre with all those scarlet letters.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 06, 2012 03:28 PM (eHIJJ)

358 The Tea party was the socially agnostic, fiscally conservative branch that our ruling class was supposed to prefer in Republicans--but not when it's time to go full socialist.
The only acceptable conservative is the "How about just a tad less?" conservative, forever happily retreating; standing athwart history yelling "Slow and steady!"

Posted by: Randy M at December 06, 2012 03:30 PM (vI8R6)

359 @358. Yup. I'm more convinced that our leadership is less interested in winning than looking good and being liked by the barbarians at the gates.

Posted by: Cato at December 06, 2012 03:33 PM (wJWmk)

360 One thing they do have, however, is loyalty. They stick together, like the Dem party. Look how many lunatics the Dem party have. Look how they are shielded, and how conservatives ended up being scoffed at Alinsky style. Posted by: beach a kindle at December 06, 2012 03:21 PM (LpQbZ)

Lemmings stick together too. Right off the edge of the cliff.

In the case of Ron Paul supporters - and Democrats - sticking together is not a virtue. It's a sign of mental illness. They stick together because they are delusional. All of them are positive, POSITIVE I TELL YOU (!!!11!), that they are the possessors of some super secret knowledge that will fix everything that's wrong. With Dems it's the delusion that they smarter and more virtuous than the rest of the great unwashed. Because of this they've "earned" the right to tell everyone else what's what.

Hayek called that "the Fatal Conceit" in 1939. It hasn't changed.

Tell me that a rational person (key word: "rational") can look at the national debt and think that the solution to that is to spend more. Tell me that a rational person can think that withdrawing to Fortress America and going back to the gold standard will somehow cause the rest of the world to leave us alone and fix the economy. Bullshit. There is no single solution to what ails us, and one thing won't fix it. Don't tell Herr Doktor Paul that, however.

Ron Paul supporters are just a different flavor of nut. Sort of the cashew to the Dems pistachio.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 06, 2012 03:33 PM (sbV1u)

361 341. entropy, "They're not going to kick grandma out on the street. They CAN'T let poor people starve to death or resort to cat food."

As if it didn't happen before. Remember Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, dust bowl Okies, eschewed as subhuman by those Americans with jobs during the great era of deprivation. Hard times: Go suffer somewhere else where we don't have to see you. Made worse: Work for slave wages with no benefits and be grateful to be owned by the "company" whether in mining or harvesting crops. There were poor kids starving to death across America. "Fortunate" kids were shipped off on railways to earn their keep on farms by foster families. And that's in relatively recent memory, the world my parents grew up surviving.

"They CAN'T let poor people starve to death or resort to cat food."

As if that weren't exactly the way Obama, for instance, has consistently functioned professionally. Recall his Chicago pinstripe crime organization, lawyers for unions, looting tax payer funds designated for the MOST vulnerable, the poorest black seniors living in the dump Altgeld Gardens, stripping it of ALL amenities instead of repairing. No pipes left, no water, no wiring, no fixtures, no windows, no doors, no roof. Those old folks were left in the street to fend for themselves and die. There's nothing new in America about Eugenics, given Woodrow Wilson's top heavy authoritarian trickle down implementation.

Posted by: panzernashorn at December 06, 2012 03:34 PM (BAnPT)

362 say this for party loyalty, the donks will do anything that obie asks

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 06, 2012 03:34 PM (QxSug)

363 360. Your ignorance is showing. Using Hayek to undermine the fiscal and constitutional conservative liberarian-republican, whether Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan. LOL

Posted by: panzernashorn at December 06, 2012 03:37 PM (BAnPT)

364 If we really going to "let it burn" then we need to make sure to protect what is left of America and what it stands for, such that it will be what grow from the ashes, much like the mighty redwood tree.

"The American Beauty Rose can grow in all its splendor, only by nipping the early buds that grow around it."

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 06, 2012 03:38 PM (XvHmy)

365 One last thought. One lousy 15 second commercial with people standing in line to sign up for unemployment benefits, standing in line at a soup kitchen, packing belongings, one house with a 'Foreclosure' sign in front of it, ending with 'Four More Years?' at the end.

Drive the people who work for a living -- who actually fund this monstrosity of a government, who have families they need to support for the next couple of decades to the polls. Fear can be a powerful motivator.

The most powerful movies I've ever watched can create fear in mere seconds. Sometimes it's merely a shadow passing across an actor/actresses face.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at December 06, 2012 03:39 PM (feFL6)

366 Your ignorance is showing. Using Hayek to undermine
the fiscal and constitutional conservative liberarian-republican,
whether Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan. LO Posted by: panzernashorn at December 06, 2012 03:37 PM (BAnPT)


I think you have a reading comprehension problem. There was a point-counterpoint thing going on there, compare and contrast. I admit, that's an advanced literary technique that I thought Morons could handle.

The Hayek rejoinder was clearly for the Dems.

You might want to read it again in that light.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 06, 2012 03:39 PM (sbV1u)

367 say this for party loyalty, the donks will do anything that obie asks
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is because they punish anyone that doesn't go along.
The GOP only bashes Conservatives and rewards RINOs who spit in their face.

Posted by: Hard Right at December 06, 2012 03:40 PM (uhftQ)

368 <Put that on a plaque, Ace. Brilliant conclusion. And for the Davids, put
it on an iron brand and chase 'em down like rabid dogs.>

An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths


/... from a Glenn.

Posted by: panzernashorn at December 06, 2012 03:40 PM (BAnPT)

369 In Sacramento California, the Tea Party group specifically says its not about any social issues, and that its not even Republican.

So it can outreach to fiscon Dems, who still exist in pockets. (Man, we bitch about our party not listening, how do those guys feel?)

Posted by: Sexypig at December 06, 2012 03:41 PM (dZQh7)

370 Welch engages in the same kind of laziness as commenters who latch onto hackneyed, meaningless phrases like "fiscal cliff" without having a clue what the term means.

Welch could start by giving concrete examples of the ideas/dogmas he is calling out in paragraph 3.

Precisely what beliefs has this [non-existent, btw]"tea party" espoused that he finds so flaky? What is so flaky about "Taxed Enough Already?" Is he really trying to say "birther" instead?

I had an argument with my nephew's girlfriend the other night about compromise in politics. She, like so many other dumbass Americans, couldn't/wouldn't see that "meeting in the middle" and "compromise" is notsomething you should demand [or expect] of an elected leaderif it is readily apparent to anyone who would give it a moment's thought that the middle ground is 100 miles farther to the left than fiscal-sanity ground. I told her that by demanding "compromise," she's demanding that we settle somewhere between Greece and France, instead of traveling back to something that's actually sustainable. In return, I received a blank stare. Sadly, this girl actually gets it that there will be no money left when she's 65, but she's nearly 30 and doesn't understand where thegovernment spends money (she thinks cutting off foreign aid will balance the budget).

Posted by: the other coyote at December 06, 2012 03:42 PM (yK44T)

371 Uh, looking back fifty years to the Left's long march through the institutions and their eventual capture of what looks like a permanent majority, can anyone now look me in the eye and tell me the Birchers were really wrong?

Posted by: SGT Dan at December 06, 2012 03:44 PM (jCQ+I)

372 wooga

you're talking conservatism as just a generic anti-state position, which i don't think applies to everything

Posted by: JDP at December 06, 2012 03:46 PM (60GaT)

373
Ace has failed to change my mind about what it is....

Posted by: It's A Satanic Conspiracy! It WILL Burn at December 06, 2012 03:51 PM (DcKTG)

374
I have a question...

George Washington's diary, August 7, 1765: "— began to separate the male from
the female hemp at Do — rather too late."

Why did George Washington want to seperate the male flowers from the female flowers? Who does that? Why would anyone wish they had virgin sinsemilla flowers, you can't sow next years crop with that crap.

Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 03:54 PM (TULs6)

375 Spot-on analysis, Ace. fwiw, recently I had some leftist tool posing as a former conservative on facebook bemoan the good old days of Buckley before these horrid "Tea Baggers" took over the GOP so maybe this is the new WH/Media Matters/msnbc talking point.

Posted by: danishova at December 06, 2012 03:54 PM (twzzy)

376 To make it worse, some people in our party, even popular bloggers, find
it necessary to go along with the mischaracterization in order to build
their "credibility".



Name them. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Posted by: Shoot Me at December 06, 2012 03:54 PM (qiXMt)

377 Let it burn.

Posted by: trailortrash at December 06, 2012 03:55 PM (xllDV)

378 I'll just come out and say it (or, actually, steal it from someone else that said it first): we lost the last two presidential elections because we ran far right wing, conspiracy theory candidates! <sarcasm>

William F.Buckley was the balls, but "leader" of the Republican Party? Uh-huh.

Posted by: steve walsh at December 06, 2012 03:55 PM (ANvDa)

379
I just can't imagine what anyone might do with a virgin hemp flower.

Has no effect on the plant fiber whether or not the flower was fertilized. Doesn't make the rope any stronger.

Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 03:55 PM (TULs6)

380 Stop spending the future generation's money = JBS

Yup, he's angling for some sweet Brooks/Frum/McCainburger gig on TV.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at December 06, 2012 04:00 PM (UU0OF)

381 There's a smokescreen - and that's the idea of a "Democratic" Party and a "Republican" Party. There are only two parties that count: The Ruling Class Party and The Rest Of Us Party.

Bozos like Welch are firmly in the Ruling Class Party. Don't rock the boat, send your money to Washington, DC, where it can be distributed by the Tribunes Of The People to those most in need, that is, to people like David Frum and David Welch.

T(axed) E(nough) A(lready)? Shut up and open your wallets, serfs. That's the message coming loud and clear from the DC-NY corridor.

Posted by: mrp at December 06, 2012 04:01 PM (HjPtV)

382 366. "The Hayek rejoinder was clearly for the Dems."

Yes. I saw initially what you might have MEANT to say, but which is not as you wrote having previously chained as lunatics together libertarians to democrats.

If it's charitable comprehension you expect, or mutual respect, then dish it out.

"It basically comes down to respect. Do you respect the people with whom
you have disagreements? If you respect them, you may disagree with a
particular position of idea, but you do not disapprove of them
personally." Otherwise, "you're merely trying to pummel." So, how well does ace, for instance, mean that? Only when the criticism applies to others?

To date, the typical moron's kneejerk response to the Libertarian-Republican platform is based on ignorant bias, poor research based not from the horse's mouth but on antagonists' ridicule, such as propagandizing "Voodoo economics" according to George H. W. Bush, for instance.

Don't stay stuck on stupid, defaming the libertarian-conservative out of habit. And remember that contrary to what derogatory comments regurgitated too frequently, I'm not the only libertarian-conservative that does not smoke pot or cigarettes or do drugs or even drink alcohol. Those I bother to research certainly lead exemplary lives.

Posted by: panzernashorn at December 06, 2012 04:01 PM (BAnPT)

383
There is no single solution to what ails us, and one thing won't fix it. Don't tell Herr Doktor Paul that, however.

He would agree with you, moron. But you're too busy bashing around the straw man you made to be bothered talking to him.

Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 04:02 PM (TULs6)

384 Message to RNC: "Sod off, you elitist prigs!"
Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: MtTB at December 06, 2012 04:02 PM (8E9QA)

385 It takes a great deal more courage and integrity to position yourself on the Right than it does the left. The left is about pandering, special interests, and class warfare. The Right, conversely, is about self-respect, self-reliance, and responsibility for ones actions, both in failure and in success. It is the perceived strength of communal group think at the expense of individual liberty vs. the ideal that the stars are the limit, and they're available to everyone who puts in the time and effort.

When one switches from the Right to the left, it is clear to me that they can no longer accept the consequences of their failure. They need the group hug to tell them everything will be okay, so long as they don't interfere with the group dynamic. Leave your individuality at the door, and come on in. Speak only about what has been pre-approved for group consumption.

It is the epitome of cowardliness.

It is self-loathing; a character weakness. And it's why those who make that switch -while potentially increasing their financial worth to the limits set by the group- never weild any real influence.

And it's why those who go the other way -that have the epiphany and break free of the limits of group think and glass ceilings- become true warriors for good and stand out among their peers. Read: Andrew Breitbart.

Posted by: bkeyser at December 06, 2012 04:07 PM (OsxDX)

386
a taxsystem premised on progressivity devolves into a grossly unfair system-and one that fails to raise adequate revenue at anything other than absolutely confiscatory levels. A debate about who is rich enough to afford taxes permits government office seekers to pit one group against another for the office seeker's personal political advantage.
all current proposals amount to raising someone's taxes or curtailing someone's benefits (a left-handed tax increase). if the problem is fundamentally one of gov't expenditure, the automatic sequester is the only fair choice- because it's accross the board; the automatic increase in everyone's rate is the best first step toward fairness, because it affects everyone (most nearly)

Posted by: wm flip at December 06, 2012 04:07 PM (lB/5N)

387
Uh, looking back fifty years to the Left's long march through the institutions and their eventual capture of what looks like a permanent majority, can anyone now look me in the eye and tell me the Birchers were really wrong?

The Birchers are the Tea Party, the Tea Party is the Birchers. At least, the Birchers were the 1940 Tea Party or whatever. And they had their O'Donnell's too.

But as far as what they were, and were meant to be? Same fucking thing. One is the other. And they suffer the same fate.

The Birch Society was just supposed to be a social organization where regular people from all walks of life could get together on a local level and discuss politics and philosophy. It was meant to get people together so they could share information and help each other.

That kind of community organizing could be disasterous to statists.

Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 04:09 PM (TULs6)

388 #387, the problem is that Buckley cut the legs out from under them, and the conservative establishment spent forty years pooh-poohing the idea that the Left would infiltrate and take over. No one else held the line to keep the Lefties out. No one "respectable", clutching copies of "God And Man At Yale"thought the other side had a plan. Guess what? They fucking did. Now they hold all the bureaucratic levers of power, from school boards to the "likely Obama voters" behind desks at the DMV all the way up to the gerrymandered Congressional districts that allow Sheila Jackson Lee and Hank "Guam Tipover" Johnson to face no realistic opposition.
At this point, with the dumbing down of the American people thanks to the government schools, I realistically think that it's man the lifeboats, she's gonna sink time.

Posted by: SGT Dan at December 06, 2012 04:43 PM (jCQ+I)

389 Yup. I don't want it not to sink.

Posted by: entropy at December 06, 2012 04:50 PM (TULs6)

390 Mitt ROMNEY IS AN HONORABLE MAN THAT WOULD HAVE MADE A GREAT PRESIDENT. IF NOTHING ELSE I WOULD PAINT HIM FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY MODERATE. WHERE I BELIEVE MOST AMERICANS REALLY ARE.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF ITSELF.

Posted by: gonzotx at December 06, 2012 05:09 PM (4CQjf)

391
@62: "Burn the media? I wish I knew how"

The how is easy. You simply lack the will.

Posted by: Vladimir Putin at December 06, 2012 06:28 PM (FsqHK)

392 I cant wait until 2016 and the republican establisment nominates Lyndsey Graham, or Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins.

Posted by: retired military at December 06, 2012 06:52 PM (LdEvS)

393 "the Republican establishment and its . . . conservatism"

I found that phrase in the dictionary under the definition of "oxymoron" as example 1.

Posted by: Ken at December 06, 2012 07:38 PM (3ar4L)

394 Didn't read the whole thing, but he's right that we need another Buckley. There are a lot of web-based newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc. that get way more play on the right than they should. I'm not saying more media outlets is a bad thing, but with more media outlets people also need to choose which ones they give credence to responsibly. For example, National Review puts as its point men on immigration not just folks who dislike illegal immigration, but those who want to cut legal immigration as well. That's a terrible choice. Another example - folks like to Gateway Pundit way too much. That blog started out good, and then went batsh*t crazy during the Obama years.

This is more of a problem with conservative pundits and publications than it is with candidates, I think. Anyone can run for the GOP primary, usually the crazier ones don't win. It's the party apparatus that needs to be more involved in getting good candidates to run - particularly for President, but also at the lower offices.

It's also not a "Tea Party" problem - that's just lazy analysis. The Tea Party is an amorphous concept at best - anyone can latch onto it. Because there's not real form to the idea, it gives us some crazy candidates, but also gives us Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and others.

The problem is not the "Tea Party," or conservative vs. moderate. The problem is finding smart people who have actually thought about the issues at stake rather than dumb people who can't do much more than parrot talking points and demagogue on issues.

Posted by: Dan at December 06, 2012 08:00 PM (kfRJh)

395 >>Let me just clear this up for the idiots: Conspiracy theorizing is a
form of magical thinking ... and as such is irrational...
---
Ace, you drove a wooden stake into my heart.

It's gonna be alright. I am good with LHO shots from the book repository now, really.

Posted by: Theory Slut at December 06, 2012 08:06 PM (VMcEw)

396 109 Only Democrats care about skin color
-
This means only Democrat wishes on race will be carried out, since nobody else cares (or admits caring).

What's a racial issue in the 21st century? Everything that relates to who gets what, how and why. In other words the totality of politics, including who gets to be the President, a theory that the Lightworker just proved in practice.

Chronic mass immigration plus forced integration and assimilation (for the Whites, as the non-Whites are free to play identity politics) is genocidal for the Whites. In the long run, it predictably, obviously means that there'll be nobody White left.

Who do you think is going to support any kind of conservative politics or any cause you care about then? Hint: it's not mostly Blacks that support conservative causes.

The left are blatant now that they intend to win this way. They gloat about it. And Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn have written about it. Demography is destiny.

Care (and admit caring) or die - and let die every cause you care about.

Posted by: The Lightworker at December 06, 2012 08:44 PM (EE56y)

397 Gah, sorry, wrong thread.

Posted by: The Lightworker at December 06, 2012 08:50 PM (EE56y)

398 The guy who posts that "Only Democrats care about skin color" thing does it in a variety of threads though, so anyway, that's my general answer. I just have to not have more than one Ace of Spades HQ window open at the time when I reply.

Posted by: The Lightworker at December 06, 2012 08:53 PM (EE56y)

399 For the Left, everything is going according to plan. But we're the wackos for pointing out their plan.



Posted by: The John Birch Society at December 06, 2012 11:34 PM (h+iQ9)

400 399 For the Left, everything is going according to plan. But we're the wackos for pointing out their plan.

Posted by: The John Birch Society at December 06, 2012 11:34 PM (h+iQ9)
-
This.

I used to think Pat Buchanan was a fool too, but a lot of what he said turned out to be right.

It's not the wise words of those with foresight that change our foolish minds; it's experience, and seeing the bad guys win, and hearing them gloat about how they won - exactly the way the prophets we ignored warned us they would.

Posted by: The Lightworker at December 07, 2012 12:04 AM (T2Qmg)

401 Our two biggest problems:
1. The media, which defames conservatism to the cheers of the GOP Establishment.
2. Treachery. The D.C. toilets (i.e., Johns) : Boehner and Roberts; the GOP/Romney who actively delegitimized Tea Partiers/conservatives to appeal to...well, someone;

Keep fighting, because Providence might (for a fucking change) cast a sympathetic eye toward the people who at least try to live right. After all, it happened at Valley Forge, Midway, and Omaha Beach. But given recent history, don't hold your breath.

Posted by: LeftCoastCon at December 07, 2012 12:26 AM (cQurE)

402 I'm getting it: the GOP does not want my vote; I'm not One of Them.

OK. So how should I vote? Though I have voted Libertarian, I'm not actually one. I guess we'll just need a new party. Lets go back to before everything got screwed up, that is, before the Hanoverian Usurpation. Why not the Jacobite Restoration Party?

If that's not to your liking, why not revive the Optimates?

Posted by: George LeS at December 07, 2012 12:45 AM (C4s3i)

403 If the Democraps and media demonize the tea party.. The GOP "leadership" wants to purge the tea party..

I'm pretty sure I want more Tea Party.

Posted by: Ryan at December 07, 2012 01:11 AM (5gik7)

404 Will someone rid me of the RNC ?

Posted by: burtdn at December 07, 2012 07:02 AM (8kEad)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0805 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0239 seconds, 413 records returned.
Page size 264 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

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

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