« | »

AP Finds Gaffes Only Made Against Dems

From a shameless Associated Press:

Oops: Campaign season of gaffes and gotchas

By Calvin Woodward, Associated Press
October 29, 2010

WASHINGTON – Memo to novice political candidates: Know thy Constitution. Don’t tell Hispanics they look Asian. Pay special attention to what you say when you are in front of cameras. Which you almost always are. Expect your chitchat to go viral.

And, really, try your best to stay out of court.

Now relax. Be yourself — if you dare.

This is the year of the neophyte in politics. Anti-incumbent sentiment in general and the tea party in particular have brought fresh faces forward, many wet behind the ears in the brutalities of a modern campaign.

The result: a rash of impolitic politics — gaffes, raw rhetoric, unsettling theories — followed by gotchas, recycled mercilessly by opponent’s campaign ads, cable TV and the blogs.

In Delaware, Christine O’Donnell got tangled in the First Amendment, appearing unaware it separates religion and government.

Our kneepad media would really have made Dr. Goebbels blush. This is simply a blatant lie. And it is also, by now, a well documented lie.

Ms. O’Donnell was crystal clear in her point that there is no mention of the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Moreover, Ms. O’Donnell’s larger point was absolutely correct as well. And she went on to exhibit a far better understanding of the First Amendment than the lawyer, Mr. Coons.

Either Mr. Woodward is an ignoramus or he is repeating this lie for propaganda purposes. In either case, he should be an absolute disgrace to the supposed profession of journalism – if journalists were not already held in lower contempt than used cars salesmen and politicians.

The Second Amendment caused grief for fellow Republican Sharron Angle in Nevada, who entertained the notion of "Second Amendment remedies" — that would be a call to arms — if government isn’t brought to heel.

A notion that our founding father often "entertained." But, once again, the ‘stupid and smug about it’ Mr. Woodward appears to be blissfully unaware of such things.

Frank Caprio, Democratic candidate for Rhode Island governor, did not, as has been widely reported, tell President Barack Obama to shove it after the president declined to endorse him.

He told Obama to "really shove it."

What an amusing pretense at ‘balance.’ Of course Mr. Caprio was speaking against Mr. Woodward’s ultimate master. So this is really more of the same, despite his having a D after his name.

It’s been messy watching outsiders trying to claw their way in.

And it is revolting to watch the media act as the praetorian guard for the ruling elite. Of course, they have long since become the "watchdogs" for the Democrat Party.

Candidates rewarded in the primaries for speaking their minds and upending convention have sought safe harbor from their earlier selves.

Angle has backed away from calling unemployment insurance "spoilage" and the fund for BP oil spill victims "a slush fund." She denies she ever favored an end to Social Security or veterans benefits, although she previously said she did.

Who should we believe? Ms. Angle or Mr. Woodward, who we just saw lying to us?

By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "spoilage" as "the action or fact of plundering or robbing." When unemployment benefits extensions are paid for with US taxpayer dollars, how is this not completely accurate?

And, of course, Ms. Angle was equally accurate in her characterization of the BP fund.

Her aside to Hispanic high school students that "some of you look a little more Asian to me" showed why political consultants cringe at spontaneous remarks and why candidates stop making them.

Which is why Mr. Obama is chained to a teleprompter. Though, again, what is exactly wrong with what Ms. Angle said? Is it insulting to be said to look Asian?

Somebody needs to talk to Thor Heyerdahl. He and many other anthropologists seem to have engaged in the same ‘hate crime.’

Similarly, Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright, a freshman from Alabama who has spent much of the campaign dissociating himself from Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, might have regretted saying Pelosi "may get sick and die" before he has to vote on her speakership again.

Again, note the remarkable ‘balance’ in this piece. Mr. Bright, of course, was speaking against another of Mr. Woodward’s Democrat masters or rather, mistresses, Ms. Pelosi.

California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina regretted "the whole situation" when a live mike caught her calling opponent Barbara Boxer’s hairdo "so yesterday."

The outrage.

The goof was almost quaint, grounded in a technology that’s been around long enough to trip up Ronald Reagan and countered by Boxer with humor instead of the modern assault weapon, an attack ad. (Reagan joked about bombing Russia in a 1984 sound check into a live mike.)

But Mr. Woodward isn’t reaching. 26 years ago is practically yesterday.

To be sure, candidates of all backgrounds have stepped into problems of their own making during the long campaign.

Mr. Woodward was just unable to come up with any ‘gaffes’ an approved Democrat candidate made against a Republican. There must not have been any.

Rich candidates who live in fancy houses have thrown stones at opponents who live in fancy houses. Senate candidates Mark Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, and Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, exaggerated their military records.

Ah, we only hear about Mr. Blumenthal when we can get a moral equivalent from the GOP. And never mind that the two are not even in the same ballpark.

The experienced Harry Reid, Senate majority leader and Angle’s Nevada opponent, cast himself as a savior of epic proportions, remarking that "but for me, we’d be in a worldwide depression."

At last, we have something from a Democrat that wasn’t said while attacking a Democrat. Or do we? Isn’t the real crime here that Mr. Reid was trying to steal Mr. Obama’s thunder? At least, we suspect that is the real crime in the minds of people like Mr. Woodward.

Still, the success of scores of tea party favorites in Republican primaries gave rise to a phalanx of eager achievers unaccustomed to the hothouse; hence, more rough edges. A pizzeria owner, rancher, doctors, war veterans and a pilot are among them.

One of the most prominent of the tea party picks, though, is Joe Miller, a lawyer, former judge and Yale grad who’s taken a series of rookie missteps.

Miller, a Republican Senate hopeful from Alaska, criticized federal unemployment, health care and farm aid only to acknowledge his family has benefited from those subsidies in the past. And he’s been saddled by the disclosure that as a borough attorney in 2008, he admitted to lying about improperly using government computers and was disciplined.

Wow. What stupid gaffes. What telling "gotchas."

One of the most unschooled candidates came not from the tea party but out of nowhere.

In South Carolina, Democrats were mortified when Alvin Greene, an unemployed military veteran charged with communicating and disseminating obscene materials to a teenage college student, won the party’s Senate primary.

But you see the pains that Mr. Woodward takes to make sure you understand that Mr. Greene is not really a Democrat. He "came out of nowhere." Real Democrats are mortified that he won the party’s primary.

Still, Mr. Woodward manages to suggest that Mr. Greene is such a fool, he might have come from the Tea Party.

Greene made the best of a sticky situation when confronted by reporters after a court appearance earlier this month. "The opponent started the recession!" he cried repeatedly.

He was recently seen at a state fair, making bunny ears with his fingers over a TV anchorman’s head.

By the way, remember when our the media apparatchiks used to complain about how 90% of incumbents always got re-elected year after year?

Come to think of it, that complaint was only common when the Republicans were in the majority. Why is that?

Lest we forget, Calvin Woodward is the guy the AP calls upon to do their preposterous "fact check" pieces. Apparently, he was so blatant in his biases here, they decided to forego labeling it a "fact check."

Still, this ‘news article’ is emblematic of just how far the media is willing to go to try to help the Democrats. Sure, it’s laughably obvious. But desperate times call for desperate measures.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, October 29th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

33 Responses to “AP Finds Gaffes Only Made Against Dems”

  1. oldpuppydixie says:

    It’s a bittersweet sort of “fun” to imagine what this nation would look like were there an even remotely honest media.

  2. proreason says:

    “Either Mr. Woodward is an ignoramus or he is repeating this lie for propaganda purposes”


    And as for the Asian remark by Ms Angle, it is patently obvious that there isn’t a person on earth who can tell people from different nationalities apart without fail. Her remark is akin to Juan Williams confession that he is scared when he sees Muslims on a plane. It’s simply the truth.

    • confucius says:

      My sister is often mistaken for Mexican, but this is understandable given the way she dresses and abuses makeup.

      Interestingly, she’s also been mistaken for a Target employee.

      (true story)

    • confucius says:

      Personally, I’ve been mistaken for:

      –Japanese (or “Jap” to that wrinkled old fart of a hillbilly prune)

      and my favorite of all time,

      –Afghan (or “Afghanistanian” to that donkey-loving piece of trailer trash)

    • Adam Moreira says:

      I’ve been mistaken for several different races, however…don’t ask why!

  3. Mithrandir says:

    As I said before, This isn’t an election, it’s an exorcism.

    It’s just another symptom of a sick society.

    I predict that with SIGNING STATEMENTS, and EXECUTIVE ORDERS, Obama will circumvent all laws made or not made by a Republican Congress.

    They will have a choice:
    1. Take it.
    2. Using it for 2012 elections.
    3.Declare it a dictatorship, and ask the military to intervene.

    What happened to this country……

  4. confucius says:

    Regarding Joe Miller, from AP:

    Records: Alaska Sen. candidate Joe Miller admits to computer use, lying

    by Associated Press
    October 27, 2010

    JUNEAU, Alaska — Alaska GOP Senate hopeful Joe Miller was suspended for three days and referred to an employee assistance program after admitting to improperly using three government computers, then cleaning the caches to cover up the activities, according to personnel records released Tuesday under court order. …

    In a March 2008 statement to Fairbanks North Star Borough Attorney Rene Broker, Miller, who then worked as a part-time government attorney, said he had lied initially about accessing all the computers when asked and about the reasons why he used them.

    He said he understood his actions were wrong, that there was “no excuse for any of it,” and that he was willing to accept any punishment that was deemed appropriate, according to the records. Broker suspended him for three days and referred him to an employee assistance program, which records show he later completed. …

    Miller, who defeated GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska primary, has been dogged for months by questions about his work with the borough, which was a seven-year gap in his resume that he didn’t include in his campaign site biography. …

    When reporters asked about that period, Miller declared he would no longer answer questions about his past. That prompted a former borough mayor, Jim Whitaker, to step forward to say Miller almost lost his job for using government computers in the ouster attempt.

    Whitaker has said it was his understanding, based on briefings from borough officials, that Miller was engaged in “proxy voting” in an effort to oust Ruedrich. Ruedrich, whose party is backing Miller, has said that process didn’t exist at the state convention.

    An assistant borough attorney who was acting attorney at the time, Jill Dolan, said in a partially redacted memo that Miller admitted to using colleagues’ computers “so an opinion poll would have different URLs.”

    Miller said the fact he is flawed shows he is like others — and is a value he brings as a candidate. He also said he wanted to clear the air in an effort to refocus attention on the issues of the Senate race. …


    What Joe Miller was neither a gaffe nor a rookie misstep. It was criminal.

    • proreason says:

      You think that using work computers to vote 3 separate times in an online poll is criminal?

      Boy, I hope I never make the mistake of spitting on your sidewalk.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Delicious sustinence for the peasant class. Mm.

      We’re praying for you Joe.

      Murkowski’s bid can’t be much more than hotair.

    • confucius says:

      By using someone else’s (government-issued) computers, Joe Miller impersonated someone else.

      If this behavior is acceptable, then why the uproar when Lauren Valle wears a wig, ACORN astroturfs and Gallup stacks their polls with Democrats?

      Better yet, why did Joe Miller act like most other criminals and cover his tracks?

    • proreason says:


      It’s equivalent to saying a naughty word and then denying it.

      Comparing something that doesn’t even rise to the level of a prank to a professional agitator who rushes a politicians car in a disguise is silly.

      What Mr. Miller did probably wasn’t even wrong. Was there a company rule against using another employees’s computer? If so, then the proper action would have been to inform Miller of the rule. Anything more is over-reaction. Now, if the other employee left his computer signed on to a secure application, then the other employee deserved a reprimand for a breach if security, but not Miller.

      I estimate that I used a co-worker’s computer for a few moments over 300 times in my life. I’d be surprised if I’m unique in that.

    • tranquil.night says:

      The Acorn situation is different because they were actually stealing elections and using taxpayer money for extremely corrupt partisan political operations. I’m not aware of the details of Valle.

      Miller’s offense was minimal. Regardless of the motive of whoever wanted to peg him on this, he lied about it apparently, got caught and seemed to ultimately take responsibility. Can that even be said of Princess Murkowski or whatever rubber stamp marxist is running, especially in light of how we know Miller will vote and how important that will be for the country.

      The only narrative about this story I’m interested in is why we’re talking about something settled in 2008, instead of the criminals currently in congress and the white house.

    • confucius says:

      Equally nonsensical, proreason.

      Mr. Miller knows his way around the law. He is a professional lawyer and former judge.

      When the “gaffe” happened, Mr. Miller was a government lawyer when he thrice used other people’s (government-issued) computers to deliberately hide his identity in order to manipulate the outcome of a local election.

    • proreason says:

      Well I need to quit sleeping and get to influencing more elections by responding to all them online polls.


      What next? Can you use government air to say you favor a candidate (other than a democrat, of course)? Could I apply a stamp to an contribution envelope using a government desk? What if I used dropped the letter in a gubamint mailbox? I mean, really, I’m going to jail on this for sure.


    • tranquil.night says:

      Confucius, in your first post on the matter in the weekly thread, your only comment was to remind us of Palin’s endorsement and your distrust of the Tea Party. Your agenda is what’s being perceived as foolish, and frustrating because it doesn’t have nearly as much to do with Mr. Miller’s integrity as it does your desire to convince others that they’re being duped.

      Respectfully, step outside of the bounds of Confucius and channel some Lao Tzu. This is war. You don’t survive long without some pragmatism. Logic dictates that Mr. Miller is the best representative to stand against the Obama regime, even if everything you were saying was true and relevant.

      Had to take one last stab at it (and of course I posted it on the wrong thread).

    • confucius says:


      I agree with your point on a pragmatic war. It’s why I supported Sweetness & Light’s decision to settle Righthaven’s suit.

      It is also why the Alaskan Tea Party chaps me. They screwed a golden opportunity to take out a corrupt career politician (Murkowski), block a Democrat and elect an honorable statesman by nominating a candidate whose history is as sullied as all the rest. It is my understanding that Miller’s lead has shrunk and his opponents are now within striking distance. Not an artful way of winning a war. (And what a way to screw Sun Tzu’s pooch.)

      I don’t live or know anyone in Alaska. I cannot possibly influence their election. My interest in Joe Miller is what he represents—i.e. winning at the loss of principle. It is a strategy used by liberals, Democrats, moderates and RINOs. And it’s what’s destroying America.

      When the tea party first gained national attention, I had great hope that in my lifetime there would finally be a party that embodied the same conservative American values that I hold true. Then came the crazies. And then came the tea partiers who embraced and defended them using the same Machiavellian rationalizations that they say they are against.

      I once said you should never believe in a person or a party. It’s better to believe in a principle because they never fail. It serves me right for forgetting this. The tea party broke my heart, and I deserve it.

      My agenda is for a free America. I want the America that was hoped for in the Constitution. I hope it’s yours too.

      Thank you for your post and the opportunity to expound.

  5. confucius says:


    At the time, Mr. Miller’s salary and the computers in question were paid for by taxpayers. His motive was to manipulate a local election.

    I give Mr. Miller credit for taking responsibility, but it doesn’t change the facts of what he did.

    I’m not sure how you can take comfort in his promises. He’s proven himself a deceiver.

    • confucius says:

      And now there is this from today’s Alaska Dispatch:

      Joe Miller’s Willow hideaway missing on judicial disclosures, too

      by Craig Medred
      Oct 29, 2010

      While a federal magistrate judge in Fairbanks in 2004, Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller failed to disclose his interest in a 40-acre hideaway and two-story house near Willow, in violation of federal law.

      The land title registered in Palmer dates Miller’s interest in the property to August 1996. Whether the property in question is owned by Miller or held by a trust in the name of his children, the candidate has refused to say. But federal judges are required to report such things either way.

      The Financial Disclosure Report required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 instructs judges to report “Investments and Trusts — income, value, transactions (includes those of the spouse and dependent children).” When Miller filed his disclosure report, he listed 1,000 acres of farmland he and his wife, Kathleen, had bought near Delta Junction with the help of a state agricultural loan; property they owned in Tok, where Miller had worked as a state magistrate; and various savings accounts. The Willow property, however, was not reported.

      The federal disclosure requires judges to sign and certify that the information in the report is complete and accurate. It warns that a judge who “willfully falsifies or fails to file this report maybe subject to criminal and civil sanctions.” Mistakes on financial disclosure forms are what led to the federal trial and conviction of the late Sen. Ted Stevens. …

      A Wednesday call to Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto to ask about the omission on the six-page form in 2004 went unanswered. …


    • proreason says:

      Looks like the army of oppo researchers have been busy.

      How surprising that it crops up with so little time to respond.

      Why, we won’t even know if the accusation is accurate before the election, will we?

      And just curious, why would Miller disclose 1,000 acres, but not 40?

      Obviously, there can be no other reason than a nefarious purpose.

      I’ll bet this guy is really a child molestor. What did he disclose about that? I hope my worst fears aren’t confirmed.

    • confucius says:

      Mr. Miller’s supporters are just as capable of doing research as his opponents.

      As for why this story came out today, the full article explains:

      Alaska Dispatch, earlier in the campaign for Senate, requested Miller’s judicial disclosures from the Financial Disclosure Office of the United States Courts, but received them only this week …

      Mr. Miller’s campaign was contacted on Wednesday, and the article was published on Friday. There has been plenty of time to address the accusation if there were a simple answer like, “I forgot.”

      But even then, can you really trust someone who forgets owning 40-acres of land and a two story house? (cf. John McCain)

      As for the question of why disclose the Delta but not the Willow property, it might be because the Delta property was listed as a liability and, depending on how he reported his finances, could work to his advantage.

      As for the question on child molestation, I am not aware of any reports.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Curious to hear your thoughts on this Confucius: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/30/palin-rips-murkowski-says-hired-guns-threatened-talk-show-host/

      Of course the Miller camp wouldn’t elevate something like this by dignifying it, and leave it to the activist courts to honor “freedom of information” requests against political opponents of the Ruling Class in the 11th hour.

      This is not a service to the truth, because the greater truth is that the ethical and philosophical implications of the stakes of this election are too important to honor dirty political tricks with anything other than what they deserve. Miller’s the best man for that seat. If he’s corrupt, he’ll be torn down by the very people who stand by him.

    • proreason says:

      Here’s the 2-story building on the nefarious property:


      oooooow. oooooooow. Be afraid of this deceptive criminal. Be very afraid.

      Notice that the article says he “owns or controls” the property. hmmm. hmmm. What could that mean? Oh wait, I get it. They aren’t sure that he owns it. Gee, how could that be? Why it’s almost as if their might be some deception going on with the reporting by the usually pluperfect press about Mr. Miller’s ownership of this nefarious proplerty.

    • confucius says:


      The hotair.com piece is off topic, but I don’t mind sharing my thoughts.

      If Palin’s blog is correct, then KFQD erred in pulling Fagan off air. It doesn’t look like Fagan was terminated, however, as KFQD still lists his show.

      If Palin’s blog is correct, it also validates Obama’s assertion that the Republican Party is corrupt and flush with special interest corporate money.

      For the record, I am against Murkowski and the Fairness Doctrine for same reason I am against Miller. They’re dishonest.

      I also prefer to stop a dishonest candidate or policy early rather than later since reversing course becomes more difficult if not impossible. (cf. Roe v. Wade)

    • confucius says:


      The article you referenced is even more damning for Mr. Miller. It states:

      –In 1995, Mr. Miller declared he was indigent and signed a sworn statement testifying to his destitute status. Oddly, the destitute Mr. Miller was practicing law, owned a $93,100 home and had enough resources to renovate it to the point of doubling its value.

      –One year later, the same destitute Mr. Miller then found the resources to buy a second home that came equipped with a paltry 40 acres.

      –The destitute Mr. Miller then rented out the house and land. (And why not? Destitution should never stop an indigent from properly diversifying their portfolio with real estate.)

      –Mr. Miller has put the property up for sale.

      –There is no paperwork showing Mr. Miller placed the property in a trust.

      –There is no paperwork that a trust even exists.

      The question of who technically owns the property is specious. Mr. Miller negotiated the purchase (in person) and signed the papers at closing. Mr. Miller then rented out the property, collected the rent and now has the property up for sale.

      If Mr. Miller isn’t the owner, then what is he?

      Equally specious is the trust question. If Mr. Miller placed the property in a trust (as destitute lawyers are inclined to do with investment property that they don’t actually own), he still had to disclose it because federal law required it.

      If Mr. Miller had forgotten to disclose the property, he sure has an unusual form of amnesia that should be studied. It would be the first of its kind.

      And now that Mr. Miller has been caught, what does he do? Does he respond with a denial? No. He hides like a common crook.

      Mr. Miller was not indigent, is the property’s owner and the prototypical Ivy League lawyer/politician who has only a passing acquaintance with honesty. Whether it is this or the government job story, Mr. Miller is unfit for office.

      One final point. Mr. Miller’s actions are not excused by the wrongdoings of the press, Republican or Democrat Parties. They are also not excused by his stated political platform or Tea Party association.

    • proreason says:

      You have succeeded in embarrassing yourself and damaging any credibility you have left on this forum Confucious. Previously, you demonstrated that you are as obsessed with race as any black person, but we mostly let that go. Anybody can be foolish once.

      Nobody agrees with you on this matter (or the race issue), or they would have spoken up.

      You don’t even get that it isn’t about what Miller did or didn’t do. We all know there isn’t a candidate or person alive who hasn’t done something in his or her life that they regret. Moreover, we all know that politicians are worse than normal; many far far worse than normal. We aren’t naively thinking that Miller is a saint.

      What it’s about is an entitled arrogant stupid deceptive ruling-class liberal like Murkowski against an aggressive and articulate conservative taking strong stands that we all agree with.

      By attacking him, you attack us. And look what you are attacking him about. It’s silly, and the more that comes out about it, the more silly it appears. Now Makowski refused to say whe won’t caucus with Democrats, and the Alaska msm has tried to tie Miller to a pedophile. It never stops. So why would a rational person believe the crap you are attempting to foist on us.

      The fact that you can’t let it go makes it worse.

      Everybody that agrees with confucious that Joe Miller is a scum and is a criminal for using a co-worker’s computer for 2 minutes to reply to an online poll, and for owning a shack in the wilderness that wasn’t disclosed 6 years ago, jump right in and support your man confucious.

    • confucius says:


      Who is “we” and “us”? Your alpha-male traits need restraining, sir. This isn’t a grade school lunchroom or a scene from West Side Story, so man up and fight your own battles. It should be easy. You’re “proreason,” and I’m—as you put it—an embarrassing fool without an ounce of credibility.

      Speaking of grade school antics, popularity is and has never been a good measure of an argument’s legitimacy. However, should you remain fixated on this childish notion, I refer you to the “Member Comments” section that follows the article you posted. You will not be pleased. Perhaps you can login there and unleash some more of your alpha-maleness and give them a proper what for.

      So you identify and pin your hopes on an Ivy League trained lawyer/politician who has only a passing acquaintance with honesty? It’s this kind of irrational fealty that made Obama POTUS.

      But back to Joe Miller. Facts are facts, sir. They’re immutable-even to you. That is why the local CBS affiliate hasn’t been able to link Mr. Miller to a pedophile. It’s also why Mr. Miller is not to be trusted.

      Speaking of facts, where in this or the other Miller thread have I brought up race? Facts please, otherwise you don’t have standing to criticize someone else’s credibility or foolishness.

  6. Laree says:

    Hitler Finds Out about Rush Limbaugh’s Reverse Operation Chaos.

    Hitler is really upset with the PUMAS aligning themselves with Rush. Pretty Funny warning adult language.


  7. mr_bill says:

    “Still, the success of scores of tea party favorites in Republican primaries gave rise to a phalanx of eager achievers unaccustomed to the hothouse; hence, more rough edges. A pizzeria owner, rancher, doctors, war veterans and a pilot are among them.”

    You can almost feel Woodward’s seething derision for these candidates: “How dare those pleebs attempt to run for office, they don’t even have law degrees from Harvard?!”

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I have often said that you needn’t be “brilliant” to be in government. Nor even particularly intelligent, other than to recognize that you mustn’t spend what you don’t have, that you are obligated by the people and by the rules set forth by law to make decisions based upon that law.

      I’ve met a great many people who have more good sense than the uber-intellectuals who currently inhabit their hives in government. How much education is too much? It depends. If you have so much that it prompts disdain and contempt for the average citizen, then I think that’s probably too much.

      My granddad had little more than an 8th grade education but he could make anything. He could draw a blueprint, take stock material and machine a part from scratch. He had a practical approach to problem solving and never complained when things didn’t go his way. Of course, he was born in 1899 so there’s a huge difference right there between himself and the putzes who think they know everything. I am not criticizing them for their lack of practical experience but instead for belittling those who have it and use it as a basis for decision-making. In college I ran into a lot of educated idiots.

    • mr_bill says:

      Amen, Rusty. Your grandfather sounds a lot like mine. I welcome some real world candidates for these offices. Their election will bring some much-needed sanity and practicality to the world of government. I find it ironic that the left constantly demands “diversity” in all things yet scorns and derides any candidate seeking office who does not fit their Ivy League elitist template. Even beyond that though, there are those among the left and in government who, even without an “approved” education, hold the public in general in comtempt.

    • proreason says:

      Interesting thought Rusty.

      To follow up, it is probably better NOT to have particularly smart people in government. Really smart people are constantly inventing things, changing approaches, failing a lot, but in the end, coming up with new and valuable ideas, products and services.

      To me, having a government that acts in that manner would be insane (kind of like what we have right now). All we need is a couple of egghead running their mental roulette wheel on our dime, hoping it all comes out for the best, but more than willing to give it another go if it fails (kind of like what we have right now).

      My preference for government is one with 5 or 10 rules. They never change, and they are easy to understand and enforce. That doesn’t take geniuses. Dullards don’t get confused about right and wrong either. Once they get it, right is always right and wrong is always wrong. We don’t need nuance, we need consistency.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Brilliant liar or an honest fool?

      There is no basis for a relationship when there are no grounds for trust.

      Because there’s no understanding on the part of the liar that the path to genuine loyalty is earned through the demonstration of mutual respect and understanding – not percieved intellect, talent, or personal identity/history.

      And the liars that especially make grandiose speeches about honor, trust, and respect – look out. They’re the manipulators with completely backwards compasses.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Pro, it’s far more simple than that. The current self-proclaimed intellectuals in our government are more adept at “reinventing the wheel” than anything else. It’s all been said; From Einstein’s definition of insanity to overstating the obvious. We know and other critical thinkers know as well.

      Going back to Rome, the centurions preferred good, solid, loyal men to crafty, clever thinkers. The loyal men were wise enough, it would seem to know danger when they saw it and most were averse to politics. They preferred simplicity and knowing that they would eat today.

      Oversimplification, perhaps but you struck upon something key. All the “inventing” was done in the 1770’s with our government. However, inasmuch as socialists are always looking for the “next cool thing” they forget about the tried and true methodology. They always think that time is their servant, not the other way around and whatever is “hip” and “now” is what’s going to get us through the next crisis. Unfortunately, although I’m sure there are a few socialists who truly mean well, the rest are of the ilk that they can get themselves a higher station by playing the system and manipulating it. So instead you have thousands of gamers looking to win it all, while simultaneously willing to screw their buddy who got them there.

      The other analogy is, like you mentioned in another thread, La Cosa Nostra. However, there is far little honor amongst socialists compared to them. In fact, they willingly humiliate themselves if they think it’ll get them closer to the brass ring.

      In my life I have recognized many different types of people but one type stands out. The politico. The person who, rather than do good work and satisfy themselves thus, decides that they need to gain the boss’s favor, do little things to show they are “loyal” (when really they are anything but) and who “plays the game”.

      I am not a gamester and I venture that most people who come here, though competitive in their own way, prefer honest, up-front interaction with others and avoid innuendo, parlor games and politics at work.

      That other person voluntarily traps themselves into the world of how to one-up anyone. We all know and have seen the type in various levels. Perhaps we have even caught ourselves at it when we realized it was foolish and cheap. But for the die-hard politico, everything that happens and can happen affects them internally and they feel they must manipulate or somehow be part of it. It’s actually sickening. But that’s the socialist in a nutshell. It must be hell to constantly have to be concerned with what the “big dogs” are doing and how you can gain their favor. What kind of car to drive, where to eat, what to wear, etc. Even down to what kind of cellphone to have. It’s pathetic but like Rush has mentioned, such behaviors are formed in junior high and high school.

      Somehow it carries a lot of weight with socialists….who I think of as those types of people who wouldn’t do anything alone and fear solitude.

      This is why I think they condemn and ridicule independent thinkers. Those who have been down on their luck and crawled out of it to succeed again. They hate the people I consider heroes: Richard Bong, Pappy Boyington, Jimmy Doolittle, Eddie Rickenbacker, just to name a few. For they were people who met adversity head-on, humbled themselves to failure, got back up and without any help from the GOVERNMENT succeeded. Note that all of them were military members who faced long odds and dealt with the bureaucracy of government and beat it. I read each of their stories and each had to deal with idiot bureaucrats who clung doggedly to procedure and protocol.

      In the end, such things have their place but to use them as substitutes for good sense is, well, simply….socialism. It’s why the Russians transplanted trees in the middle of winter to please a visiting statist to a military base. And when they died instantly, why they spent gobs of money to do it again.

      Logic escapes the statist/socialist. They prefer clear-cut rigid guidelines so they don’t have to be held accountable. “I vuss chust followink ordersss”. What a weak-ass excuse.

      No, my point in saying that particularly intelligent people need not be in government is to bring government back to reason. Inventive people have been known to be very uninteresting in many other ways. But, a person of average intelligence, who works hard, who often can see reason over rules is the person who will do a good job at serving the people. Like a cop who has some compassion and sense.

      As you stated, the very intelligent like to dabble in experimentation. But as you said, such things are not for the management of a national economy or the better good of the people. They try this and there’s upheaval. People don’t generally like that and they like it even less when it costs them a lot of money. And when they see the money frittered away, it’s more than a little maddening. It’s criminal, in fact. I liken it to someone who stole somebody’s wallet and goes gambling with the cash found inside.

      To the issue of the ruling class, every nation has experienced it in one form or another but they are remarkably similar. They are aloof, belong to exclusive places, consider the masses to be beneath them and generally think they are better than anyone else. They admire and respect other ruling classers who smoke the right cigars, who use the right words, who act the right way. Nothing new here. But to eliminate it, a population has to let them know they suck. By refusing them their privileges, we win. By ignoring their status, we win. By laughing at their idiotic remarks, we win.

      When I was unemployed, I got a job briefly at Staples. One guy asked me a question I didn’t know the answer to. So I went and asked someone who had worked at the store for some time…got the answer and went to respond to the customer. As i walked up to him, he was on his cellphone and I started to give him an answer, he held up his finger to “shush” me and make me wait while he babbled away on his phone. Ha ha. I don’t put up with that. I went about my business. He came up to me later and asked me what the answer was and I told him to go “f___ himself…that I wasn’t his goddam servant and if he wants the answer go ask someone else who is willing to lick his shoes”. He left. Imagine that.

      I do not and will not be subservient to another person. I have obeyed orders from higher ups and known when it is wise to do as one is told..but when someone treats me as if I’m a slave, I rebel. I think that’s only right and just. When people in government position themselves to tell me what to drive, how much oil I can use, when and what to eat, I tell them the same thing I told that customer. And it’s not the attitude I give them that bothers them so; It’s the fact that I will not subjugate myself to their (alleged) superiority. They really hate that. But it pleases me no end.

      The point? Get people in government who know enough that the Constitution is the law of the land, that it’s not a “living document” and that making new laws is not the measure of success. The real measure is how well did you uphold the existing laws? Especially the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Basics. It all comes down to that.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »