« | »

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, December 9th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

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

  1. tranquil.night says:

    This Washington Times editorial by Dr. Milton Wolf hits on my general operating principle in the primary right now: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/channeling-milton-friedman-to-a-conservative-victo/

    Friedman’s famous “make the political environment profitable for the wrong people to do the right things” principle.

    First, however, conservatives must face reality and choose one of these three options: (1) Decide between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney, (2) devise some near-magical electoral path in the 11th hour that leads to a different nominee or (3) brace for Barack Obama’s second term. A rule to remember: Manage the situation you have, not the one you want, or someone else will manage it for you.

    If it comes down to Newt vs. Mitt, I think it was JohnMG who said it best that we’d rather have the Conservative with big government impulses than the big government Republican who’ll pander to Conservstives when forced.

    Newt is bleeding though, and there are sharks about. Bachmann is the big one. Tomorrow’s debate might be the last forum to assert or solidify positions heading into the holiday season. Newt could hit it out of the ballpark again and continue to skate through the polls.

    I do wager that we’re going to see a relevant third wheel emerging out of Iowa for a second or first (if you’re Santorum) look.

    However the fundamental point in Wolf’s piece I think is to not split so that Romney takes it on a weakened convention. It’s a perspective that’ll need to be considered and a case to be made if it looks like we can’t decide on a frontrunner.

    Erickson keeps talking about a brokered convention. I’m with Chumpundit and kinda find the idea a joke. Plus it seems like its based in the idea that the whole field sucks. It really doesn’t. They’ve all improved vastly just during the process, and most if not all totally believe they can win and are working at exceptional levels to go for it. I really expect one of them to be able to get in sync with the electorate and take victory, or enough are going to line up behind Romney if not.

    Also Heh-worthy: “Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.

    • chainsaw says:

      In order to defeat thy enemy, the art of deception must be employed. This raises the question; Is it the conservatives that are raising Newt in order to backdoor a third wheel or is it the press that lies in the waiting in order to launch a barrage once Newt gets the nomination? I’m hoping we have control of our destiny and are not being lead to it.

      t.nt, when you say, “They’ve all improved vastly just during the process…”, I’m left wondering if it’s because of the candidate’s acquisition of real enlightenment or some good ole fashion coaching.

      Though I comment infrequently, I read most comments here at S&L and yours(t.nt) are very good/excellent. Thank-you.

    • proreason says:

      I don’t think Bachman has any more influence. She shot herself with the vaccine thing against Perry, not because she was wrong in principle but because she was willing to stretch the truth to continue to hammer a relatively insignificant point. It will take a few years for people to forget that.

      Santorum is the one (besides Perry) who has a breath left, because he hasn’t said anything outrageously stupid. Perry is hanging in because he improved his game. Kudos to him for doing so. Iowa will reward Santorum or Perry with a 4th place finish (since the Paulbots will get him 2nd or 3rd). If one of the two sneaks into 3rd, it will be a big win for him.

      Seems to me that Newt Romney isn’t quite as certain as he was a week ago, but is still far in the lead. Romney hasn’t helped himself much and has probably fallen back. Even though people are going after Gingrich, he hasn’t committed a notable gaffe, so he has probably gained a bit of ground.

      I still think that the leftists have yet to fully reveal themselves. They will do so before the New Hampshire primary, because if Mitt loses that, then it will almost surely be Gingrich. So the criminal media will pull out all the stops for their prefered punching bag in the period between Iowa and New Hampshire. The one they attack viciously will be the one they are trying to knock out. I’m pretty sure that will be Newt, because they have been holding fire on Romney the whole time, but we will know for sure soon. My view is that Romney is the one they want to run against, because he won’t fight back as viciously as Gingrich will. It has nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with temperment.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Thank you Chainsaw, I really can’t express how much I appreciate it.

      “I’m left wondering if it’s because of the candidate’s acquisition of real enlightenment or some good ole fashion coaching.”

      It’s a good question and it is probably difficult to tell at times considering nobody in this field is perfect, yet each is trying to make the argument that they have the clearest vision in line with Conservatism.

      What is genuine? Michele Bachmann wants us to know that she’s the most genuine Conservative because she’ll attack any of her opponents for being less Conservative than her, even when those attacks are totally disingenous. The 21st Century Contract with America is not “frugally socialist,” nor does it give any indication of supporting individual mandates, cap and trade, quite the opposite in fact. Nor does Newt give any indication that his plan is just red meat for rubes, as he is always arguing substantively for its proposals. Where is Bachmann’s comprehensive and substantive leadership on the issues other than We Must Repeal ObamaCare? She can tell you everything that’s wrong with everybody else, including and especially Obama (where she’s really good), but we’re left to define her vision mostly by her life-story (which is remarkable), populist platitudes and “I’m not all these other unprincipled goons.” Of course she’s a rock-ribbed Conservative, but we have to make judgments based on one’s political effectiveness in advocating our principles and positions, not just the fact that you claim to be a solid representative of them. That’s what makes her a great Representative, and future Speaker of the House.

      But to me that’s why campaign tactics – working more actively for the narratives of the grassroots as a team player than defining yourself through the conventional templates of the Make Believe Media and Washington Establishment – have factored more into my choice this year than ones past political sins or smaller resumes. It is all about trying to figure out who genuinely understands our worldview, agrees with its goals, but most importantly will advocate and articulate them dynamically, intellectually, and effectively enough to secure the landslide political victories we know they’re capable.

      That being said, each of the candidates are at varying intellectual points when it comes to total comprehensive understanding of the Conservative/American worldview. Also, each of them have different resumes when it comes to measuring their cumulative career effectiveness in advancing and advocating it. I have big problems with some of Newt’s sympathies towards the positive power of government, and it leads him towards theories and ideas that amount too much top-down micromanagment (which I always find ironic because if there’s anyone that gets trapped into the false-premise of ‘right-wing [market based, government assisted] social engineering’ it’s Newt). When he hoists up Government’s marginal involvment in permitting and organizing the development of the rail system and energy grid, I think he’s doing a total disservice to the dynamic capitalism without which those world wonders would’ve never been possible. That’s what needs to be celebrated; the government is a system instituted only to provide the security of reasonable regulatory framework that safeguards the rule of law, be it in the markets or other areas. Government doesn’t own property and decide how to best use it, at least they weren’t supposed to. They do now. It’s still supposed to be public property, with public policy designed with the approvals of the public to best serve their interests, like how it works at the local level. Plus getting back to the rail and energy systems, I also happen to think that it’s thanks to some of the government central planning in those areas that laid the groundwork for the crony capitalism of that era, which in turn brought us the age of Progressive Populism and big government in America starting in the early twentieth century. But I have to weigh Newt’s record as a whole when considering him as a candidate, plus the fact that wherever his vision goes astray we’ll hopefully have a louder Conservative/Republican Congress to keep that in check. He’s the only one up there to get major spending cuts, entitlement reform, and a near balanced budget through Washington, under a Democrat President, top priority #1 to this country and Conservatism right now, he’s got a current plan and message with which I agree, and he’s showing me poll data that shows he’s competitive in the primary and general.

      “This raises the question; Is it the conservatives that are raising Newt in order to backdoor a third wheel or is it the press that lies in the waiting in order to launch a barrage once Newt gets the nomination? I’m hoping we have control of our destiny and are not being lead to it.”

      To answer you honestly myself, I think it’s a little bit of both. I actually think Newt throws the regime for a loop a little bit because a couple of his biggest weaknesses on political substance also can be contrasted directly to those of Obama. Romney they’re going to go after as a 1%er which he did himself no political favors last night throwing that $10,000 bet at Perry for the irrelevant peanuts of his alleged book revision on RomneyCare (good going slick, I thought Santorum had a great response to that bet). Newt is going to be weak with women, hipsters, and any moderate or uninformed voter whom they can convince he is a bomb-throwing extremist, both rhetorically and militarily. So they’re going to rehash a lot of what Republicans already know about him, but they’re going to do it with a much higher combat multiplier. Same Romney, same anyone who gets the nomination.

      But I don’t think everyone’s totally sold on Newt yet either. It’s impossible to defend him from the deserved criticism, but when that criticism becomes the basis for disingenous political arguments about his electability, I don’t believe it has merit and is more likely just coming from people invested in their own candidate, which is fine for average voters but I think lacks total perspective and teamwork from our pundits.

      Whether it’s chess, poker, or football, the art of anticipating your opponents moves while keeping them from gleaming yours will always be a huge advantage. It isn’t as much deception as it is keeping lots of options open and not falling prey to the traps of your opponent. In this case, the Left is deceitful, and the thing about deception is even it has it’s own traceable patterns. The Left isn’t that politically diabolical, they’re just on a field where everybody else has to play by the rules but them.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “My view is that Romney is the one they want to run against, because he won’t fight back as viciously as Gingrich will. It has nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with temperment.”

      We are in concurrence.

      Also on Bachmann, who I thought misfired big on her last opportunity yesterday. Like you say, it’s one thing to make a point on principle, but her tactics are something totally different: tearing everyone else down to build herself up, without much real effective leadership on the actual relevant issues at hand. We got problems within the party for sure, but you’re not going to make it very far at this level in the business if you’re fighting everyone on everything.

      Santorum might be the one on the short-list to get his look; his camp is talking big about their ground game in Iowa. Perry is still a wild-card, I cracked up when I saw him cite the Hot Gas poll. His campaign seems to still keep stepping in it though. We’ll see.

      Newt didn’t hurt himself last night and even managed to score some good defensive points, which given his position, means he did probably as well as he could have.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Doc0 with his always solid debate round-up: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48085

      Ed has a good one too over at HotGas.

    • The Redneck says:

      In order to defeat thy enemy, the art of deception must be employed. This raises the question; Is it the conservatives that are raising Newt in order to backdoor a third wheel or is it the press that lies in the waiting in order to launch a barrage once Newt gets the nomination? I’m hoping we have control of our destiny and are not being lead to it.

      Here’s where I have to dash your hopes. If it weren’t for the media Herman Cain would still be a frontrunner–or perhaps Bachmann before him, or even Perry.

      And the media would absolutely ~love~ for Newt or Ron Paul to win the nomination–it’s their only chance of seeing Obama win a second term.

    • Mithrandir says:


      I think Michele Bachmann is done too. She is a great woman, with great ideas, but she can’t win dog catcher if she is going to do nothing but be a bombthrower. She just seems capable of making snarky comments to whomever is in the lead. She was right about Rick Perry and that stupid forced inoculation thing, she called the leaders “Newt Romney” but really…..is that all? Is that all the weapons she has?

      I don’t know who is consulting her, but when you have to battle Rick Santorum for last place, maybe you should change coaches or change play-calling.

    • Melly says:

      Obama is having nightmares about Romney. Romney is, at the end of the day, a venture capitalist. I’d bet my money on a VC against a charismatic fascist anytime. Venture capitalists need to have their suits especially tailored to fit their dorsel fins.

  2. Mithrandir says:

    Sesame Street Parasite-Muppet talks about how great it is to get “FREE” breakfast and lunch at school. …..from the parasite government funded P.B.S. in which Sesame Street characters are profitable and not in need of government funding.

    Since democrats seem to be a COMPLETE FAILURE at convincing people to accept socialism, why not have a filthy muppet and a liberal clergyman do all the heavy lifting?


    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Well, remember the fights over the Tickle Me Elmo toy? These are the people in the huddled masses, the Plebeians who after much forethought, anxiety-riddled preponderance must do what they feel is “right”. In other words, they’re morons. And they often do those things that their kids tell them are popular at grade school. That is, if they, themselves were complete and utter failures in grade-school, they must make amends for that by making sure their own kid has the best things, the coolest toys and is considered popular. For cool and popular trump sitting and learning and working hard so that rewards come later. “Shoot, those “rewards” are years away; We’re talking about my kid’s popularity for crissake.”

      And, it naturally follows that PBS would use a fluffy muppet to teach adults that getting free meals at school is the natural order of things and that the government must provide them. After all, such a “rich” and “advanced” culture should naturally provide for everyone, right?

      I also blame Star Trek. As big a fan as I am, I realized some years ago that no money ever changes hands, you never hear the crew members discuss pay issues, or benefits or anything of the kind. Two exceptions were “The Trouble With Tribbles” first aired in 1967 where the bartender, Lt Uhura, Mr Chekov and Cyrano Jones haggle over the price of a tribble. (The issue of Spikan flame gems was separate.) The other exception was Deep Space Nine where “Gold Press Latinum” was often discussed but in the context of those greedy little Ferengi were always obsessed with it and they were not-too-carefully patterned after the bigoted stereotypical view of Jews. I say stereotypical because they were always portrayed negatively and comically and as crafty little money-grubbers. In other words, the ready-made Nazi stereotype.

      But overall, Star Trek painted a society of pure and perfect communism/socialism which can only work in a hollywood script. But the plebeians again assume that if it can be portrayed on TV and so cleverly written, thus it can be in real life. And there you have the recipe for disaster. Same can be said for any science-fiction show, including Speileberg’s latest crap-fest TerraNova. A pure propaganda series for the die-hard socialists in this nation which is why it’s going to get/is getting all the coveted sci-fi awards.

      It took me a long time, many years in fact to realize that the drooling mouth-breathers of the world are many and thinkers, reasonable people who understand the pain of growing and tough decision-makers are few. It’s as true now as it has always been. One of the reasons for this is due to popularity and the human desire to be liked. Not just liked…but liked by whichever is the dominant culture club. ie: if you’re in a room full of jocks, you want them to think you’re every bit as macho as they are, etc.

      In DC, political correctness, what you say and how you express your thoughts with “sensitivity” is all important. Not because it’s about helping the people of the nation, but about fitting in with the culture club. And it’s sickening. They hail Teddy Roosevelt? If TR came to one of their dinner parties, he’d light up a huge cigar and make jokes about natives in Africa.

      So it’s all very odd to me. But again, I submit that TV has had its influence maybe more than some realize.

    • Mithrandir says:

      @ Rusty

      Remember this Star Trek episode? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29

      At the time I KNEW it was a liberal attempt to make fun of Conservative values. Convince people that the death penalty was wrong etc.

      BUT! It also tramples upon the #1 or #2 tenant of the liberal value/judgement system, “We can’t judge other cultures based on our own values….it’s impossible, racist, and Western ethno-centric.”

      However, we know the supreme #1 rule that trumps all other rules, “Liberal rules are for OTHER people to follow, not liberals themselves.” So even though they have a value system, they are free to break it to further liberalism, just like muslims are free to break their own rules to further islam.

  3. canary says:

    Romney sat back and kept his mouth shut while our country fell apart. I guess the media wouldn’t pay him for interviews or pay him to appear on news.

  4. Mithrandir says:

    CNN: NEWS GATHERING / REPORTING, OR ACTIVISM?….the classic liberal line of a statement in the form of a question.

    CNN HEROES: Nice idea, plenty of Hollywood stars in attendance, but it’s another way for liberals to be the award-givers to the people they approve of (social workers, community organizers etc): http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/index.html

    CNN ECOSPHERE: Created an entire website regarding “climate change” and drooling over the U.N. climate summit in Durbin.
    *Ted Tuner’s “Captain Planet” gala, no activism there, whew! http://cnn.com/video/?/video/living/2011/12/11/pkg-bilchik-turner-capt-planet.cnn

    CNN admits they are engaging in activism: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinion/norton-web-fundraising/index.html

    CNN FREEDOM PROJECT: CNN goes WAY OUT ON A LIMB and opposes (wait for it) …….slavery! What a bold and edgy decision. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/

    CNN: Mira Sorvino’s Fight: Hollywood activists teaming up with liberal media, for non-news stories. So brave Mira, so brave to take a controversial stand like that! http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/living/2010/09/30/cnnheroes.mira.sorvino.cnn
    *White Countries ENDED SLAVERY centuries ago. I wonder why the media doesn’t give them credit for realizing fault, yet non-white people continue to engage in it in 2011?

    CNN: Sharon Stone talks AIDS activism: Umm, don’t we have 100s of talk shows that cover this stuff? No one would consider Oprah, or Montel Williams news, so if it’s on CNN, activism suddenly becomes news?

    CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG but aren’t these things the role of: the U.N., governments, known activist organizations, social workers etc? Why is “NEWS” organizations involved with stopping slavery? Or climate change, or money-raising for charity causes? Noble ideas, but we have people for that! Gathering and reporting objective news, so voters can be informed about things where they aren’t is even more important.

    I guess since a democrat is in the White House, there is nothing left to report, so they move on to other things.

    • The Redneck says:

      If Sharon Stone is eager to stop the spread of AIDS, how about she quits making money by promoting rampant sex? She can start by dedicating all the money from “Basic Instinct” to a charity….

  5. Not anything specific, but this weekend my husband and I were out and about in the great state of Wisconsin, and we saw some pretty darned lonely “Recall Walker” signature collectors looking lonely out in deeply-red Waukesha County. Also, we managed to tick off a collector in Milwaukee by refusing to sign.

    The Wisconsin left is suddenly pretty darned mum on how many signatures they’ve collected. I’m guessing the initial flurry of liberal anti-Walker folks signed up and now the rest of the state (the sane people) aren’t. I think I’m 95% confident this recall isn’t going to happen.

    Personally, I’ve been super-busy. We made an offer on a house on Wednesday night, it was accepted Thursday, and we had an inspection on Saturday (after we picked up our new car). The inspection went well…only a few minor things the seller will repair. We close on our house on the 30th (18 days if anyone is counting…).

    But once we get settled in, I’ll be back. Miss you guys and gals…

    • canary says:

      Qeen/ Waukesha WI just lost GE, their biggest employer to China.

      General Electric it’s 115 yr old division from Waukesha to Beijing China. GE will invest $2,000,000,000 dollars in China training and creating 6 research centers.
      Strange even though GE didn’t pay taxes on their $14 Billion dollars in the U.S. they would make this move.
      Obama appointed GE CEO Chairman Jeff Immelt as job czar to create jobs. Where are the protesters now?

      And can we trust inhumane, communist student 7 people killer China to make medical X-Ray equipment for a healthier world?

      As far as house hold appliances, electronics etc. GE has sucked in the last and and there goes their medical gadgets.

    • Mithrandir says:

      So your husband’s handle is chazmikel, and you are the Madison, Wisconsin public school teacher he talked about?

      I don’t know why you would buy a house in socialist Wisconsin, so they can tax it out from underneath you, but if you want to be chained to the area forever, without being able to escape, and have money to buy a new car, then I guess you can endure the never-ending tax increases to pay for the public sector unions.

      Our property tax in Wyoming is $1200/year. I am sure you pay 3-4x that in Wisconsin.

  6. proreason says:


    Kagan recuses from the Arizona Immigration Case, since she was the Solicitor General.


    This must be the strategy to blunt the criticism when she doesn’t recuse herself from the even more contentious Obamycare case. This recusal will be held up as an example of how objective she is.

    Throw some 89 mph fastballs in the dirt, and then buzz one down the middle at 99 mph. You’re out !!!

  7. tranquil.night says:

    Ace with a response to Glenn Beck declaring he’d vote for Third Party Ru Paul over Newt in the general: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324604.php

    Yes the same Beck who’s more convinced than Steyn that we’re on the verge of some sort of apocalyptic paradigm shift with an Obama second term. Maybe he’s resigned himself to it already?

    “Some of us are apparently going to work our very hearts out to make sure the batterer who gives our lives meaning remains president.”

    Sounds like Pro’s theory.

    It’d be a bit embarassing if after the dust settles and we have a new President, the economy begins its long hike back to health, and life just continues to go on with 2012 being remembered in History as a challenging moment for the world but otherwise the biggest blip of mass hysteria and paranoia since Y2K. No, no – we need a grand freaking global showdown between the forces of light and darkness. And the light will lose, Israel will be on the verge of oblivion when the Lord Himself is going to ride in from the clouds and grace this land and rescue the virtuous.


    Phony self-righteousness is an ugly, ugly quality. Except to Liberals, whose cause is always righteous, therefore anything can be justified or rationalized in the name of the principles of the kos. Sadly, some ‘conservatives’ fall prey to this thinking too. It must be human nature when one starts to believe they are the embodiment of something transcendent and transformative. The Founders understood well that they had to design a system which would encourage wariness of such cults of personality.

    • proreason says:

      The older I get, the suspiciouser I get.

      It just seems like an awfully big coincidence that the defeat of the Boy King will almost certainly cause the talkers’ ratings to crash. Maybe there’s the wee least bit of self-interest involved in this mounting series of extremely provacative declarations from our beloved hosts and pundits.

      If there’s a better explanation for the strange declarations of Beck, Levin, Coulter, Steyn, CK, etc., I’d like to hear it. Doesn’t common sense dictate that when there is a 90%+ chance of one of two guys being the nominee, that anybody opposing the most dangerous person on the planet would be fluffing up the two guys who have a chance to beat him instead of tearing them apart like rabid dogs?

    • tranquil.night says:

      “..that anybody opposing the most dangerous person on the planet would be fluffing up the two guys who have a chance to beat him instead of tearing them apart like rabid dogs?”

      Luntz was just on Hannity and articulated that very point in what he says the voters are telling him, which is relieving because it’s a sign that a great deal of people are actually thinking ahead of and independently from the media pundits. As we keep saying, contrasting yourself on principle is one thing, but the disingenous political attacks only serve to make it harder to beat Obama in the end if one of the presumed front-runners does become the nominee. Luntz said the voters cite Bachmann specifically.

      Also, on the topic of certain hosts and pundits pursuing self-interest over the dire need of the country, I can’t help but only to draw that contrast to the practical volunteerism from all our bloggers and activists. Pretty much everyone on the Conservative new media runs on financial fumes even though it’s undeniable that they’ve had a game changing impact on the whole political world. The role our esteemed host has played is unquantifiable. The rich Leftists on the other hand throw big money into any news media or messaging operation (other than talk radio where they have no chance at survival without Washington’s help) even if it’s relatively useless or fails. Hell, especially when it fails, that means it’s time to throw even more money at it to redouble the efforts.

      DaTechGuy writes about that today, which Insty picked up: http://datechguyblog.com/2011/12/12/is-conservative-new-media-worth-as-much-as-the-occupods/

      “For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.

      Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.”

      It is what it is. Being a rebel wingnut means not being liked by the cool, in-the-know clique.

      But at the same time it is a contrast that needs and I hope will be made more – the bloggers themselves rarely make such appeals because they are humble and committed, but there’s an absolute case. We are out-resourced on multiple fronts on our ground and air organization, yet the Conservatives still manage to go toe-to-toe with the Liberal lie machine. Imagine what they could do with some friendly investment. I really think it’s a major business opportunity waiting to be picked up by some daring entrepreneurs with the resources to finish building what already is an incredibly impressive operation. It’s how Michelle helped to found Hot Air, I believe, which then got acquired by Salem and got Ed out on the campaign trail.

      It’d be a lot more effectivive and beneficial than sitting there throwing ones weight around to tear down candidates they don’t like. Or hosting an event on the premise that you’re going to “Restore Love.” Woodstock already healed that great wound. Oh wait.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Ladd Ehlinger Jr. unleashed on Beck: http://filmladd.com/?GlennBeckJumpsTheShark

      This was after Beck declared everybody in the Tea Party who support Newt racist, because Newt is just a white Obama or something.

      Completely unrelated and random thought: the lowest level of Hell is reserved for traitors who employ Christ’s name in their deceitful machinations.

      And just to pile-on: South Park – Dances with Smurfs

    • canary says:

      Well if we could use propaganda to pretend we want the worst Republican running then we’d stand a chance.

      It would be a crisis for any 3rd party to run.

  8. Mithrandir says:

    If you haven’t already read this….
    Can’t find where it originated, I think by a German newspaper in the Czech Republic.

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

    “The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

    The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
    MY POINT EXACTLY! Are you worried that the trailer park voted for the smartest dumb-guy to lead them, or that the community is so hopelessly stupid and corrupt, that there can never be anyone descent among them to be worthy of leadership?

    America is lost
    –Too many parasites plundering the treasury.
    –Too many unskilled parasites entering the country.
    –Corrupt and expensive political process.
    –Oppressive and corrupt police and court system.
    –Every private company / person is screwing every penny out of you, to pay for everyone else trying to screw every penny out of them…and the cycle repeats.
    –Expensive and over-extended military protecting the empire overseas.
    –Barbarians at the gate constantly pecking away at the empire.

    Where have you seen this story written before in history?

    • tranquil.night says:

      Then why bother?

      Was 2010 merely a random outbreak of sanity?

      There’s context to every election. 08 was a culmination of a decade’s worth of effort by the establishment to engineer the very political circumstances which allowed them to grab power as they did.

      Government central planning is what’s failing globally, and yes as we all knew it’s getting ugly and there’s a lot of confusion in people who don’t understand why. Decades worth of trusting politicians making impossible promises masking around as compassion does that.

      But America is exceptional in part because of its historically demonstrated ability to right its course during periods of decline. Never totally of course, our creep towards socialism has been one long and continuous motion with few exceptions where it slowed briefly. Nevertheless, our core traditions, rugged individualism, self-reliance and empowerment, even when embattled or forgotten by millions, become all the more accessible and relevant during the dark times, because they’re based in time-tested truths, not academic theory. It’s kind of quintessentially the American story – if not the Classic Hero’s Journey archetype – to wafer and stumble until things get really bad and then go on to defy all odds to achieve victory. TEAbow anyone?

      Keep the faith brother.

    • Mithrandir says:

      I see…..

      I think a lot of people are still living in the 80s, a great time to be an American.

      ~Reagan, Rambo, and Rocky KICKING RUSSIAN BUTT!
      ~Liberals frantic, scared, in a frenzy and compulsive, unable to organize their own thoughts.
      ~Our military upgraded 10-fold.
      ~Want-ads flooded the newspaper.
      ~No wars.
      ~Great t.v.
      ~College affordable.
      ~Manageable debt.

      Everything since then has gotten worse, including every president since Reagan. We are in a free-fall tail-spin, and I don’t see how anyone can pull the stick back hard enough to save this country. Especially when the parasites sit in the back of the plane and yell, “pull harder!”

    • proreason says:

      I don’t agree with this.

      If the marxists had clearly revealed their goals and their methods, then America certainly would be a ship of fools.

      But since their entire strategy is based on sabotage, deception and distortion, and since they own the make believe media, I don’t see how anybody can blame the American people.

  9. tranquil.night says:

    “Just saying outrageous or incendiary things will get you a lot of kudos and drive your numbers up,” Mr. Romney said in an appeal to the state’s notably independent voters. “But it’s not going to win us the White House, and it’s not going to win us the respect of people on the other side of the aisle who we have to bring together to overcome the extraordinary challenges we have.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/us/politics/romney-takes-direct-aim-at-gingrich-in-new-hampshire.xml (via Drudge)

    Get your ears checked Mittens, you’re afflicted with tone-deafness. Your eyes too, because you might be blind. Or simply a moron, but there’s no medical regiment for that.

    Not much else to say, that’s as nicely as I can put it.

    Only one question that’s been troubling me lately: if Romney’s right then what the shit is it about Chris Christie that these yanks love so damn much?

    2/12/11 – Coulter: If Christie doesn’t run, Romney will be nominated and lose to Obama (h/t Levin’s facebook)


  10. canary says:

    STORY: !!! Obama, an Old Man and a fine Marine

    One sunny day in January, 2013, an old man approached the

    White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where

    He’d been sitting on a park bench.

    He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, “I would

    Like to go in and meet with President Obama.”

    The Marine looked at the man and said, “Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President
    And no longer resides here.”

    The old man said, “Okay,” and walked away.The following day the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.”

    The Marine again told the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here.”

    The man thanked him and again just walked away.The third day the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.”The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked

    At the man and said, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I’ve told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer

    Resides here. Don’t you understand?”

    The old man looked at the Marine and said,
    “Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.”

    The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said,
    “See you tomorrow, Sir.

    Don’t forget to vote!

  11. tranquil.night says:

    How I do love Chuck: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48107

    Alinsky’s bible for community organizers is “‘Rules for Radicals​”‘ the principles of which can be viewed in almost every action of the left, including the present White House. For example, in the chapter on “power tactics,” the fourth tactic is: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” Whereas conservatives regard congruity as commendable, Alinsky considers it an opportunity for raising disdain among the public and infighting among enemies, because no one can perfectly live up to his or her own message.


  12. tranquil.night says:

    There is a misperception out there in Conservativedom, including by Rush, that people are responding positively to Newt because they’re placing sole and impractical importance on the debates.

    This is wrong and frustrating to keep seeing pop up.

    Doc0: “The traditional silly closing question for the debate was about what each candidate has learned from one of his rivals. They should all learn how to combine policy and philosophy into a narrative, the way Gingrich does at his best.” – And that’s including the fact that parts of his past expressed philosophy explicitly have not been Conservative.

    If somebody would just go rogue from the conventional wisdom which says you gotta win by destroying whoever is doing better than you, and figure out what it is about that person people are responding to, they’d run away with it. And no, for the love of Allah, that does not mean praising batty Ron Paul.

    It’s very frustrating because it shouldn’t be hard or that foreign an idea for so-called capitalists, especially from those who can’t respond to a question without saying they’re the most consistent Conservative on the field 10 times in their answer.

    • proreason says:

      It’s interesting that the heavyweight attacks on Newt are that he is progressive, not conservative.

      I think it illustrates the fantasy world the Republican Washington elite live in.

      Who really thinks that the guy that came up with, and largely implemented the Contract with America is a progressive….despite his meanderings around the world of ideas since then?

      And who rally thinks that if Newt got elected (or Romney for that matter) that he would rip of the mask of conservatism and become a raging liberal who is determined to impose Cap and Tax or some other crazy marxist idea.

      It looks to me that, at least until the attacks began in earnest last week, that the public has been smarther than the “elites”, picking the guy who at least was demonstrably conservative at some point in his career over the guy whose word we will have to take for it. Of course, the fact that Newt bites back instead of assuming the fetal position has something to do with it as well.

      Of course, every time Newt says anything that isn’t lock-step conservative dogma, it’s wheeled out as further proof that he is a secret commie. His ill-advised rebuke of Romney’s silly comment that Newt should return the Fannie money is the raging controversy of the moment, as if the dumb comments demonstrates Newt is a socialist.

      Anyway, the attacks are having the expected result, because Gingrich’s numbers are falling. But I don’t think they can knock him out unless he says something much dumber than anything yet, or becomes rabid himself. Frankly, I expect him to apologize or walk-back the Bain Capital snarl sometime soon. He would be smart to do it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yeah the rhetoric lost touch with reality long ago. Everybody is a psychic and knows exactly what’s in everybody’s heart now. Cthulthu has finally made us All into One.

      Thank you for bringing up the Bain situation too, because a clip from Jonah’s column yesterday intrigued me: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285680/newtzilla-rescue-jonah-goldberg?pg=2

      While getting wealthy off the old order, he’s been plotting for decades how to get rid of it. To paraphrase Lenin, perhaps the K Streeters paid Gingrich to build the gallows he will hang them on?

      “Influence peddling” is the business of politics. What, are we going to rip Heritage, AFP and FreedomWorks? Because for as much as a dope Rove can be and was associated with a big government Republican administration, they are a known, influential quantity in Washington.

      Gingrich got 1.2~.4 mil? Compared to what with Franklin Raines? Jamie Gorelick?

      So it could’ve been an eye-for-an-eye response for basically having his work maligned rather than a genuine expression of hidden Leftism.

      But what the hell. I’m probably just dazzled by NewtTV theatrics and am rationalizing for the guy. He praised Roosevelt and Stern. Praise Cthulhu.

    • proreason says:

      I don’t think the movement to Gingrich is quite the same as the movement to some of the others. Newt is a known quantity, so he is not the pretty new face in the crowd that people are getting to know. Surely anyone who is leaning toward him knows the bad as well as the good.

      BAD: can be an intellectual dilitante, mercurial, arrogant; pissed off some allies in the 90’s; has danced with un-conservative ideas; government lifer; unknown capability to appeal to independents; messy personal life; often considered to be a time bomb

      GOOD; smart, articulate, composed in public; deeply experienced; rare individual who has actually been in the leadership of positive governmental change; pugnacious; possesses profound awareness of issues generally only found in presidents and vp’s; many positive conservative beliefs; not a inbred elitist – now an outsider with insider knowledge; can channel Tea Party beliefs; broad historical perspective

      I’m not happy with some of the stuff he has done either, but it’s hard to argue against Newt being one of the most prepared candidates of this generation. People ARE arguing against his conservative bonafides, but if you ask me, the arguments are disingenuous. I simply couldn’t watch Ann argue that Romney is more conservative than Gingrich. She was embarrassing herself, maybe even prostituting herself. If she wants to argue electability, fine, anyone can make a case one way or the other. But Mitt more conservative than Newt? puhleeze It’s like arguing the Greg Maddux was a better fastball pitcher than Nolan Ryan because Ryan’s changeup was slower the Greg’s.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “the arguments are disingenuous”

      Right. How many times have we gone over the Right-Wing social engineering comment? Romney’s been blah-blahing about it for two segments on Hannity.

      Newt on the Ryan Plan: “And in fact, Callista has known him since he was an intern, and he and I talked after Meet the Press was blown totally out of proportion. What I was saying was an answer to a very specific question which was if there’s a program which is very, very unpopular should Republican’s impose it? And my answer is no. When we pass Welfare Reform 92% of the country favored it, including 88% of people on welfare.”

      It’s not like there was a whole debate between Newt and Herman about it or anything.

  13. proreason says:

    Hitler isn’t happy about the way the primaries are going.


  14. Reality Bytes says:

    After wishing Merry Christmas a lady replied “you mean Happy Holiday”. My reply, “Lady, if it weren’t for Christmas, there wouldn’t be a holiday.” She sheepishly agreed & then got off the elevator. That this was in NYC makes it all the more sweeter.

    Pass it on…oh & Merry Christmas.

  15. tranquil.night says:

    That was a great debate to finish out the year.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Last thoughts about the supposed Newt/Fanny lobbying cronyism:

      At this point evidence implicates two, probably three recent CEO’s of Goldman Sachs and a gaggle of Congresscritters in facillitating, profiting from, and covering up the Housing Bubble. Are we going to scarlet letter demogogue everybody affiliated with the organization, top to bottom? Are they all hypocrites through guilt by association?

      That goes the same for Romney and Bain, which Newt mea culpa’d.

    • proreason says:

      All of the candidates have become good debaters,haven’t they. Even Perry seems to have been a quick study and is at least competant at this point. Bachman is a bit too bulldoggish for my taste, but she is pretty effective despite it.

      Overall, I thought Romney showed the best last night. Newt was under attack too much and couldn’t win unless he hit a home run, which he didn’t do. Still, the mea culpa before the debate was a smart move.

      Good point about Fannie, tn. It is pretty amazing that with at least half a dozen certified criminals involved (Jim Johnson, Raines, Franks, Dodd, Maxime Waters, other congressional enablers, many GS execs, etc), ol Newt, who might have fed at the trough but certainly didn’t create it, should be catching heat. Actually, if we didn’t live in Bizarro World, it would be flabergasting. It’s kind of like blaming Charles Manson’s lawyer for the murders of the Manson family.

  16. Reality Bytes says:

    “About Last Night”. Since “I Saw Her First” when it comes to Sarah Palin; I’m sticking my chins out again.

    Mark Levin asked last night, “What are you looking for in a candidate?” Immediately it came to me. Only David could have beaten Goliath. Our champion likewise must be lighter, more precisely essential in order to expose the vulgar self bloated sacrosanct Obama & his minions. “Goodness” is vital.

    The conservative movement is split between, (1) The articulate Gingrich espousing historic conservative principles & practices, (2) Paul’s small government, (3) Perry’s experience in TX, (4) Santorum’s idealism & moral principles, (5) Backmann’s dedication to The Movement.

    There have been four leaders: Romney followed by Bachmann followed by Cain followed by Gingrich with Romney each time after leading being in second. As of 1PM today, Gallop has the current field:

    Gingrich: 29%
    Romney: 24%
    Paul: 10%
    Bachmann: 7%
    Perry: 5%
    Santorum: 4%
    Huntsman: 2%

    All candidates’ polls excepting Romney is 57% to Romney’s 24%; more than twice that of Mitt tell me unless conservatives & Republicans (they are not mutually exclusive) go into total brain freeze, someone other than Romney will be the nominee.

    Without throwing stones or being judgmental:

    We all wait for the new Mrs. Gingrich being referred to in the MSM as being “The Other Woman” (that one from my wife). And though I’ve sent Newt money & have a replica of The Speaker’s gavel to prove it, the man seems driven to overcome rejection, further he has been known to become unglued when he is.

    Romney’s twisted explanations that his positions have not changed spark skepticism; likely for the sake of Finally Winning the Nomination.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy, his false definitions of our nation’s historic engagement around the world, his disregard for allies & the oppressed globally, not to mention chameleon-like legislative record smacks of opportunism.

    Bachmann, like Pro mentioned seems to overreach to make a point; unfortunately at the expense of credibility. Still, she has been a tireless supporter of The Tea Party and its ideals and we should forever be grateful for her. That said, this country proved in ’08 that it is indeed more sexist than racist; perhaps because all racists have one thing in common & that is sexism; who knows.

    Perry, my initial favorite is a good egg who speaks and walks different from the rest of us. As Bush used to self mockingly say “In Texas that what we call walking, what we call talking.” Texas is as unique to America as New York City; perhaps it’s polar opposite and just as sophisticated just differently so. His record speaks for itself and I dare any liberal to claim that it’s easy for Perry because the drill oil in Texas, which is exactly what the rest of the states should be doing. with the exception of some tortured explanation on STD vaccine mandate, I don’t see a selfish streak. Having spent a fair amount of time in Texas, I can even appreciate his situation when dealing with immigration, which by the way, other candidates may want to demure a bit on the issue when countering Perry on the matter, given their states don’t share 1,969 miles with Mexico. They appear in my opinion pompous without the benefit of having their own boots on that ground.

    Santorum: His conservative record in spite of his district’s heavy democrat demographic speaks volumes. He is alum of The Gang of Seven who brought the House Banking Scandal to light, a sledge hammer for routing the insane, suicidal behavior of our current legislative leaders. While he stands at the lowest podium on stage, he has remained poised, articulate and respectfully forceful when countering with his opponents.

    Huntsman: A governor with perhaps a fine record, however, it seems to me a blend of grays & beige, not for this or for that; a sort of W. Lite. And, why? For acceptance perhaps and if so then for nothing more than for personal gain of course.

    That’s my take. So what to make of it; a prediction maybe?

    With Romney at 24% and the others at a combined 57; when Gingrich implodes (and he will. It’s just a matter of whether it is before he is nominated), then the 57 will be reallocated.

    Who is next? Who knows. Certainly Ron Paul will garner some of that; his campaign is as much about identifying with a contrarian, pseudo sophisticated youth as it is about him (which to him as evidenced by his inflammatory rhetoric seems primary), but not enough.

    So the lion share of the conservative vote must go somewhere. Only Bachmann, Santorum & Huntsman are left.

    For the steadfast, I would say self depreciating, mannered approach to the voters, the media as well as the other candidates, my hope and my guess is that the nominee be Rick Santorum.

    Like David, the nominee mustn’t shrink from the Goliath who faces him. Like David, he needs to shed the Establishment’s armour and charge his opponent just as he is with all that he has and hit him right between the eyes. God willing, when that happens, Obama, his marxist agenda, his army of thugs and the establishment that placates him for the sake of the scraps of power they cling to will fall with a mighty thud. Victory will not just be ours but also be for generations to come.

    God Willing!

    • proreason says:

      Good analysis, but you are underestimating Gingrich’s appeal. He isn’t loved, but people are realizing that he is the best one to take it to Obamy…his history proves it. He is a bit like Churchill in living a life filled with ups and downs, along with a brilliant mind that is capable of seeing things others cannot.

      But I hope Santorum does well in Iowa and becomes more of a contender. I’d like to see the contest run on, particularly since they have all become such good debaters. Once the general election begins, the Republican will get 1/4 the air time of the Boy King, who will be surrounded by halos while the Republican is alway shown with a scowl and a weapon in his hand. The more exposure he gets now, the better off the eventual candidate will be.

      All I want in MY candidate is victory. I figure any one of them will all govern so much better than little lenin that it hardly matter what they have done in the past or the promises they make. When you are in the middle of a raging river, even a scrap of dry desert looks like an oasis. And I think all of the trash talk against Newt is pure spin by people who hate him because he won’t toe the republican ruling class line, and because he is the only guy since RR to get anything done domestically that helped the country. I discount the attacks 100%.

      Since I believe it is a sure thing that the campaign will be the most thuggish and dirtyiest in human history, and since I expect multiple “events” along the lines of September 2008, I think the key question is who can stand in that wind tunnel and still get a message out. Somehow, I can’t imagine anybody other than Newt being able to do it. Even though there are a lot of things about Romney that I like, ultimately, I think he would pull a variation of McCain and go into a shell once the hardballs begin splattering on the decks.

  17. proreason says:



    This is worth watching because the camera is on Tebow all the time, and it may reveal his secret.

    He is calm. No matter the situation, he is calm. Maybe it derives from his faith or maybe it’s just his personality.

    Another thing is that he is very positive. Not just with teammates, he is friendly to opponents as well. It might be a tiny edge in a critical situation. He must be a hard guy to dislike, and if they don’t hate him they may not have that extra dose of adrenilin when they need it. But the guy on his side who he stood by when a pass was dropped may just have that extra dose at the opportune moment.

    • Reality Bytes says:

      Pro – A great example of the possibilities when it’s IN GOD WE TRUST. How genius a concept by the founding fathers. Not a king, nor self or government but In God.

      Thanks for the link.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »