« | »

The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves

Here is our usual weekend discussion thread, where comments on the general topics of the day are welcome.

But please remember to post and comment on specific news items in the ‘News Selected By Our Correspondents’ thread below or via the link found in the sidebar.


This article was posted by Steve on Friday, November 25th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

53 Responses to “The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves”

  1. Anonymoose says:

    Being Liberal:

    Your ideas really aren’t original, mostly just an opposite reaction of anything conservative.

    To you wealth is like a big mansion; static and unchanging. All the rich people are selfish and keep too many rooms to themselves and need to share, then it’ll be all okay. The concept that wealth is something that has to be maintained and is both spent and earned fails you.

    Part of the reason you’re so gung ho for gun control is you know you can’t be trusted with a firearm, and therefore no one else should be, either.

    Your plans for bettering the world include emplacing ideas and beliefs upon people that can only be enforced by totalitarian measures. Freedom of expression is okay only as long as it agrees with you.

    Beneath your righteous indignation is pure, utter hatred. You hate conservatives, you hate yourselves, you hate anyone who disagrees with you. But you’re always right, you just know you are.

    You stand up for minorities, in principle at least, but the better day your promise never seems to arrive. Racial, ethnic, and societal tensions never change or move forward. You never truly look at any minorities as equals to you.

    Anyone against conservatives is your friend and you all live in some bright rainbow coalition of happiness and openness. Never mind that the real ugliness begins when all your friends start fighting with each and trying to gain the moral upper hand.

    You hate capitalism, but you want to reap the benefits. Like your car? Like the computer you type your flaming invectives on? All created by capitalist money.

    You love the idea of some dream la-la land where everyone is equal, all property is in common, and no one feels disadvantaged or put out. Just no one can either truly excel or achieve. And yet you somehow still want to own, be recognized (and Paid!) for your art, music, and writing.

    Just thought I’d toss this out.

    • David says:

      Beneath your righteous indignation is pure, utter hatred.
      I have been thinking about this more as advent is upon us. Hate is so easy and appealing and while I am sure it can be found in every political leaning it seems to have become a pillar of liberalism. The progressive’s charge for acceptance of all and tolerance has morphed into a holy war against those who are “intolerant”.
      Not to get all hippy about it but I think what this country truly needs is hope and love. People are what they are so I don’t mean this on an individual level but corporately. If people love their country more than they hated their countrymen then we could see some real progress. Practically, this means wanting and doing what is best for the community. Drug tolerance and the related welfare-slave class thrives because liberals are too busy hating “the system/capitalism/the wealthy” do actually care about the outcome of their policies that fight against imagined enemies.
      Towards the end of the Bush years I noticed this so much more as the argument seemed to be less about policy and more about person. These people’s blood pressure spikes up and they are comfortable with thoughts of murder at the names of Cheney or Palin. Examining myself I can’t say I feel that way towards even the most vile person. We didn’t kill Bin Laden because we hated him. We simply did what our common understanding of justice required. He was judged by his actions. In contrast the modern democratic party is fixated on making enemies out of policy differences. Speaking for myself, Obama is not an enemy. I vehemently disagree with 85% of his policies but I would never wish any harm on him. God knows this country has enough fatherless black children.
      My final point is about hope. Obama cooped this term and perverted it in 2008. While calling it hope what he really stirred up was fear. Fear that without him the economy would collapse, fear that Palin would run the country, fear, fear, fear. Real hope is a recognition that by a divine hand and an indomitable american spirit this country has made it through very dark days. Trust in that will produce a solid hope for tomorrow.

  2. Mithrandir says:

    From Youtube: http://youtu.be/KBf4nrxsmnA?t=43s

    After Ron Paul said we don’t need to give up our liberty for security.

    Newt Gingrich: “Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don’t want a law that says, ‘after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you’. I want a law that says, ‘if you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.'”

    MOST criminals succeed Newt! Police are only AFTER THE FACT chroniclers and investigators. Why have a Bill of Rights at all then? Honestly, Newt is right in line with many thoughts of the liberal left, such as those running our college campi. Take away our rights, to stop terrorism is the same as taking away our 2nd Amendment rights to stop crime. (you want to stop crime don’t you?) –Our 1st Amendment rights to stop people being offended. (you do want a peaceful world don’t you?) –Our 10th Amendment rights to stop states from doing things we don’t agree with. (you don’t want states making up silly laws do you?) –Our 4th Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. (you have nothing to hide do you?)

    Newt & the liberals desire a world in which everything is so tightly controlled, you have no freedoms left. A world where you are feed ONLY healthy food, you CAN’T hurt others with your words, you can’t hurt others with guns or knives, or in any way what-so-ever. 0% crime! “Peace in Our Time!” We just have to keep controlling the people to get to that glorious point.

    What a wonderful world! It can finally happen if you look at the photo in the google-link below…..


  3. David says:

    Will Republicans win the Senate and keep the House without a highly motivating front man running for President? As in, the Senate and House losses were a big (f-ing) deal in 2008 and was largely motivated by Obama being the face for the Democrats. Is that less likely to happen for Republicans in 2012 if Romney or Newt is the face of Republicans or will the Senate seat wins be based on something else?

    • tranquil.night says:

      To motivate the electorate towards the correct decision, it has to be a collective effort on behalf of everyone who’s willing to frame the stakes of this election in the proper context.

      What we face is an impossible task for one person to shoulder, and we don’t have the next Ronaldus Magnus on the ballot right now. We do have a Republican field that is the most small and Constitutional government centered (even the establishment candidates) since Reagan. That’s because they are a reflection of the popular resurgent success of Reaganism in the electorate over these past couple of years. Today’s Republican platform is radically different than what it was just in 2008.

      My point is that whatever disappointment we feel towards whoever the eventual nominee, it’s legitimate because this election represents such an opportunity to contrast Americanism with Socialism/Marxism that we want a leader that can do so with absolute supremacy. But there is no such political savior, therefore we’re going to have to win the old-fashioned way – with everyone doing their part to convince everyone they can that 4 more years with the current regime and we’re toast.

      Resist we much, to win we must.

    • proreason says:

      “Will Republicans win the Senate and keep the House without a highly motivating front man running for President?”


      2008 had a lot of voters who may have voted for the only time in their lives, and they may never vote again.

      Tea Party voters are motivated by the issues, not candidates. Almost all of the people who declare they won’t vote for Romney or Newt will still go to the polls and vote for conservative local candidates.

  4. tranquil.night says:

    Sowell vs. Piven, 1980. http://americanglob.com/2011/11/26/1980-video-thomas-sowell-debates-frances-fox-piven/


    Big h/t to the blogger who posts it and Insty for the link. As he says, “Everything old is new again.”

    That was 5 years before I was born though. It was new to me, and it was awesome!

    • sticks says:

      Dr Sowell is indeed a genius. What is amazing is to listen to Piven, you can hear the class warfare of Karl Marx in every word and literally see the hatred on her face as Dr Sowell speaks words of truth she doesn’t want anyone to hear.

    • Mithrandir says:

      Communists are so SMUG when they argue with people they don’t agree with, and ESPECIALLY a black guy they don’t agree with. Listen to her try to tell him how it is.

      Her point: blacks can’t make it unless the gov’t gets involved to improve schools / society etc.

      His point: no one asked to eliminate racism with racism, or to give freedom by taking it away from others.

      *And also, I have NEVER been contacted by a pollster in my life, neither has my family or our friends. Amazing how many polls are taken in a given year, and you would suppose 1 of them would have contacted you by now don’t you think?

  5. chainsaw says:

    Dr. Sowell is a genius. If you are interested in a true American dream story, I highly recommend his easy reading autobiography “A Personal Odyssey”.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Why thank you Chainsaw. I’ve always heard Dr. Sowell had an exceptional story. If Steve were as shamelessy CapitOlist (as Occupy calls them) as the rest of the blogosphere I’d be able to get him the Amazon affiliates commission!

  6. tranquil.night says:

    Wade Rathke: Tea Party has out-organized OWS


    Yet because Occupy organizing is “still in its embryonic stages” while tea partiers have been organizing for more than two years, he cautions that “comparing the tea party movement to OWS is apples and oranges.”

    The rest of the report is what is fascinating. The rebirth of ACORN as COI, which astroturfs for Occupy, all of which we’ve tracked here since Rathke left for the global pastures. Speaking of which, the report gets into ACORN-International and the continuing ‘philanthropic’ works from our friends over at the Legion of Doom aka the Tides Foundation.

    Oh yeah, apparently we’re winning the battle but losing the global organizing war or something. If that’s in reference to the so-called Arab Spring and Euro’s Fall, well then /golfclap to that.

  7. Tater Salad says:

    Net Neutrality grab by the Obama regime:
    This is crunch time. If the FCC can get away with this, then federal bureaucrats can disregard the Congress and the courts and do almost anything they want. Our representative form of government is at stake.

    Please click here to tell your senators to VOTE YES on S.J.Res.6 and to STOP the FCC’s net neutrality power grab.
    Please send an email to your elected officials. Let your voice be heard!


  8. tranquil.night says:

    Jonah to Newt Congratulations, and Don’t Get Cocky

    “This is the moment where perceived vindication breeds hubris.”

    Mhm. Well put.

  9. proreason says:

    Interesting analysis of Romney and Newt:


    In summary, different times call for different people. These times might be more appropriate for the less cautious candidate.

    It’s a variation of the Churchill analogy.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Saw that in Allahpundit’s QotD and thought of you.

      He’s certainly got people across the board taking him seriously, despite the baggage and policy skirmishes. That’s a good place to continue to be moving into crunch time.

    • Melly says:

      Newt is a pseudo-intellectual. Unfortunately, most Americans view Newt as an intellectual-that’s why he stands outl. His staff noted when he was speaker they had two huge files: Newt’s ideas and Newt’s good ideas. He is a man of a 1000 ideas and has great difficulty implementing them – many of his collegues from when he was Speaker can attest to this – hence the lack of endorsements. With Newt – I see a flashy attempt at intellectualism. Do I see an effective leader in the private sector? Do I see a man who is conservative in his personal life? Do I see a born leader? Do I see a man who can reverse the course that America is on? Do I see a man who can defeat Obama?

    • proreason says:

      We don’t need a man who can reverse the course America is on. We need somebody who can beat Obama.

      The Tea Party will do the heavy lifting of reversing course, as it should, and as the founders designed the process. Presidents have far too much power and a big part of that problem is that Americans want to invest too much power in one person, who can never measure up to expectations. Much better to let 535 flawed humans hash it out than 1 flawed human. The primary power the founders gave the president was commander in chief, simply because they knew committees can’t run wars. They would be shocked to see that their plan has evolved into a system where one person has the influence of the current POTUS.

      This notion that we need a knight in white armor isn’t a good one. Actually, it’s dangerous.

      One of my biggest concerns about Newt is that he would try to impose his unique vision on the country if he gets elected. I would much prefer somebody who will simply not veto the Tea Party Congress and keep his eye on the terrorist. That’s why Romney is still on my plate. If Newt looks like he goes ego-mad in the next few months, I’ll move to Romney. I expect the Romney campaign to begin pointing out in a strong way Newt’s “creativity” is a two-edged sword that has frequently cut the wrong way (which is different from Romney’s negative of having to govern in a liberal state)..

      I’ll vote for the one who has the best chance to beat Obama. If they are equal in that task, I’ll vote for Romney, because he is the one more likely to go with the flow.

    • tranquil.night says:

      What’s frustrating me lately about the primary chatter is the argument: “candidate x is the only one who can win,” usually with no evidence to even corroborate such a claim. It’s been the consistent Romney argument, but now everybody’s supporters are doing it. Steyn is sure full of his usual level sunshine today.

      The tone is heading decisively negative, because everyone is buying this premise that Spike is still this flawless wunderkid with whom America is still smitten like schoolgirls.

      Yes, this election is important and not necessarily a breeze which we can nominate just anyone with clear and significant weaknesses. But it’s so important that we’re going to HAVE to support someone that a majority of voters probably wouldn’t consider their first choice or even have significant problems with.

      Pro is right. People are investing too much into the ideal that these candidates cannot meet, and in doing so are not analyzing the situation with a perspective grounded in reality.

      We have to be reasonable. There’s nothing the Regime can claim of any of these candidates histories or positions that can’t and shouldn’t be countered by regime action that was 1000x times worse for the American people. Anyone who is making that case consistently and effectively is on my shortlist because they are the ones who know what they’re going to have to do to win.

    • proreason says:

      Who can win?

      There are two aspects to it; win the nomination, and win the election. Of course, it’s unknowable for absolute sure, but I think the answers to the two questions are different.

      For the primaries, it’s pretty much Romney and Newt. Everyone else is a real longshot, particularly now with Perry polling at 4% in SC and Cain “reassessing” his prospects. Maybe Bachman or Santorum can make a splash in Iowa and get back in the fray, but even being open-minded about it, the probabilities are low.

      For the November election, Huntsman could conceivably win, assuming Republicans would have no choice but to vote for him, and moderate independents would like him…but Huntsman can’t get out of the primaries. On the other hand, it seems very unlikely that Perry, Bachman or Santorum can win the general election, even if they pull off a miracle and get the nomination.

      Very few people think Paul can win either the primaries or the general election.

      Cain might have a chance in the general election, since he could pick up some minority votes, but his ongoing problems are making it less and less likely that he can win the primaries. You have to wonder whether his beautiful wife might be getting a little tired of the assault on him and perhaps even beginning to wonder whether he has been 100% faithful to her. It would be easy to see him deciding to minimize the damage to their relationship and get out. So all in all, when you add up every hill Herman has to climb, the odds against him are very long as well.

      So that leaves Romney and Gingrich, or the other long-shot, a brokered convention.

      That’s the lay of the land right now, which is quite different than 6 weeks ago. But I don’t think it is going to change much in the next 6 weeks, unless Newt is taken out by the marxists for some reason we haven’t even heard of yet, or because one of the two manages to knock the other out. The way things are going in the base, it seems more likely Newt could knock Romney out. But when you consider money, organization and determination, I can’t see Romney quitting. He hasn’t invested five years of his life and who knows how many millions of his fortune to give up without fighting until his last breath.

      If I had to bet, I would still bet on Romney, but Newt has followed an amazing path to put himself in genuine contention.

      One other thing to consider is that it appears to me that Newt has set a subtle trap for Romney, by his demand to debate little lenin in Lincoln/Douglas style debates. Mitt is a very good debater, but would be at a disadvantage in such debates because he does not have the intimacy with foreign affairs that only a government insider can have. Mitt is also not the type of person who will draw bold bright differences between himself and Obama, so Mitt might fade into the woodword in a three hour discussion with the most dangerous liar on the planet. For those reasons, I don’t think Mitt would want to do that kind of debate. The trap is: if Romeny is the nominee, then OBAMA will want to do it. Pretty clever of Newt, I think. Eventually, the republican voters are going to begin thinking about that.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I’ve been playing this decision very close to the chest. I’ve specifically tried to refrain from emotionally investing too much in any single candidate so that I could analyze each given what was happening organically, while still being free to support and defend all of them from unfair and incorrect narratives perpetrated by the media. My hope was that the process was going to produce a candidate that truly understood what this election means in the course of History, and propel them towards embracing the winning platform and message that was built in 2010.

      For the first half of the primary, I was very disappointed by how the primary was defined by platitudes, media narratives, and retail politics. I did not think I was going to endorse anyone in the primary.

      Then Cain’s plan became an overnight hit and ignited energy in working and middle class voters. For all the plans flaws, the benefits of the tax reform conversation cannot be overlooked. In addition to the political pressure of Cain’s rise that triggered Perry and Newt to release their much better plans, the end result now is that our platform has a clearly defined alternative pro-growth tax vision to Spike’s class warfare.

      Cain was not the man for well-documented reasons: the other frontrunners proved themselves stronger and better qualified.

      That brings us to Newt. When he called Paul Ryan’s plan ‘right-wing social engineering’ I’m quoted as saying ‘At least the establishment characters are showing their colors now.’ That’s where I started with Newt, exactly thinking what everybody else thinks. Something happened to him from then until now which was easy to miss if you literally weren’t watching the transformation each successive day with every appearance.

      It started when his staff bailed for Perry, and I remember thinking,
      “Well, good, maybe Newt will run his campaign outside the margins of how establishment consultants tell him how to manage it.”

      He did. He reached out to the grassroots, heightened his message towards the big philosophical picture and started attacking the media’s false-premises and protection of their Precious Obama. That’s when my official ‘second look at Newt’ began, and I wrote at the time that he was rising like a Phoenix. Impulse told me that Newt was going to surge even before the Sex-Harassment smear campaign started against Cain. That Texas Tea Party discussion over the Ryan Plan, where Newt not only endorsed it but was able to articulate it’s strengths with exceptional ability, was the point where the dynamic changed, and Newtmentum began.
      ge towards the Big Picture

    • tranquil.night says:

      I’ll be finishing this post later, including assessments on the rest of the candidates. Using the edit module on a cell phone is too tough and my work break is over. Sorry for the sloppy grammar and diction.

      My overarching point is summed up well by Insty:

      “But why do/did people like Newt? Or Herman Cain? Or Michele Bachmann? Because they weren’t afraid to go after Obama hammer-and-tongs. Romney take note.”

      This has always been a more sophisticated process than the “not-Romney flavor of the week” meme, in other words.

    • proreason says:

      fyi, Newt has said that his famous comment about social engineering wasn’t directed specificlly at Paul Ryan’s plan, but rather at any plan that seeks to impose government solutions that people don’t have a choice about. Newt consistently offers options in his plans. So, seniors could stay with the existing Medicare plan or opt into a market-based option. On taxes, people can chose his 15% flat tax, or calculate taxes the old way.

      Maybe he is spinning, but based on his plan itself, his comment is consistent with what he proposed.

      It’s a real hot-button for me because in the 80’s I was forced to the edge of bankruptcy because the Reagan tax reform dramatically changed the depreciation rules for rental property, which was one of my businesses. There was no grandfathering. I watched my properties fall in value by over 25% almost instantly. And that’s official, because I have the tax valuations to prove it. It took me over a decade to work my way out of the financial problem it caused me, and I do mean WORK, not pencil pushing. 70, 80 hour weeks were common for years. That is in addition to the massive hit my finances took. Fortunately, I was young enough and determined enough to fight through it. It also nearly ruined my marriage, and it still has a big impact on my life, even today. It’s the main reason I consider 9 9 9 to be so insane. You simply can’t throw the entire tax code against the wall and not expect to destroy a lot of people’s lives. Somehow, Newt understands this. Maybe he actually listened to some people who have been jerked around by regulation changes, even ones with good conservative intentions.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I completely sympathize with you there and was hoping that argument would be made earlier by candidates when the discussion was happening, but alas, it didn’t materialize. I’ve never thought that any of these plans in their vanilla form would be the chiseled end result, and 9-9-9 wasn’t the most thoughtful plan when it came to anticipating the economic complications that would arise from a radical overhaul of the tax code. The points I credit are to effective leadership in a policy discussion, message marketing, and the ability to organize political support around your ideas and counter your critics. Cain’s missed opportunities in those areas were quickly seized upon by others, and the end result was I think, you’re right, the very optimal and I foresee very popular idea that we introduce our reforms as alternatives to the current system and let human choice eventually vindicate the stronger one. That allows for businesses like yours the time to adjust. As you aptly note, Newt has picked up this idea on Medicare reform too, and might be equally as workable with Social Security. albeit the problem there is that you’re going to have all the young people opt-out and dry up the payroll taxes to the system already technically in the red.

      Thank you for clarifying the social-engineering remark too. I’ll admit at the time, my frustration was because the Left used that as a headline to buoy their narrative in the middle of the Ryan Plan public debate, but also because as we all know Newt has a record.

      Right now he’s smashing narratives, but something from the past could trump him, especially if his campaign starts to reflect those negative arrogant and wonkish qualities more than his shrewdness and substance. If so, then there’s a small window of opportunity for someone else to claim the surge. My opinion of the order of likelihood on who that would be should Newt fall is: Bachmann, Perry, Santorum.

      My thoughts on each’s positives and negatives:

      + Stalwart Constitutionalist
      + Counters Liberal Me-me’s substantively and intellectually
      + Exceptional and unique personally
      + Much better political manager than anyone realized

      – Too one-dimensionally partisan sometimes, feeding the popular caricature that she’s too extremist.
      – Excedingly knowledgeable, but at times lacking in political perspective when it comes to how she’s going to implement her solutions.
      – Will use any wedge issue to attack her competitors (until recently, Romney?), again, to the point I think it’s lacking in perspective.

      The same holds true to what I’ve said about her earlier: that which I think doesn’t suit her as President yet would make her an ideal Speaker of the House if we can manage to boot blubberin’ Boehner.

      + Best economic executive record on the field, hands down.
      + Not George W. Bush and I think very eager and willing to prove that.
      + Most active candidate for reducing the size and scope of government, including the Exectuive, and very clear focus on American exceptionalism.
      + Superb, comprehensive, tax and cut plan (which I wonder if he even looked at other than the prepared bullet points).

      – Totally blew his opening act, and conventional wisdom believes, his entire shot.
      – Some breaks with orthodoxy, including the mandated vaccinations, the TEXAS Dream Act and the “heartless” comment (I forgive you).
      – While his debates performances have improved dramatically, being able to articulate the substantive details doesn’t seem to be something he likes or even feels like is that important. It wouldn’t necessarily be if we weren’t at a point in our country’s history where we were so divided in our thinking and in need of constant education on what should be common sense.

      Perry is my second choice behind Newt, but I do not think the Hawkeye Cauci are going to coalesce around him over Bachmann should Newt slide.

      + A personal example of a pillar of Conservatism.
      + An extremely humble man, so much so that it does not become apparent how knowledgeable he is unless you hear him when he has a couple minutes to talk. This actually works to his negative too. At times I wish he could take a lesson with Newt on how to lead by being a bit arrogant, while Newt took a lesson from him on the power of humility.
      + Foreign Policy whiz with a solid vision, and someone whose personality seems like he’d be a powerful diplomat by nature.

      – Lost his Senate reelection bid in Pennsylvania hard in what (I think) was an okay year for the rest of the party.
      – Has not achieved quite the elevated profile in recent years to run basically an outsiders campaign that can overcome the established organizations – with so many other Conservatives in the race.
      – Has continued not to achieve the profile level throughout this race that he needs to become a not-Romney contendor. For as much of an underdog as he’s always been, he’s been too passive.

      Which isn’t to say the long shot might not beat all odds, but I don’t think the electorate is feeling that risky with the objective being we need to fire Obama. If the circumstances has shaped out a different way, Santorum could’ve been a great nominee.

      Jon Huntsman: I don’t think I’ve mentioned him once, and this is going to be the only time. There is no Huntsmentum, there will be none. He is in this race solely as the guy that all the establishment and moderate pundits can’t figure out why those wing-nuts won’t consider ’cause he’s like just so conservative! Keep scratchin’ your heads, guys, it ain’t happenin’.

      Ron Paul: Unfortunately, it is happening for good ol’ Ru Paul, to the extent that it can “happen” for him. His polls keep me up at night with Third Party worries. It’s not like it isn’t warranted – he’s as passionate and cheerable about the economic side of Liberty as he is completely bonkers about the Foreign Policy side of it. To whatever extent that he’s an effective spokesperson, he is not a good representation of Libertarianism. Neither are the Paulbots, who as we’ve said are more Liberaltarian, with ideologies more related to the anti-war movement. Somebody needs to tell him to stop ripping the rest of the field, bite the bullet, and endorse the eventual candidate if he wants to save what’s left of the Constitution (nudge, nudge, RAND!!)

      So that leaves Mittens. I’ve ranted ad nauseum about everything from worry about his executive appointments, blank slate image, lack of a core, and most especially, his employment of establishment attack dogs to do the dirty work that must get done but can keep him squeaky clean. But he has taken steps to grow, if only when and because it’s apparent that he isn’t the ‘inevitable’ won. He’s solid, but clearly not unbreakable, and I will always worry that the Liberals are going to be a step ahead of him because he probably doesn’t think they’re that sinister. But should he be our man, then we’re just gonna have to talk twice as loud to make sure he hears us whenever those Mittoast impulses beging to kick in.

    • proreason says:

      good analysis tn. Unfortunately, there isn’t much of that going around.

      You know, I don’t have an issue if somebody thinks it through and comes up with a reasoned response for why Cain or one of the other low % candidates is their choice. As you say, there is something to like about all of them. But it drives me crazy when the reason is “Romney sucks” or “I won’t let the rino’s choose my candidate for me”. And when it’s clear that it’s just starry eyed lap dogism, it’s even more annoying.

      One of the reasons I like S&L is that there isn’t much of that kind of stuff.

      And, of course, I go bonkers when somebody, even the beloved artboy, says he won’t vote if Newt or Romney gets the nod. They must do it just to fry my synapses.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Thanks Pro. I’ve tried to motivate my commentary to remember to stress the positive, even on Mitt with whom I most disagree. In the end we’re going to want all of their voters with us, so while there’s enough negative fodder being debated, I’ve been trying to look at those qualities to which people have been responding well – and the candidate who is doing the most to recognize and adopt those qualities, tactics, or ideas into their overall presentation.

      I forgot my final analysis on Cain. Sadly, I do not see a path to the nomination for him any longer. I don’t believe this latest case of slander any more than the others, it’s just that unfortunately it has now come to overshadow the entire campaign, and as unfair as it might be, we just don’t have the ability to fight this fight for him when the fight we have to have is with the forces destroying the country. The centerpiece plan of his campaign into which he’s put all his capital has too many fundamental flaws, his policy expertise still too undeveloped, and now his uplifting and positive image so called into doubt, warranted or not, that all of this together just makes him too risky an investment for a must-win situation.

      I hope he keeps chugging along into January with his head held high, whereupon he graciously concedes and endorses the emergent Conservative.

      It’s really tough too, because I’d honestly been jazzed about a Gingrich/Cain ticket because of how I thought how they balanced eachother. However, this narrative with him and the women is so out of control I think it’s damaged that possibility too.

      The Vice Presidential picks are going to be muy importante though. I never like the idea of drafting anybody (as a lifelong #1 Palin nut, I scoff at the Palinistas latest run-Sarah-run ad. She made her intentions known. Let it go.. she’s still got a large role to play here) – but Marco Rubio has got to be on Romney’s short list, both from an electability standpoint to a party cohesion standpoint. Same with Newt, but he’s polling so well in Florida that there may be some flexibility there. Allen West says he’s open, althought not to knock the good Colonel, but I think we got a couple of options on the bench. Paul Ryan I think needs a serious look. Newt is polling exceptionally well with Seniors, which is perfect considering we need Seniors to listen to us when we say we’re not out to throw them over the cliff. Gingrich/Ryan would be a 1-2 punch deficit attack team with strong coattails in the battlegrounds.

  10. tranquil.night says:

    Operation Counterweight update:

    Michigan: Stacy McCain introduces us to Gary Glenn, http://garyglenn.us/, who’s just released his first ad and is getting a lot of grassroots support out in Michigan for good reason. Insty picked this up too.


    His primary challenger is Labor friendly establishment Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra. Winner will be going up against the very vulnerable Debbie Stabenow

    Previous watchlist: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-hive-please-talk-among-yourselves-18#comment-206002

  11. proreason says:

    now allahpundit is piling on Newt


    We’ll have to run a paper mache cutout if this crap continues.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Too funny.

      Chumpundit will never get this, but there’s a dirty little secret why Newt is succeeding at reconciling himself with the base.

      The bulk of the Republican electorate just isn’t as concerened about the past as they are about the future. They want a leader who can win, and will do so articulating the platform they built in 2010.

      In 2008, for what little politically I paid attention, I spoke and thought like a centrist because that’s what I was conditioned to think made sense.

      For much of the last decade, Constitutional Conservatism as a brand had been diluted and co-opted. The political reality of that era was different. Many good Conservatives signed onto bad policy with good intentions.

      The Tea Party is made up of apoliticals, former Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

      We don’t hold anyone’s views against them.

      What matters is that they see the Light.

      So while Newt has taken the steps necessary to try and move on from his mistakes, Mitt Romney named his book “No Apologies.”

      It’s as simple as that.

    • David says:

      Newt would be hilarious if the historical baggage stuff comes up.
      “15 years ago I was having an affair. That is true. Remind me again, what Obama was doing then? Was it smoking crack or sitting in a church with a man preaching about the rightful damnation of America? Perhaps that was while he was woking for Voter-Fraud-R-Us (aka Acorn) or studying with the terrorist?”

    • tranquil.night says:

      Great comment David.

    • proreason says:

      Yes David, I’ve been predicting that the msm will confront Newt once or twice, and then never again directly, because as you say, that will give Newt a platform to bring up the Moron’s entire sordid history. And Newt won’t be stupid enough to make it about a birth certificate. It will be a gattling gun with precision fire.

      When you’re talking pots and kettles, we may have a pot but their kettle is as big as a house, and one thing about Newt is that he won’t shy away from discussing it.

      I’m praying that if Romney wins, he will do the same when the supposedly devastating topic of Mormonism comes up.

      McLame’s biggest mistake was refusing to educate the American public about the con man/marxist he was running against, because surely he knew. Looking back, that failure appoached the realm of treason.

  12. proreason says:

    Rambling, but thought provoking piece by Ace, who is one of the best political analysts around.


    It’s hard to see the main point, but at least one IMPORTANT point is one I haven’t seen yet from anybody but myself: the standards for conservatism in 2011 are quite different than they were just a few years ago. Newt is currently, for example, being excorciated for doing and saying things that in the early and mid 2000’s, were the conservative norm. Ace mentions the individual mandate, which is being used to crucify Newt and Romney, but which was INVENTED by the Heritage Foundation, albeit under a different framework and philosophy than Obamacare. So if that was NORMAL, why should our two vialbe candidates be raked over the coals for it. What should they have done, anticipate a 10 year away future, in defiance of the premier conservative think tank of the day? With nothing less being acceptable, of course.

    That’s just one example. Ace cites several.

    It doesn’t absolve Romney and Gingrich of every sin, but it does point out the thoughtless hypocricy of many newly pure and rock-solidly confident conservatives, who themselves had much more checkered historical political opinions than Newt or Mitt. I’ve said before that I was a brainless brainwashed liberal for decades, and other regular posters on S&L have said the same. I have a strong hunch that a LOT of adamant rigidly fierce conservatives shouting from the rooftops that the two contenders are inadequate flip-flopping inconsistent squishy dangerous liberals in conservative clothing were themselves much much worse than the two in question.

    We have to forgive these two guys for committing the sins that weren’t even sins when they committed them and get behind one of them to beat the most dangerous man on the planet so he can’t veto the repeal of American marxism.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Ace is a great thinker and I completely agree with that point, although he seems to be taking some blanket comments by Rush a little personally lately. Heh.

      I’ve never cared as much about RomneyCare as much as I’ve wanted Mitt to understand the importance of repealing ObamaCare in toto and why in present-day Conservatism, we’ve come to recognize that the individual mandate is in breach of the Constitution and redistributive bureauctratic run HealthCare causes severe destruction to the private insurance market.

      It’s that last point that Romney won’t acknowledge, and that is the philosophical difference that Newt made a couple of debates back. He made that point very well too.

      But that’s not on my top reasons I’m not jazzed about him, which are more related to worries about his ability to win and some of the ways he’ll govern.

      You and Ace are right, thus, that those who’re looking for any dirt to essentially play “gotcha” are doing so with emotional motivations (they just don’t like the candidate or like someone else better, usually, or in the case of Allahpundit, because he likes to poke at Conservatives), rather than with a worldview grounded in the big picture, which is precisely that things have changed dramatically in the past decade and especially the past three years.

      Part of it I think is just the nature of Political Football, wherein we also need people like you too Pro, who can step in with the simple blunt truth when the need calls for it all to be put back in perspective.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      As has been said, Mitt and Newt and all the rest are human. Flawed, but passionate. Any/all of their missteps can be excused when compared to the out-and-out reprehensible behavior of “I-won”. When you compare him against the republican candidates, one must understand that you are comparing people who actually care about this nation against one who doesn’t. That the republican candidates, though imperfect, have the United States in their hearts and on their minds as being an exceptional nation. Captain Hopenchange doesn’t.

      Newt, Mitt, Michelle, Herman, et al want the United States to be exceptional again. O-bumble doesn’t. He hates this nation with every fiber of his being. His anger is palpable. His notions of imperialism and theft are misbegotten assumptions fueled by a socialist/communist upbringing filled with hate and more anger. There are no shortages of such people and inasmuch as they hate self-sufficient people, they direct their hatred and anger at same and want them to “pay” for perceived injustices and “unfairness”.

      Well, the past three years has shown us what such anger produces when it’s allowed its own head. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Frank, Dodd, Kennedy, etc. all have one thing in common: Anger. And they are and have been angry their whole lives. Kennedy, fortunately, is gone but there are literally millions of anger-filled demented people to fill their shoes. Kagan, Nepolitano, Holder, Immanuel, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

      The goal is to get the adults back in the game and tell the petulant children to SHADDUP.

  13. proreason says:

    Best political quote ever:

    “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”


  14. tranquil.night says:

    Newt & the GSE’s: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=34603 (h/t Insty)

    More on those famous Newtian government as the solution impulses.

    As usual, the situation isn’t simple because Newt nuances his arguments, some of which are reasonable in their intended context, but the VS blogger parses through it well.

    I agree with him. It’s something that’s gonna continue to dog him more the longer he whitewashes his involvment. The regime can’t use it too much considering they’re still writing the zombie GSE money pits off from any reform, but it’d be nice if he took a bit more responsibility.

    • proreason says:

      Well, it’s not as if he is campaigning as an anti-lobbyist crusader.

      Unless it comes out that he was giving advice the Fannie about how to trick and fool the public, I believe the situation isn’t a smoking gun.

      But drip drip counts a lot. That is the current strategy against Newt. Since he has a 40 year history in government, there is no question that they will be able to come up with dozens, perhaps hundreds, or things to discredit him. Many of them will actually be true, since there is no way that his opinions and statements over 40 years can possibly align perfectly with the wishes and desires of the Tea Party Base in December, 2011.

      We’ll see if the accumulation of truths, half-truths and lies takes him down. I’m thinking no, and if he can survive the inevitable campaign against him, it may inure him for the general election; because if it’s pretty certain that all of the bullets will be fired until one brings him down or he fends them all off.

      And on a related topic, people might wonder why the same isn’t happening to Romney. The answer to that, in my opinion, is that the Obama Cabal has concluded that Romney will be the nominee, and they are saving their fire for September and October of 2012 when it will be fresh in the minds of the people they will be spending billions to brainwash.

      But there is another, even more sinister explanation for why Romney is getting a pass. It is entirely possible that the Cabal prefers to run against Romney than Newt (or perhaps even the others). The princes of darkness may have concluded that Mitt will pull a McLame and not confront the marxists with the truth about their record and the manchurians, shall we say, “development as a politician”. I’m not saying that is absolutely the case. But it is clear they are holding their fire for some reason, and that is at least one of the possible explanations.

    • proreason says:

      Looking at the verum find more closely, there isn’t much doubt that it is a good bullet against Newt. But I still don’t think it’s a fatal blow.

      Very few people were saying with absolute conviction in 2006 and 2007 that the GSE’s were going to bring down the economy. I was pretty heavily into politics from about 2003 forward, and the GSEs simply were not a hot topic in conservative circles.

      As verum points out, the bigger issue is that the find seems to contradict Newt’s point blank assertiion that he counseled Fannie that what they were doing was wrong.

      But based on Newt’s recent history, he will have some kind of a counter to that argument as well. Maybe he will get so tangled up in the web that he won’t be able to get out, but it doesn’t seem likely to me. There aren’t many faster afoot than he is, and none of the contenders or Obama (to my knowledge) were prescient seers at that time either.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Good analysis.

      Ace covers Newt’s response to the VS story: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324263.php

      He semi cops to being upset that Perry’s grizzly start and baggage seems weighted unfairly next to Newt’s. I agree inasmuch as Perry arrived on the scene set against a backdrop, fanfare, and conventional wisdom consisting of impossible standards. But politics is what it is right now. I don’t know what the magic answer for Perry is. His flubs aren’t his only flaws, but nor are they anything that should be fatal on their own. One’s record factors but there seem to be other categories to this campaign which voters are valuing into their decisions. Newt’s driven himself almost entirely via the airwaves, his ground game is still behind, but he’s been consistently demonstrating the willingness to engage the regime and media misinformation and pull the margins of the discussion back into the arena of sanity, while the others have not been willing or have been good but not as effective when weighed with other minor flaws. One can question the merit of the number of debates , or questionblanket judgment of the electorate all they want and Allahpundit will link love that line of thought, or pursue on a personal vendetta to the heart’s content. The data will be what it is, and the broader mission will still be before us.

      What’s funny is whereas people were supposedly to be dogmatically blinded for supporting Cain, now they’re unacceptably pragmatic and compromising for teaming up with the Wolf in Newt’s clothes.

    • proreason says:

      Some people are hanging onto Perry, but I just don’t get it. Perry has done three things so seriously wrong that he just can’t overcome them without a four year rest and a lot of practive.

      All of the mistakes are related but different. Everyone is aware of the bad debate performances. A lot of people lament that so much depends on so little, but heh, those are the only job interviews we have where the candidates can’t script every moment. If there had been honest Democratic debates in 2008, little lenin would be an insignificant back bencher today. So I don’t knock the debates. Flawed as they are, they reveal a lot. And it is pretty well universally agreed that they have revealed that Perry isn’t fast on his feet intellectually, and does’t have a full command of the issues, even the ones that he ought to have the best command of.

      The second mistake is that he wasn’t quite ready. He hadn’t thought things through yet. His plans weren’t set, weren’t ready to be published. That is one of the reasons he debated poorly. Romney and Newt spent years thinking about being president. They are ready. It’s hard to trip them up. They have thought though just about everything they need to have thought through.

      The third mistake is that Perry isn’t careful enough with his rhetoric, and he doesn’t tailor it to appeal to the groups he needs to appeal to. The classic was his comment about border zealots not being compassionate enough. How could he say that? But it wasn’t the only mistake of that type. Indeed, it’s kind of a habit for Rick. Three years ago he made some loose talk about seceding from the union. Sounds great to some people, but that’s not a wise topic for somebody who is consedering running for president. Same thing with the Ponzi scheme comment and the double and triple downs. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a ponzi scheme or not, about 50 million senior citizen voters don’t want to hear their next president basically telling them that the money they depend on to live comes from a criminal scheme. Not exactly the way to get grandma to vote for you, eh?

      Rick needs a lot more practice. I don’t count him out for future years, but if he somehow miraculously gets the nod this time, I’m going back to work on the bunker.

  15. proreason says:

    A lot of people hate Newt, but I nearly had an orgasm last night a few times during the Hannity intervew.

    Hannity asked him if he would make an issue of the Ayers relationship, and Newt shockingly responded (rough paraphrase) “If I’m the candidate, I certainly will make it an issue. For example, I want to find out what he was teaching in those U of Chicago classes for many years. Was it Alinsky principles? We need to know.”

    At another point Newt said something like (another paraphrase) “The country can tolerate an incompetant president and it can tolerate a radical president, but when you have one that is both, it can’t survive for long.”

    At another point (another paraphrase) “Obama is clearly the worst president since Buchanan”. This is important. It’s a way of saying Obama is worse than even Jimmy Carter, which is an extremely strong condemnation.

    It’s hard to imagine Romney saying stuff like that.

    Now I have to worry whether flaunting the truth in such a manner will hurt his electability in the general election. At the moment I think not, but pretty soon the knights of the media will weigh in with their perverted spin, and if any group is capable of poisoning the well, they are it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I missed that but am hearing a lot of buzz in similar fashion about it.

      He seems ready for the media, but they are going to use any clip possible to caricature him to divert the narrative. Like Bachmann, if your criticism is too constant and one dimentional (stump lines) it starts to feed the fodder of the caricature.

      Newt’s biggest positive to me so far is critical thinking rather than technocratic triangulating or populism being reflected in his campaign’s message. Sometimes he gets a little too self-reflective in his own political analyses, but when he is on message, he is on and scoring points boldly and freshly. It’s so refreshing that I have to typically remind myself it’s not everything. But it resonates with me because I think it’s on the level of argumentation we have to be making in the general given the nature of whom we know we’re facing off against. When we are passive, they are aggressive. When we are aggressive, they are defensive. Throw effective humor into the message, and you can disarm them.

    • BigOil says:

      I believe Newt’s ascendency is due to the debates. He clearly articulated conservative positions better than the others. Our side has come to the realization this is an election of ideology. We need someone on the debate stage next to the boy Marxist that can out his radical ideology and draw a clear contrast. No more liberal and liberal light.

      We must have the majority of our voting public with their eyes wide open before we vote to dive into the socialist abyss. Since the media will not vet Barry – our candidate has to do it.

      In a Newt versus Romney contest we have a conservative that strays into liberalism versus a liberal that strays into conservatism. Seems like an easy choice.

      We have the founding fathers and liberty on our side – they have abject failure. It is time for this ideological fight.

      I am encouraged.

    • proreason says:

      “In a Newt versus Romney contest we have a conservative that strays into liberalism versus a liberal that strays into conservatism”

      another good observation Big Oil.

      I actually think Romney is more conservative than people think, but your point is still a good one. Newt is certainly more conservative than Mitt, and has been so for a longer period of time.

      I also think that people should realize that everybody changes and meanders in life. For both Mitt and Newt, they have been in the public eye for a while and have tons of quotes and clips out there, many of which aren’t going to jibe very well with what they stand for today. Why do we insist that unlike ourselves, they must have been like little conservative snowflakes when they popped out of the womb.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Thus was the wisdom of our founders in stressing a system where ideas could not be implemented rapidly without cabalists totally hijacking the system. It is very easy to get seduced by bad ideas thinking you’re still adhering to your greater principles, especially in a culture where wheeling and dealing, that is “compromise” is the way of town.

      There’s systemic problems top to bottom that the voters are much more aware of now and are playing a much more active role in trying to reverse. It’s important and encouraging when our leaders can articulate themselves in ways that show they’re on the level and are in the effort to help.

      Great posts guys.

  16. proreason says:

    this is what drove me crazy yesterday:


    Hugh Hewitt interviews Mark Steyn who bashes Newt, just as he did hosting Rush’s show yesterday. Then Hugh discusses the problems a slug fest between Newt and Romney will cause the party. And it wasn’t just mild criticism. Steyn basically said Newt is unacceptable.

    And that blows my mind. It’s one thing for a blogger to say that, but Limbaugh’s show is the most influential show among conservatives. Newt is leading the field, and is currently the presumptive candidate. He has been at least among the most successful conservative leaders of the last 30 years. Did Steyn tell Rush’s audence that Cain was unacceptable? I don’t know for sure, but I doubt it.. I could see Steyn saying that he prefers Romney or somebody else, but to preemptively sabotage Gingrich seems like lunacy to me. I just don’t get it.

    These radio guy have way to much power. When the audience is millions, there is a responsibility. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Steyn and have been losing a lot of respect for both Rush and Levin for weeks as they play their silly game of vote for the most conservative candidate (who is Michelle Bachman, a candidate who has no chance to defeat Obama). These guys are pumping up their ratings at the expense of the fate of the country. It’s not just a thing with Newt, it could be anybody. I wouldn’t have a problem if they endorsed somebody, no matter who it was, and I wouldn’t have a problem if they didn’t endorse anybody, but this nonsense with Steyn bashing a candidate who could well be the nominee is insanity, and the “most conservative candidate” crap is just plain crap. They’re playing games, and the games are ones designed to increase their ratings.

  17. proreason says:

    Adam Corolla isn’t very politically correct


    warning, extra strong language.

    Corolla has some guts.

    If you listen, remember ol pro’s theory that envy is the emotion the con men marxists use to sieze control of the world. Love fades, lust is transient, hate is demonized, but envy can be flared up on a moment’s notice and there is an unending supply of people to be envious of, since half the world is always better off than the other half. Teach a community organizer how to create and control envy and you have a potential demagogue of unimaginable proportions.

    • tranquil.night says:

      As one of the “ass-douche” Millenials, Adam totally nailed it.

      Lord knows I’ve succumbed to envy, among a lot of sins.

      With OWS, like everything in the media, it’s purposefully only represented through the most sensational aspects they can think of. 99% vs 1%, etc.

      Lot of young people out there not concerned with image or entitlement or even politics, just doing their best to take care of themselves too as the sons and daughters of the real silent majority.

      Spoiled children are going to behave like spoiled children, and we’ve got a lot of them in grown-up bodies, no doubt, along with a whole political party intentionally stoking and capitOlizing off them.

  18. tranquil.night says:

    Krauthammer rambles at the electorate, at Newt, at the field of candidates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-vs-newt/2011/12/01/gIQAtSfOIO_story.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter

    More chapters in the “Crazy s&*% wingnuts seem ready to do” book written by the Wizards of Smart.

    “[Romney’s] entitlement reform, for example, is more courageous than that of any candidate, including Barack Obama.”

    Uh, no. He’s the last one in the pool, other than Obama.

    And no one believes he can articulate or lead the discussion because there’s no core behind it, just short-term political calculation. The moment he’s Mediscared into negative polls, he’ll drop it as quick as the Republican Establishment drops their resistance to tax increases.

    But that’s fine. As long as the pundits are honest about who and what they favor, they can go sour and negative on the front-runners and the electorate to their bruised ego’s content. Like Steyn, I just don’t see what good it serves except that misery always loves company. It isn’t influencing anybody except if it’s dispiriting them. /Golfclap to that.

    • proreason says:

      CK is one of the premier three who have jumped out of the woodwork to body slam Newt. CK, Steyn and Jim Geharty at NRO.

      I would add allahpundit, but he is hardly premier.

      They won’t be the last.

      At least CK isn’t as brutal as Steyn was on Rush’s show, and he poses two good questions voters need to ask themselves “Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?”

      By “unpleasantly surprise”, he is suggesting that Newt’s famous lack of discipline and history of tap dances outside of conservative orthodoxy is something to worry about.

      My view is that the second question is BY FAR the less important one. The Tea Party congress will have the purse strings. All Newt or Mitt would have is the veto pen and the bully pulpit and they won’t DARE to veto rational legislation from Congress. What are they going to do? Cap and Tax? Get real. There is no risk with either of these guys pulling off the mask and governing as a liberal. It’s crazy talk, even if it comes from CK.

      The only real question is who is more electable. And man, I sure wish they were both slam dunks. But neither one, despite Rush’s 99.6% assurance that we can’t lose, is far from certain.

      Romney hurt his case a lot in the Fox interview, but he will correct that going forward because he is so smart. The question, in my mind, comes down to:

      1. Romney’s calm and authoritative manner vs Gingrich’s willingness to discuss the little lenin’s criminal roots, and
      2. Whether Gingrich’s ability to talk explain or mitigate his checkered history would be better than Romney explaining Mormonism and Bain Capital.

      Those aren’t slam dunks either. Obviously, the premier three think Newt is the bigger risk.

      What I don’t get is why they are using their prestige now to influence the deal. Give them both chance to show what they have. Let the better man win.

      And conservatives shouldn’t be delivering any body blows that will be replaying in marxist ads next October.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »