Reinterpreting The "Buckley Rule" To Argue For Nelson Rockefeller Over Barry Goldwater

Spend enough time on the internet and you'll see everything.

Avik Roy writing at National Review's The Corner takes on one of conservatism's most sacred cows.

But it’s worth pointing out that the landslide defeat of Goldwater to Lyndon Johnson led to the enactment of the Great Society, and most notably, Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, the very fiscal crisis we face today — for which, at our most courageous, we recommend but modest reforms — was a direct result of the disastrous Goldwater campaign.

We may all prefer the policies of Goldwater to those of Rockefeller. But it’s at least debatable whether or not the conservative movement was better off, or worse off, for having nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. Indeed, the 1964 election may be the most salient example of what happens when we don’t pick the most conservative candidate who can win.


This is heresy of the highest order to conservatives. Personally, I find anyone who doesn't have a bit of heresy in their arsenal but I prefer it to be somewhat more grounded in reality.

My biggest problem with this formulation is that in the aftermath of John F. Kennedy's assassination Rockefeller had any more of a chance against Lyndon Johnson than Barry Goldwater did. There's simply no reason to believe that's true.

I pointed this out to Roy and he replied


Aside from the movement of the goal posts this ignores a major fact.... despite popular belief the Social Security Act amendments of 1965 that created Medicare and Medicaid passed with significant (near majority) support of Republicans in Congress.
The House adopted a conference report -- a unified House-Senate version of the bill -- on July 27, 1965, and passed it by a 307-116 margin. That included 70 Republican "yes" votes, against 68 "no" votes.

Then, on July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the bill by a vote of 70-24, with 13 Republicans in favor and 17 against. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it two days later.


How would the nomination of the more liberal and thus more "electable" Rockefeller have led to more conservative Republicans in Congress?

More inconvenient for Roy's argument is Rockefeller supported the creation of Medicare before the 64 election.

When the second session of the 88th Congress convened in January 1962, a major administration push for Medicare got underway. Reports at that time indicated that the President's strategy was to obtain floor action in both houses of Congress, if possible, even if there were not enough votes for passage. The President was said to have concluded that the issue was popular with the voters (Gallup polls showed public support running as high as 69 percent); in the fall campaign, the President was expected to make Medicare his "cutting edge issue"-- the symbol of his whole New Frontier program.

As the session progressed, a feeling of optimism developed among Medicare supporters. The polls continued to show strong public approval. Grass-roots pressures continued to build and mail from constituents was running heavy and favorable. The President was regularly questioned about Medicare in his press conferences. Other administration spokesmen maintained a busy speechmaking schedule. Indications that the administration was willing to make reasonable compromises also improved the congressional attitude, as did a disappointing report, in May, on the first 18 months of the Kerr-Mills Act. The report showed that only a little more than half the States had put the program into operation and only 88,000 elderly people had been helped, mainly in four States.

Another hopeful sign was a split among Republicans and hints of flexibility on the part of the AMA. First, Representative Frank T. Bow (Republican of Ohio) introduced a bill (H.R. 10755) to grant income tax credits of up to $125 a year for persons over age 65, toward the purchase of specified types of private health insurance. (Those who paid less than $125 a year in taxes would have received compensatory "certificates" from the Government.) Soon afterward, Representative John V. Lindsay (Republican of New York) introduced a bill (H.R. 11253) on behalf of Governor Nelson Rockefeller embracing the social security financing mechanism but including a private insurance option. Even more significant was a similar shift by a group of Republicans in the Senate, led by Senator Javits. This group introduced a new bill (S. 2664), calling for social security financing of a program providing three benefit options, one of which, as in the Lindsay bill, would have permitted beneficiaries to use private insurance. (24)


The ever helpful "moderates" always splitting the Republicans to help the liberals.

As Governor,Rockefeller was an early proponent for NY joining Medicaid and not surprisingly he loved to spend.

These federal dollars are a huge incentive for states to expand their health-care initiatives. And when Medicaid was new, nobody extended his hand to the federal till more enthusiastically than New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, who wanted his state to offer the most lavish Medicaid benefits in the country. Rocky also asked New York cities and counties to contribute half of the program’s nonfederal costs—meaning that state lawmakers could drive up spending using federal and local dollars without assuming the full brunt of the fiscal or political cost. Medicaid spending immediately shot far beyond even Rockefeller’s grandiose expectations. In 1966, his administration estimated that annual Medicaid costs would be $80 million; by 1969, they had exploded to $330 million.

This is who Roy thinks is a cautionary tale in the moderate vs. conservative debate?

If we're going to drag history into today's Establishment vs. tea party wars, at least let's be accurate about that history.

Posted by: DrewM. at 01:32 PM



Comments

1 where did I just see this exact post?


It's deja vu all over again.

Posted by: imp at February 13, 2013 01:33 PM (UaxA0)

2 Just shoot me.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 13, 2013 01:34 PM (wbmaj)

3 "Personally, I find anyone who doesn't have a bit of heresy in their
arsenal but I prefer it to be somewhat more grounded in reality."

This sentence makes no sense, consider revising.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at February 13, 2013 01:35 PM (0q2P7)

4
OK, I'll write it again.


I'm lookingupon the Sequestration as a teeny-SMOD.


Bring it, baby, we're ready.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 13, 2013 01:37 PM (jTKU5)

5 Personally, I find anyone who doesn't have a bit of heresy in their
arsenal but I prefer it to be somewhat more grounded in reality."

________________

Right now I would like some Hennessy in my arsenal...

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 01:38 PM (r2PLg)

6
Who is Johnson??? And Rockefeller ????

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuushhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Dancing with the Stars is on.

Posted by: Product of Public Education Millenials at February 13, 2013 01:38 PM (nELVU)

7

Makes sense.

It'll help the GOP shake it's 'party of the white rich man' image.

oh wait...

Posted by: soothsayer at February 13, 2013 01:39 PM (qpM85)

8 It wouldn't have. This is a false argument and is basically trying to undo the SCOAMFING of America's resistance movement that sprung up in response to 30 years of new deal policy.

Prior to FDR we never had a catastrophic downturn last more than 18 months....we had a stagnant period in the late 1890s but no "great depression"...

the state wants to micromanage every aspect of creation and thinks it can do it cheaply.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 13, 2013 01:40 PM (LRFds)

9 Sea slug has disposable penis.

Posted by: eleven at February 13, 2013 01:41 PM (KXm42)

10 It's true, the evil that vexes us existed before Google.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at February 13, 2013 01:41 PM (epxV4)

11
Avik Roy
Mitt Romney advisor
writing at National Review



And we're surprised by his position why now?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2013 01:41 PM (kdS6q)

12 National RINO Review or rather National CINO Review at it's best. Not a fan of Roy.

Personally, I like: .223; .308; .45ACP; and 12Gauge in my arsenal.

Posted by: Jim Scrummy at February 13, 2013 01:42 PM (sbV1u)

13 Presidential campaigns are so infrequent that it is hard to say what could have been more successful. I mean, I advocate that my position/preferred candidate would have done much better and perhaps won, but I can't ever know that.

Would Rockefeller have beaten Johnson? I don't know. And whenI compare what happened to Johnson's fortunes between 1964 and 1968, well, I know for sure I can't say if a different candidate would have produced a different result.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Penguins! They're Everywhere! at February 13, 2013 01:42 PM (hLRSq)

14

besides, arguing policy = fuckin that chicken

the GOP has a branding/marketing problem with an electorate that. does. not. give. two. shits. about. policy.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 13, 2013 01:42 PM (uaJ2E)

15 This sentence makes no sense, consider revising.

I think he left out "cannot", as in "cannot find anyone who doesn't have a bit of heresy ..."

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 13, 2013 01:43 PM (xGZ+b)

16 Northeastern Republicans are clearly the most successful. We should emulate them.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 13, 2013 01:43 PM (pmDdf)

17 Heavy post

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2013 01:43 PM (piMMO)

18 I was told there'd be no math, or history, or ... well .. anything but flying squids with longbows that slice like hammers on this smart military blog.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 13, 2013 01:43 PM (J8DGo)

19
As with anything involving National Review, I have to ask if Rich Lowry has ever rescinded his "Sharpton was right" post regarding the Trayvon Martin case. If he has not, then the magazine's credibility is zero.

Posted by: ejo at February 13, 2013 01:43 PM (GXvSO)

20 my brain is too tired

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2013 01:43 PM (piMMO)

21 So National Review is now arguing--"alt-reality"--there's probably enough Liberal ideas to battle but let's continue to highlight the Republican schism--now with --"Alt-Realities!!"

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 01:44 PM (r2PLg)

22 Don't forget, Goldwater's landslide defeat also produced Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, which is responsible for most the country's demographic change since then, and without which Barack Obama would never have become president.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at February 13, 2013 01:44 PM (2g9rv)

23
Half a dozen hours of no new posts and we get...

1964? Seriously?

Posted by: Jess1 at February 13, 2013 01:44 PM (lbiWb)

24 Strange as it sounds, I doubt very seriously if we'd have "The Great Society" national disaster if JFK hadn't been killed.

LBJ was in it for LBJ. He wanted to be FDR, a socialist/communist wartime preezy. He wanted the grand legacy.

Unfortunately for us, the MFM kept JFK's assassination on the front burner and went for the heart strings. It's also the time when the marxists were making definite inroads into our education system. The dems knew where their future voters were.

Posted by: Soona at February 13, 2013 01:45 PM (Edqzu)

25 Heh.
It's pretty funny to invoke the "Buckley Rule" in this particular case, given that Buckley was a huge Goldwater supporter.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 13, 2013 01:45 PM (C8mVl)

26 So the GOP has sucked for quite some time. I did not realize that.

Posted by: Zombie Johnny Carson at February 13, 2013 01:45 PM (zpqa2)

27
What we need is a team of marketing geniuses and a candidate who can sell stupid to Nancy Pelosi.

Policy, shmolicy.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 13, 2013 01:45 PM (b8TXQ)

28 The President of United States was using dead children's names as a shout out cheerleading rallying cry to defeat the ideas of Republicans but hey--let's write about this schtuff.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 01:45 PM (r2PLg)

29 I'm pretty close to just ditching the word "moderate." As it's defined in modern parlance, "moderate" is just another word for "passive liberal."

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:46 PM (4df7R)

30 16 Bevel L,

Yup and their smashing success in no way lends itself to understanding that a liberal "opposition" party simply gives the democrats permission to go full 'tard

Posted by: sven10077 at February 13, 2013 01:47 PM (LRFds)

31
"Goldwater's landslide defeat also produced Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act"
Despite the media's fawning Kennedy a$$licking, the truth is that he had little/nothing to do w/the bill. Oh, and the election was LBJ's to lose - no Republican was going to win, regardless.

Posted by: Jess1 at February 13, 2013 01:47 PM (lbiWb)

32 President--*insert murdered child's name here* let's get our way and get our vote!

(Democrat strategist: Pompoms? Naaa too much--Democrats standing and cheering--go with it!!)

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 01:48 PM (r2PLg)

33 Speaking of Immigration, one thing Rubio didn't touch on is the other false choice we've been offered, between the Status Quo and Amnesty.

Suppose we enforced the law instead? A lot of the strain on social services would disappear, millions of jobs would be opened to American workers during an economic crisis, and the new taxpayers would shore up the system. The only losers would be lawbreakers and those who have profitted in some way from the lawbreakers.

Why aren't we talking about this?

Posted by: Cato at February 13, 2013 01:48 PM (VUMBl)

34

Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com


Former Texas congressman Ron Paul has filed a complaint with the
World Intellectual Property Organization in a bid to take over
RonPaul.com, a website founded in 2008 by the former presidential
campaign's supporters.


According to a blog post on the group's site, supporters had
offered the congressman use of RonPaul.org — another domain owned by
supporters — free of charge. They also proposed selling RonPaul.com and
the group's mailing list to the foamier congressman for a quarter of a
million dollars.


"Instead of responding to our offer, making a counter offer, or
even accepting our free gift of RonPaul.org, Ron Paul went to the United
Nations and is trying to use its legal process related to domain name
disputes to actively deport us from our domain names without
compensation," the owners write.

Posted by: Boutros Boutros-Ghali at February 13, 2013 01:49 PM (e8kgV)

35 26: Yeah I'm amazed at the revisionist history of "going back" to this idealized conservative GOP that never actually existed.

The conservative movement didn't become one with the GOP until Reagan. It started as the "Tea Party" of its day against the big government Rockefeller Republicans.

Posted by: BSR at February 13, 2013 01:49 PM (CBCxo)

36
we mock them for using the phrase "common sense reform"

but that shit works

Posted by: soothsayer at February 13, 2013 01:49 PM (uaJ2E)

37 Let us not forget that it was those rat bastardRockefeller people who were behind the "in your guts, you know he's nuts" smear of Goldwater, either. Nixon was wrong about a lot of things, but he was right that the Coddington Van Voorhees IV wing of the party is what dooms it from governing in a truly conservative manner.

Nelson Rockefeller was good at two things:
1. Banging his "research assistant."

2. http://tinyurl.com/d2vmzra

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 13, 2013 01:50 PM (zF6Iw)

38 We may all prefer the policies of Goldwater to those of Rockefeller. But
it’s at least debatable whether or not the conservative movement was
better off, or worse off, for having nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Indeed, the 1964 election may be the most salient example of what
happens when we
don’t pick the most conservative candidate who can win.

Right now there's an underground generator connected to Bill Buckely's grave. The grave is currently spinning fast enough that generator is creating enough energy to meet the demands of National Review's home office.

Avik Roy rejected the offer for the free electricity, deeming the electrons too conservative.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at February 13, 2013 01:50 PM (MrneO)

39 I believe he misses the point. Well actually, he grazes it.

Most pertinent to this conversation is the internecine warfare. Instead of talking to each other, we talk past each other. Everyone believes they solely possess the keys to the future, but neither do. Each faction sets off on a separate agenda, criticizing the other factions publicly and privately. They waste money, effort and watch the country slip from their grip as each professes the superiority or wisdom of their approach.

Then, like now, we will lose and lose big due to our own stupidity as a party. For that I blame everyone- whether "centrist, conservative, establishment" or any other silly, derogatory names we have for our collective party members.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. And once again the Republican Party has prove that to be a truism.

Posted by: Marcus at February 13, 2013 01:50 PM (GGCsk)

40 For some reason, recent events have me thinking a lot of this song...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=88HJnar9e8w




Posted by: Tex's Assaultin' Batteries at February 13, 2013 01:50 PM (wtvvX)

41 Cato, If we just restricted welfare, food stamps, and access to emergency rooms to US citizens only, we would be halfway to a solution.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 13, 2013 01:51 PM (39GM8)

42 I think it pointless to argue about alternate history.

We are where we are now, and going back over Rockefeller vs. Goldwater is pointless. Besides, Rockefeller might have died in office with his heart condition, or his mistress might have been revealed during his campaign (giving LBJ the win, anyway) or any one of a hundred other things.

The most interesting thing I have heard today is that no matter how bad things get, Obama is never blamed for it by a large section of the electorate. Rush said it is because he is always campaigning against "sinister forces" and is never seen as governing.

This is sort of how Chavez operates. So I think we should be thinking more along those lines, since I am firmly convinced they will nominate Michelle.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 13, 2013 01:51 PM (GoIUi)

43
Excellent post Drew.

I can only add I never really liked the "if the butterfly's wings beat a second later the hurricane would have happened elsewhere" thinking. Roy does that in spades.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2013 01:52 PM (p/cQy)

44 Hmmmm.......


*sniff sniff*



I don't detect the aroma of sanctimony in this thread.....yet. I think I'll stay.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:52 PM (da5Wo)

45 hmmmm you know, Roy just might be an idiot.

Posted by: vote Lord Humungus 2016 at February 13, 2013 01:52 PM (HEa5q)

46 I think the world view of the moderate Republican is much more in line with the liberal persuasion than the conservative. The moderate Republican does not understand the conservative any more than the liberal Democrat does.

Posted by: Harry at February 13, 2013 01:52 PM (ib4tw)

47 RonPaul, the..."foamier"...congressman?
You said a mouthful, bub.

Posted by: comatus at February 13, 2013 01:52 PM (qaVK+)

48 Isn't Kasich following the Rockefeller example with Ohio/Zerocare?

Posted by: assault logprof at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (4pNjZ)

49 So the GOP has sucked for quite some time. I did not realize that.

The GOP went to hell the day Leon Czolgosz put a bullet through McKinley's head. Coolidge, Ike and Reaganwere the last speedbumps on the road to hell.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (zF6Iw)

50 I fail to see how Goldwater has any responsibility for Johnson's policies.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (P7hip)

51
what's most amazing to me is that I hear no one saying hey let's restart those Tea Party rallies again and re-ignite the spark and energy we had in '09-'10

Posted by: soothsayer at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (/eLjI)

52 22 Don't forget, Goldwater's landslide defeat also produced Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, which is responsible for most the country's demographic change since then, and without which Barack Obama would never have become president.


The bill passed the House 326-70 and the Senate 76-18.

In both houses, more Democrats voted against the bill than Republicans.

I don't see how you can pin this on Goldwater.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (ytax8)

53 hmmmm you know, Roy just might be an idiot.
Posted by: vote Lord Humungus 2016 at February 13, 2013 01:52 PM (HEa5q) [


You noticed that, too, huh? There's definitely something off about this Roy fellow.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (4df7R)

54 LBJ would have won in a landslide no matter what.
The JFK assassination really traumatized the country and people didn't want to bother with another change of prezzy.

The value of having Goldwater run was that you had someone who could present a genuinely conservative message to the country, a message that really hadn't been heard on the national stage since Coolidge.
Goldwater's candidacy did wonders to inspire conservatism and libertarianism.


Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 13, 2013 01:54 PM (C8mVl)

55 Personally, I think it's high time we seriously debate the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.

Posted by: ukuleledave at February 13, 2013 01:54 PM (m4Hih)

56 I think I'll stay.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:52 PM (da5Wo)


Pull up a chair and grab a cookie from the plate. Pepperidge Farm Milanos. I came prepared today,

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:55 PM (4df7R)

57 Roy is also the founder of Roy Healthcare Research, an investment research firm in New York. Previously, he served as an analyst and portfolio manager at J.P. Morgan, Bain Capital, and other firms.

Sounds like an elitist.

Posted by: Invictus at February 13, 2013 01:55 PM (OQpzc)

58 Goldwater was 'too extreme'. Always gives me a chuckle when the 'media' uses that phrase. Because they're OK with 'extreme'. Just don't overdo it.

Posted by: hannitys_Great American Assault_hybrid at February 13, 2013 01:55 PM (zpqa2)

59 Whole point would be moot if they hadn't pulled the rug from under Thomas Dewey. We never talk about that.

Posted by: comatus at February 13, 2013 01:55 PM (qaVK+)

60 Headhunters/cannibalsate Michael Rockefeller. New Guinea. 1961. I'm certain of it.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (wbmaj)

61 #35 - Indeed. As #37 correctly points out, "secbanging" and drinking (fruit juice cough syrup) were (R) priorities...

Posted by: Jess1 at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (lbiWb)

62 Steyn is pretty much all I read at NRO anymore, except for the occasional linky I get. The Deroy Murdock column about the police was excellent, though, but he (and Sowell and "Dunphy") aren't as regular.

Posted by: assault logprof at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (4pNjZ)

63
Personally, I think it's high time we seriously debate the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.
Posted by: ukuleledave




I demand a slap-fight over the borders of the Oregon Territory.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (kdS6q)

64 Pull up a chair and grab a cookie from the plate. Pepperidge Farm Milanos. I came prepared today,

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:55 PM (4df7R)

Oh damn....
*nomnomnomnom*

Loooooove milanos. Double stuff are ridiculous.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (da5Wo)

65 What this Country needs is a good 5 cent cigar.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 13, 2013 01:57 PM (wbmaj)

66 They must be worried if they feel the need to get this early of a start polluting the water against any real conservatives.

Posted by: Invictus at February 13, 2013 01:57 PM (OQpzc)

67 Oh fuck you pixy.





And thanks MWR!

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:57 PM (da5Wo)

68 Is Avik Roy a Thought Leader?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 13, 2013 01:57 PM (BuSM8)

69 what's most amazing to me is that I hear no one
saying hey let's restart those Tea Party rallies again and re-ignite the
spark and energy we had in '09-'10

Posted by: soothsayer at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (/eLjI)

I think everyone's waiting for a different type of ignition.

Posted by: hannitys_Great American Assault_hybrid at February 13, 2013 01:57 PM (zpqa2)

70 Left unvoiced here is that the 1964 election wasn't decided on the basis of which candidate was going to support or oppose Medicare.

What it really came down to was that Goldwater took a rhetorical hard line against communism (at the time on the ascendant internationally), and the LBJ campaign team cynically seized on that and tarred him as a reckless warmonger. Using such crude but effective means as the "Daisy" television ad.

Johnson explicitly ran and won as the "peace candidate". A peace candidate who would shortly thereafter end up miring the country in the Vietnam War.

Rather as Johnson's idol FDR had damned Republicans as war promoters, and solemnly pledged to the voters that "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars," and then ended up doing precisely that with those boys.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 13, 2013 01:57 PM (gqT4g)

71 Nelson Rockefeller died in the saddle. That's a fact.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 13, 2013 01:58 PM (wbmaj)

72 Personally, I think it's high time we seriously debate the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.Posted by: ukuleledaveI demand a slap-fight over the borders of the Oregon Territory.....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (kdS6q)


Pikers. We're long overdue a national conversation on the outlandish cost of the Louisiana Purchase.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:58 PM (4df7R)

73 BREAKING: Revealed- the new-term FLOTUS domestic campaign featuring posters ofa finger-wagging and scowlingFirst Lady placed in various locations, such as at-risk High Schools and the corners ofinner-city grocery stores. Captions such as "Pull up your trousers!" "Keep it in your pants!" and "Quit actin' like a fool!" amongst many other helpful phrases have been well recieved by various pundits and celebrities.

"Its like they really are our Mom and Dad," said actor-comedian Chris Rock, "And we ought to listen to them."

Posted by: Bigby's Hitching Thumb at February 13, 2013 01:58 PM (3ZtZW)

74
Hell, if you are going to go back in time to change things, why not change the electoral theft of Illinois by Chicago Democratic Criminals in the Kennedy/Nixon Election.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2013 01:58 PM (p/cQy)

75 Remember, these are the people who will be selling Jeb Bush '16. Rubio's speech last night was about positioning him for "his turn" (not quite yet).

Posted by: Ken at February 13, 2013 01:58 PM (fFh95)

76 Hoover could have ridden back in on a white horse in 36 and cancelled the second half of the New Deal if it weren't for that pesky radical Alf Landon. Blame Alf!

Posted by: comatus at February 13, 2013 01:58 PM (qaVK+)

77 Pikers. We're long overdue a national conversation on the outlandish cost of the Louisiana Purchase.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:58 PM (4df7R)



$7 million dollars?? For a useless frozen wasteland????

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:59 PM (da5Wo)

78 Rockefeller v. Goldwater? A PhD in medieval studies sure would be handy right about now...

Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2013 01:59 PM (FcR7P)

79 Loooooove milanos. Double stuff are ridiculous.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (da5Wo)


Milanos are my weakness. I have to avert my eyes when i pass them in the grocery store aisle, lest I buy the whole damn shelf of them.

You're welcome!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:59 PM (4df7R)

80 As #37 correctly points out, "secbanging" and drinking (fruit juice cough syrup) were (R) priorities...
Posted by: Jess1 at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (lbiWb)


Wait, they're not priorities anymore? Fuck it, I'm off to re-register as an independent.

Posted by: DC in Towson, assault human at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (vdr7S)

81 we mock them for using the phrase "common sense reform" but that shit works
----
I think we could use some reform reform more than anything

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (SO2Q8)

82 Pikers. We're long overdue a national conversation on the outlandish cost of the Louisiana Purchase.

Not until we get this whole Alien and Sedition Act kerfuffle straightened out, we're not.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (zF6Iw)

83 We want our beads back!

Posted by: The Dutch at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (FcR7P)

84 I can see from some of the commentors here why we find our nation in the situation it is in now.

Contrary to the popular belief of many here, the US existed prior to you being born.

In order to kill a pernicious weed, one needs to know something about the roots. If the roots aren't killed, the weed quickly revives.

Posted by: Soona at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (Edqzu)

85 60 Headhunters/cannibalsate Michael Rockefeller. New Guinea. 1961. I'm certain of it.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (wbmaj)

--That reminds me of a hilarious Yotube comment on one of the 0bama dog-eating videos: Good thing Obama's mother didn't move to New Guinea or he might have eaten Michael Rockefeller.

Posted by: assault logprof at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (4pNjZ)

86 64 Pull up a chair and grab a cookie from the plate. Pepperidge Farm Milanos. I came prepared today,

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:55 PM (4df7R)
Oh damn....
*nomnomnomnom*

Loooooove milanos. Double stuff are ridiculous.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (da5Wo)

Regular Milanos.

Let's duel.

It's on like Donkey Kong.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (r2PLg)

87 Milanos are my weakness. I have to avert my eyes
when i pass them in the grocery store aisle, lest I buy the whole damn
shelf of them.



You're welcome!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 01:59 PM (4df7R)


You should give the E.L.Fudge double stuff cookies a try. Or not.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (da5Wo)

88
Sounds like an elitist.
Posted by: Invictus




He grew up on the mean streets of Rochester Hills, Michigan.

You can't understand his world....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (kdS6q)

89 >>>I can only add I never really liked the "if the butterfly's wings beat a
second later the hurricane would have happened elsewhere" thinking.

It's like a jalapeno wrapped in squid wrapped in a tasty tortilla.

Posted by: Fritz at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (UzPAd)

90 $7 million dollars?? For a useless frozen wasteland????
Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:59 PM (da5Wo)


It's not even connected to the rest of the country, FFS!

Someone dig up Seward and kick him!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (4df7R)

91 Pikers. We're long overdue a national conversation on the outlandish cost of the Louisiana Purchase.

Forget the cost. It was unconstitutional!

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (NF2Bf)

92 C'mon you complainers - 1964 is a completely legit thing to talk about.

Since the GOP is history anyway, I mean.

Posted by: Bigby's Hitching Thumb at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (3ZtZW)

93 65 What this Country needs is a good 5 cent cigar.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 13, 2013 01:57 PM (wbmaj)

--As my late grandpop liked to joke, you can get a good 5-cent cigar; you just have to pay a dollar for it.

Posted by: assault logprof at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (4pNjZ)

94 should Republicans be against Medicare _in principle_, as opposed to wanting to change it to be more effective/solvent?

if it's the latter i dunno what's wrong with the suggestion that a more liberal Republican winning could've limited/stopped some of LBJ's worse initiatives, particularly pre-reform welfare.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (60GaT)

95 Loooooove milanos. Double stuff are ridiculous.


Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 01:56 PM (da5Wo)You should give the E.L.Fudge double stuff cookies a try. Or not.


Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (da5Wo)

Ok, wait just one cotton pickin' minute here......

How
can you eat those but when I suggested some honey in a hot drink for
your sore throat you told me you couldn't have honey because of your
diabetes?

Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (X6akg)

96 42 ----"...he is always campaigning against "sinister forces" and is never seen as governing.
This is sort of how Chavez operates. "

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 13, 2013 01:51 PM (GoIUi)
------------------------
THIS. And it is exactly how the Chavezes of the world do it.

(BTW, I wouldn't worry about Michelle running. She has no interest in this gig anymore. She wants MONEY, and that comes after they leave.)

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (C8mVl)

97
In order to kill a pernicious weed, one needs to know something about the roots. If the roots aren't killed, the weed quickly revives.

Posted by: Soona




"I am the night. I am BATMAN!"

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (kdS6q)

98
82
Pikers. We're long overdue a national conversation on the outlandish cost of the Louisiana Purchase.



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

Not until we get this whole Alien and Sedition Act kerfuffle straightened out, we're not.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 13, 2013 02:00 PM (zF6Iw)


Fuck it. Burn the whole thing down. Oh. Wait. That would be wrong, wouldn't it?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (da5Wo)

99 The JFK assasination also traumatized the teenage intern, Mimi Alford, he was nailing in 63.

Posted by: Fourth Virginia at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (wbmaj)

100 Good points, Drew.

Revisionism never ceases to mutate "the record" for convenience sake, if nothing else.

"Goal Posts" aren't merely moved according to an altered scenario. They cease to exist as we know them to be.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (MhA4j)

101 It's like a jalapeno wrapped in squid wrapped in a tasty tortilla.
Posted by: Fritz at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (UzPAd)


Wrapped in a weasel.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 02:03 PM (4df7R)

102 The problem with re-igniting the tea party is that the MFM has so completely tarnished the name that it won't have the same effect.

Someone upthread said this and its true. We dont have a policy problem, we have a marketing problem, and we have to accept that "tea party" has been tarnished and re-brand (at least until the tarnish whatever that is)

We need to learn from the left who trades "progressive" and "liberal" back and forth as soon as one gets a bad reputation.

Oh, and lets vet candidates better. Yes we have a pretty good record, but guess what people remember; the misses, and we need to minimize those.

Posted by: BSR at February 13, 2013 02:03 PM (CBCxo)

103 I think it's high time we put forth, and discuss the "Affordable Handgun Act"
target it towards single mothers in an urban environment of high crime, and violence against women.

Posted by: VIA, on the tiny keyboard at February 13, 2013 02:03 PM (8q/e9)

104 >But it’s worth pointing out that the landslide defeat of Goldwater to Lyndon Johnson led to the enactment of the Great Society<

Never has greater sophism been written. And that's a pretty big hill to climb.

Did he use the chaos theory to make that link?

Posted by: Marcus at February 13, 2013 02:03 PM (GGCsk)

105 "Keep it in your pants!"

Oh, to send a time-travelling Scowling Michelle back to wherever a young Stanley and Barack, Sr. first shared a fair-trade latte... Think she'd have approved of such a meeting?

Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2013 02:03 PM (FcR7P)

106 I am sea slug! Hear me r...whoops there goes my penis.

Posted by: Sea Slug at February 13, 2013 02:04 PM (uhftQ)

107 How

can you eat those but when I suggested some honey in a hot drink for

your sore throat you told me you couldn't have honey because of your

diabetes?

Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (X6akg)


Lol. Timing is everything. Cookies/sugar at meal times or the required snack before bed? No prob. Randomly drinking down some honey whenever the throat hurts? No good.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (da5Wo)

108 also the thing about the AuH2O debate is that, while obviously he was extremely important to the conservative movement, invoking him too much essentially serves as justification for "stay pure, eventually good things will come" based on particular historical example (and who says Reagan couldn't have come to power in an alternate non-Goldwater nominee universe?) in other words, justifying doing whatever, and hoping future events somehow vindicate it.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (60GaT)

109
Ok, wait just one cotton pickin' minute here......

How
can you eat those but when I suggested some honey in a hot drink for
your sore throat you told me you couldn't have honey because of your
diabetes?
Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:02 PM (X6akg)

________

Boom!

Cochran is on the mat!

Pin him!

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (r2PLg)

110 that the MFM has so completely tarnished the name that it won't have the same effect.

Why not own the name? I think it's a great name. Just like "red states". They thought they were so clever with that one, too.

Posted by: t-bird at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (FcR7P)

111 I am sea slug! Hear me r...whoops there goes my penis.
Posted by: Sea Slug at February 13, 2013 02:04 PM (uhftQ)


LOL!

*proceeds to choke on Fuji apple slice*

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (4df7R)

112 68. Is Avik Roy a Thought Leader?


Posted by: Dack Thrombosis

A light bringer?

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (MhA4j)

113 Damn it he's slippery--like a...

weasel.

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 02:06 PM (r2PLg)

114
besides, arguing policy = fuckin that chicken

the GOP has a branding/marketing problem with an electorate that. does. not. give. two. shits. about. policy.


That cuts to the crux of it. LIV's aren't paying attention to policy and don't understand it anyway. Policy drives the highly engauged base.

Idiot politicians go before La Raza or the NAACP and immediately soft squishing on policy before that audience, looking to pander. But not only doesn't it win you shit - because it isn't primarly a policy issue - it actually works to reinforce the policy as racist and the politician as a two faced shyster - what else to conclude if when confronted with an ostensibly anti-racist audience, they run away from their own party's policies.

It's more important to reach out in terms of outlook and verbage and assumptions of how the system works. Which, if they're busy trying to split babies on policy details (which are inside baseball compared to the vision you're trying to sell), they're probably not doing at all.

Posted by: Entropy at February 13, 2013 02:06 PM (TULs6)

115 It all went bad when Teddy ran and let Wilson into the WH. It was all downhill from there.

and chicks voting

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 13, 2013 02:06 PM (SO2Q8)

116 Forget the cost. It was unconstitutional!Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (NF2Bf)--- How so?

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 13, 2013 02:06 PM (R8hU8)

117 Far better on NRO today is Yuval Levin's critique of the SOTU address. Whether you agree with Levin or not at least it is somewhat optimistic, if only because he asserts the left has gotten everything they wished for with the New Deal. Still I found it a good read.

Posted by: SH at February 13, 2013 02:06 PM (gmeXX)

118 He grew up on the mean streets of Rochester Hills, Michigan.You can't understand his world....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (kdS6q)

Heh. 82.1% white. Sounds like a warzone.

Posted by: Invictus at February 13, 2013 02:07 PM (OQpzc)

119 Lol. Timing is everything. Cookies/sugar at meal
times or the required snack before bed? No prob. Randomly drinking down
some honey whenever the throat hurts? No good.


Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (da5Wo)

Lame.....you could have had the honey drink with a meal or at bedtime.

You is busted.

Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:07 PM (X6akg)

120
You know what would be a good fuckin branding idea: a conservative party, we should try that.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2013 02:08 PM (p/cQy)

121 "Well, allow me to retort."

Yes, Goldwater lost. But without Goldwater publicly taking a stand for conservative principles, you don't get Nixon elected, and without Nixon, you don't get Reagan in the White House. Goldwater blazed the trail that made possible the legitimacy of the conservatism that eventually followed. In some circles, we would call the Goldwater campaign a soak-off.

Goldwater may have been the first modern Republican to understand that some hills are worth dying on. The current party leadership ought to take note, and do likewise.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 13, 2013 02:08 PM (n4EDK)

122 It's like a jalapeno wrapped in squid wrapped in a tasty tortilla. Posted by: Fritz at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (UzPAd)


Wrapped in a weasel.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 02:03 PM (4df7R)


And tossed from a skunk chunkin' trebuchet.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (zF6Iw)

123 I blame Hitler and the Japanese. Without them provoking a world war, Roosevelt retires a failed presidency with unemployment above 12% after 8 years of the New Deal.

Posted by: SH at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (gmeXX)

124 But it’s at least debatable whether or not the conservative movement was better off, or worse off, for having nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964.

The "conservative movement," which didn't exist as a national electoral force in the '60s, was a result of Barry Goldwater's nomination. Just for example, it got RONALD M.F. REAGAN into politics.

So of course the Romney gang would erase that from history. Fascist fucks.

Posted by: oblig. at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (cePv8)

125 Pin him!

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2013 02:05 PM (r2PLg)

Huh?

Posted by: Wolf Blitzer at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (4pNjZ)

126 Lame.....you could have had the honey drink with a meal or at bedtime.

You is busted.


Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:07 PM (X6akg)


Ok. Truth? I really fucking hate hot tea. I think it's gross. You were being kind and helpful and I didn't want to respond with "FUCK THAT!!! EW!!"
The diabetes thing is still valid though. Lol.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (da5Wo)

127 I am sea slug! Hear me r...whoops there goes my penis.

Posted by: Sea Slug at February 13, 2013 02:04 PM

You didn't give it a fair shake.

Posted by: Barry O Bomba at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (bGlsD)

128 Politicians need to stay the hell of twitter.

(and this may be a good reason to get into politics)



http://tinyurl.com/dxavrcu



Rep. Steve Cohen repeatedly tweeted, and then deleted, messages to a woman on Twitter who his office is calling “the daughter of a longtime friend” and who has the same name as a Texas State University blonde bombshell featured in a college co-ed calendar.

In a Tuesday night message ahead of President Obama’s State of the Union address, a Twitter user named Victoria Brink tweeted to the Tennessee Democrat, “just saw you on tv!” According to a tweet captured by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation’s Politiwoops site, Cohen replied to Brink, “pleased u r watching. Ilu” The tweet was deleted after three minutes.

Both Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary.com define “ilu” as Internet slang for either “I love you” or “I like you.”


Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (fWAjv)

129
#108, True, but reality never stopped the chattering class.

Posted by: Jess1 at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (lbiWb)

130 >>>The problem with re-igniting the tea party is that the MFM has so completely tarnished the name that it won't have the same effect.

That's the other 1964 replay. The TEA Party are the new Birchers. Hey - maybe they can set up a headquarters in Alaska like the JBS has in Wisconsin. And we'll set up some lucky moron to be the new Pat Buchanon chair....

Posted by: Bigby's Hitching Thumb at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (3ZtZW)

131 What it really came down to was that Goldwater took a rhetorical hard line against communism (at the time on the ascendant internationally), and the LBJ campaign team cynically seized on that and tarred him as a reckless warmonger.
---
And that was only a year after a commie assassinates the President. How Could That Happen?

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (SO2Q8)

132 Ewok is up.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:10 PM (da5Wo)

133 Roy is so full of shit he could fertilize the entire corn belt. Fucking dunce.

Posted by: maddogg at February 13, 2013 02:10 PM (OlN4e)

134 Northeastern Republicans are clearly the most successful. We should emulate them.
==========
Well, when you realize the real Republican Party sees it's mission and goal as no more than a slower rate of growth in the size, scope and reach of all levels of government, yes they are the most successful Republicans.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 13, 2013 02:10 PM (VjL9S)

135 54 40 or fight!

Posted by: Horace Greeley at February 13, 2013 02:10 PM (YmPwQ)

136 We dont have a policy problem, we have a marketing problem, and we have
to accept that "tea party" has been tarnished and re-brand (at least
until the tarnish whatever that is)


I recommend the Palin-Quayle-Akin axis as an alternative. Noone could object to that.

Posted by: pep at February 13, 2013 02:11 PM (YXmuI)

137 110: The tea party name is just poison to the LIVs; (it wasn't at first BTW) the relentless drumbeat of media lies have destroyed it. The problem is "tea" is a valueless term, its not an idea, its a beverage. The reference to the Revolution is only vaguely understood by the imbeciles we have to reach. Paultards refer to everything as "liberty" this and "liberty" that cause no one is against liberty, same with progressives (Progress is good!) even liberal and conservative are inherently positive terms.

All I'm saying is, we need to re-animate the corpse of Edward Bernays and pay him to work for us. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: BSR at February 13, 2013 02:11 PM (CBCxo)

138 And that was only a year after a commie assassinates the President. How Could That Happen?
-----
It wasn't a commie, it was The Right Wing Climate of Hate in Dallas At The Time that killed Kennedy.

Or that CIA guy on the grassy knoll.

Posted by: The nascent MFM at February 13, 2013 02:12 PM (YmPwQ)

139 Hey, Tami!

My dad was a diabetic. Every time I took him to the doctor he would swear that he was sticking to his diet. One day the nurse looked at him and said, "Hmm. I believe I saw your face on a wanted poster at Roselyn's bakery."

LOL!

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 13, 2013 02:12 PM (GoIUi)

140 I blame Hitler and the Japanese. Without them provoking a world war, Roosevelt retires a failed presidency with unemployment above 12% after 8 years of the New Deal.

Looks like we got a new excellent adventure for Bill and Ted.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 13, 2013 02:12 PM (zF6Iw)

141 Forget the cost. It was unconstitutional!Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 13, 2013 02:01 PM (NF2Bf)

--- How so?
Posted by: Velvet Ambition


Asking the wrong fella. I vaguely recall reading someone arguing that once (anddon't have the slightest clue if it was a good argument), so I thought I'd pile on toCity Counterfactual.

Now to the importantquestion: Wearing an onion on your belt in the 1930's.

Style at the time?

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at February 13, 2013 02:12 PM (NF2Bf)

142 there is a problem on policy i think.

a majority of people are naturally skeptical about Obamacare, but like select aspects of it, and are sympathetic toward the broader Democratic message about healthcare costs. the GOP could exploit this and offer a specific alternative, as opposed to pivoting to speaking about big government/spending in general terms. they didn't really.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 02:13 PM (60GaT)

143 I can see from some of the commentors here why we find our nation in the situation it is in now.



***

Lighten up, Soona!

I think folks are just tired and cranky these days. Even the ONT turned a bit contentious last night.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2013 02:13 PM (piMMO)

144 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (ytax


Our RINO betters have been reaching across the aisle for a very long time!


Face it, every post here should be a DOOM post with just a change in the credit to the editorial staff/cobloggers!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2013 02:14 PM (Cnqmv)

145
serves as justification for "stay pure, eventually good things will come" based on particular historical example
Posted by: JDP




Thing of it is, four year after Goldwater, the Republicans win the White House. Four years after that, they stomp the Democrats.

And although we all know of Nixon's statist Keynesian approach towards problems, he did position himself as the conservative law and order alternative to the liberals.

Only a four year interregnum is looking pretty good nowadays.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 13, 2013 02:14 PM (kdS6q)

146 Both Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary.com define “ilu” as Internet slang for either “I love you” or “I like you.”


Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (fWAjv)


--Is it really possible that a fogey Congressman would use "Ilu"? Maybe he has a Twatter on his staff doing that?

Posted by: logprof at February 13, 2013 02:14 PM (4pNjZ)

147
"some hills are worth dying on"
That's just RAAACIST!

Posted by: Jess1 at February 13, 2013 02:14 PM (lbiWb)

148 Nixon was wrong about a lot of things, but he was right that the Coddington Van Voorhees IV wing of the party is what dooms it from governing in a truly conservative manner.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 13, 2013 01:50 PM (zF6Iw)

Nixon has been so much maligned that it is difficult to separate truth from libel. I do know it was a young, determined and very braveRichard Nixonwho saw through the Alger Hiss case in the face of enormous and very powerful opposition, and God knows how much damage to the country Hiss would've ultimately caused had he not been exposed and stopped, especially since Hiss was being groomed as a potential Secretary of State. In the end, it was Nixon's character defects and weaknesses thathelped bring him down, but paranoia wasn't one of them. He had reasons to be paranoid. They truly were out to get him, and they eventually did.

But yeah, I wish moderates would get off the fence already and choose one side or another. Go all in and quit pretending there can be a safe middle ground. If it helps to clarify their thinking, no real Republican, moderate-leaning or conservative, could conceivably vote for a barely thinly veiled Marxist socialist, ever.

Posted by: troyriser at February 13, 2013 02:15 PM (vtiE6)

149 I recommend the Palin-Quayle-Akin axis as an alternative. Noone could object to that.

***

Now you've done it!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2013 02:15 PM (piMMO)

150 Nood ace up!

(Get your brains out of the gutter, pervs)

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 13, 2013 02:15 PM (4df7R)

151 I think folks are just tired and cranky these days. Even the ONT turned a bit contentious last night.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2013 02:13 PM (piMMO)


Did it really? I was there briefly. What the hell happened?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:15 PM (da5Wo)

152 Ok. Truth? I really fucking hate hot tea. I think
it's gross. You were being kind and helpful and I didn't want to respond
with "FUCK THAT!!! EW!!"
The diabetes thing is still valid though. Lol.


Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:09 PM (da5Wo)


Ok but...it doesn't HAVE to be tea.....hot water with honey would work just as well, silly.

Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:16 PM (X6akg)

153 115---
"....and chicks voting"

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at February 13, 2013 02:06 PM (SO2Q

Yep.
And the poll tax amendment.
And the 18 yr olds voting.
And there's nothing you can do about this stuff.
DOOM.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 13, 2013 02:16 PM (C8mVl)

154 Did it really? I was there briefly. What the hell happened?


****

People who liked Rubio's speech not happy with those who did not.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2013 02:17 PM (piMMO)

155 135 54 40 or fight!

Posted by: Horace Greeley at February 13, 2013 02:10 PM (YmPwQ)


Heh, why not?

http://youtu.be/4r1J0JY0bOo

Posted by: logprof at February 13, 2013 02:17 PM (4pNjZ)

156 --Is it really possible that a fogey Congressman would use "Ilu"? Maybe he has a Twatter on his staff doing that?

Posted by: logprof at February 13, 2013 02:14 PM (4pNjZ)

Democrats are just hipper you old square

Posted by: RWC at February 13, 2013 02:17 PM (fWAjv)

157 My dad was a diabetic. Every time I took him to the doctor he would
swear that he was sticking to his diet. One day the nurse looked at him
and said, "Hmm. I believe I saw your face on a wanted poster at Roselyn's bakery."

LOL!


Posted by: Miss Marple at February 13, 2013 02:12 PM (GoIUi)


LOL! Well if BC's favorite cookies list is any indication.....yeah.

Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:18 PM (X6akg)

158 People who liked Rubio's speech not happy with those who did not.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 13, 2013 02:17 PM (piMMO)

F.F.S.

Seriously? I mean, come ON people.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:18 PM (da5Wo)

159 (and who says Reagan couldn't have come to power in an alternate non-Goldwater nominee universe?)
__

Imagine Robert Kennedy campaigning against LBJ to replace his brother on the Democrat POTUS ticket instead of NY Senator.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 13, 2013 02:18 PM (MhA4j)

160 42 ----"...he is always campaigning against "sinister forces" and is never seen as governing. This is sort of how Chavez operates. " Posted by: Miss Marple at February 13, 2013 01:51 PM (GoIUi)

Have these sinister forces and Obama ever been seen in the same room?

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Penguins! They're Everywhere! at February 13, 2013 02:18 PM (hLRSq)

161 Oh and I view National Review as the absolute fucking worst when it comes to advancing conservative positions.

They are part and parcel of the poisonous siren song of Washington DC. "Get invited to the right parties, know the right people, don't rock the boat."

They don't advance shit, they talk and talk and talk. They suck the life out of conservative ideas by pretending to be the intellectual leaders and talking it to death, a designation and course the left is happy to allow.

Any doubts as to why an adviser to Romney would be comfortable writing a piece for them?

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 13, 2013 02:19 PM (VjL9S)

162 LOL! Well if BC's favorite cookies list is any indication.....yeah.


Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:18 PM (X6akg)


Oh I love me some snack cakes, cookies, etc., but I'm smart about when and how much. I used to meet with a dietician and nutritionist every 3 to 6 months when I was a teenager. I took those lessons to heart. I'm 31 yrs old, this summer I'll be 32 and will have been a diabetic for 27 years. My levels aren't that far off of a non diabetics.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at February 13, 2013 02:20 PM (da5Wo)

163 160 Mikey NTH,

every morning with a razor....

Posted by: sven10077 at February 13, 2013 02:20 PM (LRFds)

164 We dont have a policy problem, we have a marketing problem,

Let's find a candidate who will actually kill and eat every reporter he encounters. Someone who has to be tranq gunned off the stage at debates. Might as well get what we'll be tarnished with.

Posted by: DaveA at February 13, 2013 02:21 PM (6YLIm)

165 I'm just yanking your chain BC....I'm sure you're sensible about it.

Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2013 02:22 PM (X6akg)

166 The belief that a single election - any election - could have prevented the massive growth of government is a mistake.

Government growth in a free and prosperous society is natural. Politicians want to promise to spend other people's money to make voters' lives better, and voters want to hear it. What's not natural is resisting this.

That's us. We're working against human nature. Of course, that's what civilized people do. We make laws because it's natural to want to take a neighbor's stuff. We establish social mores because it's natural to want to have sex with a woman and leave when she gets pregnant. That's why conservatives 'stand athwart history saying STOP.'

But all of this work takes place outside of Washington and in between elections.Given our natural impulses and diminishing will to resist them, the Great Society was going to happen. No single election - or series of elections - could alter that.

Posted by: CJ at February 13, 2013 02:23 PM (9KqcB)

167 the GOP could exploit this and offer a specific
alternative, as opposed to pivoting to speaking about big
government/spending in general terms. they didn't really.


Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 02:13 PM (60GaT)


The list of GOP opportunities to exploit the stupidity and explain the irrationality of almost all Dem positions is basically endless. Too much like work I guess, and it might impact tee time assignments!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 13, 2013 02:25 PM (Cnqmv)

168 We're going to get Jeb Bush in 2016, aren't we?

Posted by: toby928© Person of Pallor at February 13, 2013 02:28 PM (QupBk)

169 Great Society was going to happen. No single election - or series of elections - could alter that.
Posted by: CJ at February 13, 2013 02:23 PM (9KqcB)

Well said.

Posted by: Invictus at February 13, 2013 02:34 PM (OQpzc)

170 i don't disagree with people that Rockefeller Republicanism was not, in and of itself, a solution, which i don't think this guy is arguing. it's just that the justifications for the Goldwater nomination are only clear with 20/20 hindsight.

i mean you could also say that Obama winning in 2008 reinvigorated conservatism in a way that a McCain win wouldn't have. it's the sort of "winning the long game" strategy that doesn't always pan out.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 02:35 PM (60GaT)

171 you are all missing the point. The Republican party is losing elections because they are focused on winning elections. Instead of doing the long hard work of teaching people to believe in conservative principles and the virtues of limited government they have taken the short term solution of pretending to be whatever people can be convinced to vote for.

How long did it take for the left to capture the culture, the media, and academia? That's where the difference will be made.

Posted by: iowaan at February 13, 2013 02:36 PM (crTpS)

172 This is the kind of Rockefeller Republican it would be nice to have.

http://is.gd/doZBJN

Posted by: Attila (Pillage Idiot) at February 13, 2013 02:36 PM (PQt9W)

173 what's most amazing to me is that I hear no one
saying hey let's restart those Tea Party rallies again and re-ignite the
spark and energy we had in '09-'10

Posted by: soothsayer at February 13, 2013 01:53 PM (/eLjI)

To do those rallies would have the effect of reminding everyone that the Tea Party was toothless against the power of the Mainstream Media's ability to brainwash stupid voters.

Rallies won't mean a thing if we can't shut off or counter their propaganda machine against us.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 13, 2013 02:36 PM (bb5+k)

174 I think the problem with nominating Goldwater was that whoever ran against LBJ after the Kennedy assassination was pretty much doomed; but, because it ended up being Goldwater who lost, the loss was blamed on the fact that he was too conservative. The Republican establishment has been biased with a belief ever since that only moderate candidates have any chance of winning in the general elaction. This in spite of the fact that by far the most successful Republican since then was also the most conservative (Reagan), and moderate after moderate has lost.

Posted by: Disgruntled Monkey at February 13, 2013 02:46 PM (RgkHE)

175 you are all missing the point. The Republican party is losing elections because they are focused on winning elections. Instead of doing the long hard work of teaching people to believe in conservative principles and the virtues of limited government they have taken the short term solution of pretending to be whatever people can be convinced to vote for.

How long did it take for the left to capture the culture, the media, and academia? That's where the difference will be made.

Posted by: iowaan at February 13, 2013 02:36 PM (crTpS)

This here.

Not as neat and tidy as debating sequestration and GOTV apps, but it's the truth.

Posted by: CJ at February 13, 2013 02:52 PM (9KqcB)

176 OK but there's a big difference between running as a conservative whose conservatism comes off to folks as just common sense, as Reagan did, and some of the conservative firebreathers in recent years (in the primary for instance) who only appeal to select constituencies.

nothing against firebreathing, i'm just for well-targeted firebreathing.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 02:53 PM (60GaT)

177 and really Goldwater had some of this same problem, in that he engaged in certain incendiary rhetoric ("lob a bomb in the Kremlin") that played well to certain people and obviously weren't meant literally but made it easy to caricature him. of course the media blamed it on conservatism cuz to them conservatism = right-wing lunatic, but it was more an issue of a certain type of ill-advised bombast.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 02:56 PM (60GaT)

178 To do those rallies would have the effect of reminding everyone that the Tea Party was toothless against the power of the Mainstream Media's ability to brainwash stupid voters. Rallies won't mean a thing if we can't shut off or counter their propaganda machine against us.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at February 13, 2013 02:36 PM (bb5+k)

That simply isn't true. Remember the 2010 midterms? On-the-ground, grassrootsenthusiasm can trump media, at least when the liberal media is spread thin and--even as powerful as they are--unable to sway every individual congressional district. Presidential campaigns are different. In my view, the only way to defeat the MSM during presidential elections requires a top-down approach, which means national-level GOP politicians must take an aggressive stance and adopt a unified message and, most importantly,not allow the opposition to frame the terms of the debate or define the central issues of the campaign. They can do this by using the Gingrich approach and just attack the press in turn every time a blatantly unfair or biased question is asked. Another thing they can do is call out the far-Left leadership of the Democratic Party as the Marxist socialist weasels they are. Put them on the defensive, for a change. A good Republican bumpersticker summing up the meme would be STOP THE COMMIE BULLSHIT.

Negative campaigning works, by the way. The ethical way to separate ourselves from our opponents when going negative is to ensure what we say is true.

Posted by: troyriser at February 13, 2013 03:06 PM (vtiE6)

179 I actually agree with Avik Roy, when you field unelectable candidates, the other side takes it as a mandate and runs with it.

I would say 90% of our current problems are the fault of LBJ. Barry Goldwater losing one of the biggest landslides in American history gave liberals a blank check.

I don't know why it's so hard to say, "I would prefer things be this way, but that's simply not realistic, so I'm going to instead shoot for..." I'd also like to be CEO of a company, but I'll take CFO.

Also, regarding Rockefellar vs Goldwater, I guess AuH2o would be called a RINO today since he was both pro-choice and he detested Social Conservatism in the GOP. That seems to be the litmus test for how conservative someone is these days.

Posted by: McAdams at February 13, 2013 03:08 PM (M4J2R)

180
Great Society was going to happen. No single election - or series of elections - could alter that.
-- Posted by: CJ at 02:23 PM
__

Perhaps it was going to happen. But when and how it happened, and to the degree that it happened could always be altered by serial circumstances.

If by "Great Society" you're referencing American Socialism in general, again, how it got sold/opposed mattered, and still matters, as per buying the votes necessary to execute matters more/less "effectively" -- effective to socialists meaning bigger is better governance.

Beating a dead horse won't make the horse any more "compassionate" or capable of producing more ongoing tax revenue. LBJ sold the great society through guilt trips on the up and coming post-Korean War Americans. It didn't take long for the American kids to turn on LBJ because of his Vietnam War and mandatory draft. "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?" So much for such as his "Great Society" coming to that at his end.

As "great society" went, GW sold "compassion" well enough while immersing the GOP in the baptismal waters of authoritarianism. The so-called temporary measures of the Patriot Act and DHS are indeed being used against American citizenry, despite all political "promises" to the contrary at inception and during campaigns. And Jeb won't prove any "better" if ever given an opportunity to "rule" in Washington.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 13, 2013 03:13 PM (MhA4j)

181 Barry Goldwater losing one of the biggest landslides in American history gave liberals a blank check.
--
And the other side of that coin, McGovern losing to Nixon?

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 13, 2013 03:15 PM (MhA4j)

182 181.
If it hadn't been for Watergate, we would have the White House for
nearly 24 years straight. The Democrats had zero credibility on
national security, and they continued to get beat in landslides after Carter, but it's much easier to create entitlements than it is to get rid of them. Americans still gave Democrats control of Congress, so it wasn't like even a 49 state winning Nixon or Reagan could simply decree they end.

I don't doubt some of these programs would have creeped in regardless, but LBJ getting a once in a 200 year landslide was socialism on steroids. It really destroyed America's character and we've been rotting ever since.

Posted by: McAdams at February 13, 2013 03:30 PM (M4J2R)

183 "while immersing the GOP in the baptismal waters of authoritarianism"

interesting language, but no

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 03:33 PM (60GaT)

184 McAdams still doin' the "reasonable" false-flagging. mucho clever.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 03:34 PM (60GaT)

185 184.

Explain how I'm a "false flagger"? Does that mean double agent?

Posted by: McAdams at February 13, 2013 03:39 PM (M4J2R)

186 Poor Roy. He never heard the old saw about teaching a pig to sing.

His point, of course, has absolutely NOTHING to do with Rockefeller's own policy preferences. He is rather clear about that, but some can't resist such a big fat straw man when they either can't understand or counter the actual argument.

The money and votes in most of the country that would have gone to Republicans under a Rockefeller banner should be evident, at least in terms of the radical departure from historical norms which happened with Goldwater. And look at the results where Goldwater did win.

In the Deep South states where Goldwater did win, exactly ZERO Republicans were elected with him to Congress or statewide offices. Only Strom Thurmond switched parties - but he had been reelected in 1962 and wasn't on the ballot.

Roy's point is that Goldwater did nothing to attract new conservatives and was an absolute 100% disaster for the down-ticket.

Posted by: Adjoran at February 13, 2013 03:41 PM (9uOra)

187 Complete agreement with Drew. If you're going to do a counterfactual argument, it's best to understand the actual history of the era.

The decline of National Review is a tragedy. It sorely needs an editorial shake up. It was once the house organ of the conservative intellectual movement in America. All of that has been frittered away by Rich Lowry and crew.

Posted by: Esau's Message at February 13, 2013 03:51 PM (WZq72)

188 185

a) you trolled under a diff. name before
b) you're always talking about "What Republicans Need to Do" (be more liberal.) i don't have a problem with this, but when it's the exclusive theme of your posts? yeah. if it's legit, go blog for David Frum or something.

Posted by: JDP at February 13, 2013 05:22 PM (60GaT)

189 Wonderful analysis!

Posted by: eoros at February 13, 2013 07:10 PM (/fL3O)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0324 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0089 seconds, 198 records returned.
Page size 119 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