Could it be that, election results notwithstanding, conservatives are making progress with their small government argument? Deep in the Times reporting of exit polls I find this nugget:
Significantly, the electorate’s view of the government’s role in the economy has shifted away from Mr. Obama’s call for a kind of public-private partnership, and toward Mr. Romney’s hands-off, free-market platform.
In November 2008, when the country was floundering in the worst recession since the Depression, Election Day surveys of voters found that 51 percent of them wanted government to do more to intervene while 43 percent said it was doing too many things better left to businesses. Now, after four years of government activism, those numbers have flipped.
Well, that is a pebble upon which we can build a new Republican majority. Ross Douthat has thoughts on that.
FWIW, Obama described his fantasy agenda to the Des Moines Register on October, although one questions whether he has earned anything like a mandate.
"F*ck these people. They're not misguided innocents. They're enemy combatants."
I am related to a lot of those people. They are not the enemy. So fuck everybody who says fuck them.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 08, 2012 at 02:47 PM
Well the Dems have the fortitude to stand up for a drunk murderer, a phony cherokee, numerous tax cheats, a guy in a nuthouse, a former KKK leader,....but the Republicans have to announce to the world that they aren't gonna support Akin. Another option besides support or deny is to just BE QUIET.
Posted by: Janet | November 08, 2012 at 02:49 PM
istm that the Obama campaign strategy may deliberately have wanted to make it like he couldn't win. The stories about him not having much money ... I doubt they were true. Even his poor debate performance. The only thing I can't figure out is why such a strategy would be to his advantage.
Posted by: Chubby | November 08, 2012 at 02:50 PM
I am related to a lot of those people. They are not the enemy. So fuck everybody who says fuck them.
I'm in the same boat and am having a very difficult time coming to grips with it. I'm not as magnanimous as you are.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 08, 2012 at 02:51 PM
Yes, they are not the enemy. They are misguided innocents. They don't have the information or the concepts required (e.g., debt/GDP ratio, enumeration of powers, limited government) to understand what is wrong with out federal government and which prescription is the best remedy for what is wrong.
They are fools. They have neglected their duty to stay informed. They are lazy and unvigilent.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | November 08, 2012 at 02:54 PM
For some reason a previous comment wasn't dealt with well by this wonderful software: Cornyn voted against confirming the chinless skidmark, unlike a couple others, so that's a mark in the plus column offset by Turbo Timmy. He's not heading my list of people who have to go but then again he's not my Senator.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 08, 2012 at 02:55 PM
I take it cc doesn't have any truck with this piece. Do others have any views--Cathy?http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 02:55 PM
One blogger notes that Romney won in every state that has voter ID suggesting that proves fraud elsewhere. May I suggest, that the more Republican the state to begin with the greater the likelihood that voter I.D. would be enacted.
OTOH what does Donofrio say about this?
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 03:02 PM
I wonder how many people who support abortion know that it is an extremely lucrative multi-million dollar business and that Planned Parenthood rakes in about $164 million dollars in abortion money a year.
Posted by: Chubby | November 08, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Chubby, what difference would that make on whether or not one supported abortion? Maybe it would change their views about govt support for planned parenthood, but that's as far as I can imagine it going.
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 03:09 PM
I struggle with the abortion issue as well, particularly because I am not of child rearing age and I think a lot of it is none of my business. My position is that you deal with your own choices, but there is no way in hell I'm going to agree to pay for them.
More importantly tho, abortion simply is not, and should not, be an issue. If Roe was overturned - the issue will be returned to the states where it correctly belongs. I have always maintained that the sole reason it is continually raised is because it was wrongly decided when the SC decided that a right to privacy exists in the constitution when it doesn't.
Because it was wrongly decided - there is no right to privacy in the constitution - there is always the threat that it will some day be overturned. However, as I said, if it is overturned it will be returned to the states which will decide what they want to do.
Because of that risk, the left uses the issue as a chainsaw every time they think they will lose an election.
I know how strong people's beliefs are on this issue. But I truly wish we could leave it out of politics.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | November 08, 2012 at 03:10 PM
--Nugent had a medical deferral, not a 4-F, and later had a student deferment.
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 02:33 PM--
You're either misinformed or dishonest.
Nugent had first a high school and then college deferment. He was then reclassified 1-A but was rejected as a 1-Y, meaning he wasn't disabled but would only be called in case of national emergency. When that classification was eliminated he was then classified 4-F.
The rest of your comment is similarly bullshit.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 03:16 PM
((Chubby, what difference would that make on whether or not one supported abortion? Maybe it would change their views about govt support for planned parenthood, but that's as far as I can imagine it going.))
I remember my own shock when I learned how much profit the business generated. If it could be painted as a "business" or an industry that primarily advantages and enriches a few people, that might take away from the picture of service that helps women in need. Same idea as how the Obamaphones is not really there to benefit the poor, it is a scam that enriches Obama cronies. For every phone that is distributed, the cronies get government money, and they get fat off it.
Posted by: Chubby | November 08, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Another guy arguing Cost's point--it isn't changing demographics so much as white voters staying home.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
If Trende and Cost are right, something about Romney--who I thought was a decent candidate--just did not catch on with voters who one would imagine were in his camp.Why is the mystery?
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Oh ! Chaos is bad, no we don't want that. Better to live not in the
"Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"
but in the
"Land of the Free Stuff, Home of the Slave."
Don't want that Chaos.
Nosiree.
Better to let the Government
just take care of me.
Give me servitude or give me death !
heh,
under obammycare, you can have both
servitude and death !
Its two, two, two wonderful programs in one !
Posted by: Sandy Daze | November 08, 2012 at 03:20 PM
--I know how strong people's beliefs are on this issue. But I truly wish we could leave it out of politics.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | November 08, 2012 at 03:10 PM--
Jane among our certain unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our country was conceived with the notion that the government's job was to protect and guarantee those rights. Since one group of people believe a living fetus to be a small, defenseless human being, another denies that, (even though to me it seems obvious on its face to be true) and now a third represented by Althouse seems to believe that it is a small, defenseless human being who may be murdered at will, how is it possible to ever remove protecting life from politics?
It's the fundamental job of government to protect innocent people from those who would harm them.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 03:25 PM
--Why is the mystery?
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 03:19 PM--
I think those AmSpec articles I linked earlier make a pretty good case mushy moderates seldom catch on sufficiently to win.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 03:28 PM
The issue has been pretty much resolved, no mater what we think,Iggy.Now it is a moral, individual choice for at least a certain period of time. Why not stick to issues as to which there are broader consensus and an opportunity for legislative action-like PBA bans and parental notification requirements.
Or, is it purer to martyr ones self and destroy the chance to stop a far worse evil?
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 03:29 PM
Clarice:
If Trende and Cost are right, something about Romney--who I thought was a decent candidate--just did not catch on with voters who one would imagine were in his camp.Why is the mystery?
I commented on that in the next thread.
Posted by: hit and run | November 08, 2012 at 03:36 PM
I am related to a lot of those people. They are not the enemy. So fuck everybody who says fuck them.
I'm in the same boat and am having a very difficult time coming to grips with it. I'm not as magnanimous as you are.
Emphasis mine. I don't think that word means what you think it means...but I take your point. Both my grandfathers were longshoremen at the port of Los Angeles. They were the hardest working, best and most liberal men I have ever known. I'll never reconcile myself to thinking of liberals as the enemy but I see they are destroying the country and bring misery to millions.
Posted by: C.R. | November 08, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Or, is it purer to martyr ones self and destroy the chance to stop a far worse evil?
My feelings too.
I know a lot of people who consider "life" to be the most important issue on the planet. My favorite tea partiers are this way. But I beg them to leave it out of the tea party because that is not what the tea party is about. I have no problem with what they believe and I think I am closer to their beliefs than others - but it doesn't belong in the tea party.
BTW they fail all the time - and I always get over it.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | November 08, 2012 at 03:42 PM
I think the right-to-life movement has made considerable inroads in this battle in the last few years, both through liberals--esp. feminists--reducing their own numbers by practicing what they preach, but also through so many people seeing images of very early fetuses where life is still so obvious. And the left knows we are winning, which is why they've suddenly started throwing the rape question out there, because they know that the muddle, which has gone soft on abortion, still does not want to go so far as to force a woman to have her rapist's child. And we, true to form, are falling right into the trap.
All I ask is that those conservative candidates who do not believe in abortion even in the case of rape come up with a way to answer the inevitable question when it is raised that won't end up costing them election.
Posted by: derwill | November 08, 2012 at 03:44 PM
I should be doing laundry and checking out my recipe books for ham leftovers tonight, but can't tear myself away from JOM today. This is a fascinating info-packed thread. A feast of individual thinking, strategy, hope and wisdom :)
Where are we on the Obamacare disaster bearing down on us? What is the best way to cripple and mangle this bastard child through the Supreme ct?
Posted by: OldTimer | November 08, 2012 at 03:51 PM
And when you throw into the mix the ready availability of the morning after pill, give me a break...the issue of being forced to bear the child of incest or rape is rather minimal, isn't it?
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 03:53 PM
--Why not stick to issues as to which there are broader consensus and an opportunity for legislative action-like PBA bans and parental notification requirements.
Or, is it purer to martyr ones self and destroy the chance to stop a far worse evil?
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 03:29 PM--
I didn't say how it should be approached, clarice, I was only noting that it is not possible to remove such a fundamental issue from the political arena, as Jane had wished.
And I second derwill's 3:44.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 03:55 PM
I agree, Chubby & think the big profits of abortion should be screamed out. The Gosnell butcher -
"A doctor who ran a "house of horrors" abortion clinic has been charged in the deaths of one woman and seven babies who prosecutors say were born alive then killed with scissors." and
"Gosnell, 69, raked in millions over 30 years performing illegal and late-term abortions, prosecutors said."
Posted by: Janet | November 08, 2012 at 04:00 PM
It was the media! It was Karl Rove! It was the DNC! It was John Cornyn! It was the people who just wouldn't STFU! There wasn't any writing on the Akin wall!
Mitt Romney won 1,478,961 votes. Akin won 1,063.698 votes. That is not a head scratcher.
Short of persuading him not to run, there was no legitimate way to strike an unwilling Akin from the field, but let's not kid ourselves about why he lost nearly half a million voters in the voting booth.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 08, 2012 at 04:02 PM
I'm sure if Barack Obama had voted for something as inhumanly cruel as, say, not giving babies born alive medical attention so that they could die alone in a hospital closet it would cost him an election as well, because merely voting for or saying something that evil is all it takes to lose a person vast voting blocs.
How his party and the press responded to this revelation was irrelevant.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 04:14 PM
Since we are playing with what ifs and if onlys today, my wish is that there would be a complete reformation of our side's primary season. I always feel we start from behind just from that alone.
Fix it - both the order of the states and a tightening up in duration. And can we get rid of the "straw poll" nonsense. It only serves to entertain the media anyway.
Also, a reform of the Presidential debates.
Posted by: centralcal | November 08, 2012 at 04:15 PM
let's not kid ourselves about why he lost nearly half a million voters in the voting booth.
The Republicans made him a pariah. The Democrats, who don't do this sort of thing because they think it's stupid, rubbed their hands in glee. And then he lost.
How many votes would he have garnered if the Republicans had acted differently? We can only guess.
Posted by: Extraneus | November 08, 2012 at 04:17 PM
the assumption being it was ideology that killed him. how big was his war chest next to McGaskill's? in elections money matters as much as ideology, unfortunate as that might be.
Posted by: Chubby | November 08, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Emphasis mine. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Yes it does; it means large-hearted and forgiving, which I'm having a hard time extending to my family members now. If I ever use a word incorrectly it causes me no small amount of embarrassment.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 08, 2012 at 04:19 PM
"You're either misinformed or dishonest.
Nugent had first a high school and then college deferment. He was then reclassified 1-A but was rejected as a 1-Y, meaning he wasn't disabled but would only be called in case of national emergency. When that classification was eliminated he was then classified 4-F.
The rest of your comment is similarly bullshit."
Read his documents. They're on the web. Also, Nugent admitted that he faked his medicals in order to avoid going to Viet Nam.
The only misinformation is on your end. The only objectionable thing is Nugent, a draft dodger, smearing the patriotism of others.
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM
((Also, a reform of the Presidential debates))
I'd like to see them all in the same format. The different formats are jarring. And I'd like that debate to be more like the first one, with each candidate standing at a podium, more like a classical debate.
Posted by: Chubby | November 08, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Also on my dreamer's list of reform - how about a whole lot less money spent on glossy photo mailings and little trinket enclosures. Instead set aside a hefty hunk of that money for media training (a rough and tumble boot camp) for candidates.
I mean real
hand-to-handmouth v. mouth combat training for how to deal with Democrat media warriors in pre-arranged interviews and on the fly Q&A sessions. I think Newt and Sununu could design those training sessions effectively.Posted by: centralcal | November 08, 2012 at 04:23 PM
I triple derwill's, Iggy.
Posted by: Clarice | November 08, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Nugent's draft extract:
http://www.radioshownotes.com/2012/04/ted-nugent-selective-service-status.html
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 04:31 PM
Merciful heavens, Akin lost because he lost support of the big names and the big money. Dems can be flippin' insane and out and out criminals and their side supports 'em and elects 'em.
I would rather have an Akin in the Senate than another completely corrupt Dem. We have put up with far worse than him in the Senate.
Once all the Big Names started piling on and shunning Akin, it was an uphill battle for him to win.
Posted by: centralcal | November 08, 2012 at 04:33 PM
The issue has been pretty much resolved, no mater what we think,Iggy.Now it is a moral, individual choice for at least a certain period of time.
I disagree. You may have resolved it for yourself (and so have I) but we do not appear to agree on the resolution.
Now there are different ways of approaching it as Iggy points out, but that's a separate argument.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 08, 2012 at 04:34 PM
the assumption being it was ideology that killed him. how big was his war chest next to McGaskill's? in elections money matters as much as ideology, unfortunate as that might be.
Downticket races really suffered this year. Tester pulled it out in Montana, for goodness' sake. I thought McCaskill was toast but it's totally possible that a non-Akin candidate might have gotten beat, too - though likely not as bad. But Republicans abandoning Akin made it a certainty.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 08, 2012 at 04:38 PM
"I'm now hoping for a Bladerunner blimp to come flying overhead, advertising a new life in the off world colonies."
Found this elsewhere and got a laugh this morning.
Yesterday,I failed to experience a period of "grief" but stayed in a mood of pioneer stoicism (well dried up, locusts descended, typhoid in town and only cow got the bloat) until today when I shifted to anger and a need to act out. I'm working on a personal plan.
This morning, my German s-i-l phoned us to commiserate about the election's outcome. She reported that Frau Merkel had already phoned to congratulate Obama but told the German media she was not encouraged. Her appraisal of Obama was that he considered himself in charge of the U.S. AND western Europe which she did not like.
The same s-i-l knew that over 90% of German
Idiotenmuddle chose Obama over the "flip-flopping" Romney. Mormonism was not mentioned.Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | November 08, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Wow, Frau - how interesting about Merkel's conversation with JEF.
Posted by: centralcal | November 08, 2012 at 05:06 PM
let's not kid ourselves about why he lost nearly half a million voters in the voting booth.
Romney got over 4M votes in Florida, Connie Mack only 3.4M. What did Connie Mack say about abortion and rape?
I don't think this cause and effect stuff is as easy as people make it out to be. I'm sure it was a contributing factor, but I'm also sure it didn't cost Akin half a million votes. It may or may not have cost him the election.
It's not going to disappear from national politics unless Roe is overturned and it becomes a state issue (and even then...), but Republicans have to find a way to respond effectively to journalists acting on behalf of the Democrats who want to trip them up. Even if it's simply to say "My personal views aren't relevant, the Supreme Court has decided the larger issue. Given that, I only favor laws requiring parental consent, I'm opposed to any tax dollars paying for the procedures, and I'm opposed to mandated insurance coverage."
Posted by: jimmyk | November 08, 2012 at 05:12 PM
--Read his documents. They're on the web. Also, Nugent admitted that he faked his medicals in order to avoid going to Viet Nam.
The only misinformation is on your end. The only objectionable thing is Nugent, a draft dodger, smearing the patriotism of others.
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM--
Dear dickbrain,
The Snopes article links directly to Nugent's Selective Service record which documents precisely what I wrote and refutes what you did.
Nugent did tell High Times he took all sorts of drugs to avoid the draft. Shortly thereafter he told another interviewer he made up a bunch of lies for the stoners at High Times. The only evidence for what you say was refuted by the only guy who said it, IOW you're still full of bullshit only now you're a liar who won't admit it.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 05:29 PM
I'm sorry Moxieman. I missed your 4:31 comment where you helpfully linked the very document which discredits you and even contains commentary further discrediting you.
Thanks, buddy.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 05:32 PM
"I'm sorry Moxieman. I missed your 4:31 comment where you helpfully linked the very document which discredits you and even contains commentary further discrediting you.
Thanks, buddy."
You mean the one that shows Nugent bouncing from 1A to Student to medical deferment to 1A to Student, to medical?
That refutes me? Looks like Nugent wasn't the only taking drugs.
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 05:57 PM
--You mean the one that shows Nugent bouncing from 1A to Student to medical deferment to 1A to Student, to medical?
That refutes me? Looks like Nugent wasn't the only taking drugs.
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 05:57 PM--
You goddamned dumbshit, you don't read it across, you read it by date.
He had a HS deferment, when it ran out he was classified 1-A, then he got a college deferment, when it ran out he was classified 1-A again. Then he had a physical and was classified 1-Y. 1-Y was abolished and he was reclassified 4-F.
Always best to learn how to read prior to giving the lecture, bright boy.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 06:07 PM
CH, I was just making a bit of a feeble joke about using magnanimous in conjunction with the f*** you sentiment posted. You are correct about the underlying sentiment about forgiving family, of course.
Posted by: C.R. | November 08, 2012 at 06:14 PM
I was tempted to end my Speilberg films embargo and go see Lincoln, but not now.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 08, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Thanks for the explanation, CR; you successfully confused me previously.
To hell with Speilberg; I need his films like I need a fourth nut.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 08, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Gettin pretty crowded in there. :)
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 08:47 PM
You goddamned dumbshit, you don't read it across, you read it by date.
He had a HS deferment, when it ran out he was classified 1-A, then he got a college deferment, when it ran out he was classified 1-A again. Then he had a physical and was classified 1-Y. 1-Y was abolished and he was reclassified 4-F.
Always best to learn how to read prior to giving the lecture, bright boy."
Try reading for comprehension next time, son, it might help.
Draft-dodger Nugent bounced around between 1A (ready now), 2S (student), and 1Y (medical deferment) for FIVE YEARS and never got a 4F designation. At the end there is a scrawl of "WF" which is about the time he was aging out of the draft. No 4F, though. You also have the problem that Nugent gave more than one interview in which he discussed his draft dodging. He admitted that he made up his medical acts in order to avoid the draft, and that he didn't want to go to Viet Nam (Nugent is obviously not intelligent, as he could have enlisted in the Navy and spent his time on a ship by selecting a particular MOS).
Sing and dance all you want, Iggie, the truth is this: Draft dodgers have no right to smear the patriotism of others. At least Clinton had the decency to not insult the patriotism of others.
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Dude,
There was no draft classification of W F.
It's either a poor 4 or more likely IV. Try enlarging it.
I already pointed out that after Nugent gave the interview about "making up his medical acts" he admitted he'd lied. Your only witness to his "acts" denies your evidence.
Why not admit you couldn't even read the document correctly?
BTW Clinton was widely accused of questioning our very own present Commander in Chief's patriotism by good little lefties like Huffpo and MSNBC back in 2008.
Since you won't even acknowledge blatant dumbass mistakes you're not honest enough to waste any more time on.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 08, 2012 at 09:33 PM
But even today, the thought of forcing a woman to bring her rapist's baby to term is hard for me to resolve, both intellectually and emotionally. I think it is a bridge too far for a lot of people who consider themselves pro-life
Interesting. It is a bridge too far for me to punish the baby by taking his or her life for the crimes of the sperm donor. It makes no intellectual sense to me at all. It is all emotional.
Emotionally, I can not understand how any woman can kill her own flesh and blood, no matter the circumstances of conception.
Posted by: Sara | November 08, 2012 at 09:41 PM
"It's either a poor 4 or more likely IV. Try enlarging it.
I already pointed out that after Nugent gave the interview about "making up his medical acts" he admitted he'd lied. Your only witness to his "acts" denies your evidence.
Why not admit you couldn't even read the document correctly?"
I have read it correctly. Nugent went from 1A in December, 1967 through various stages of 1A, Student, and medical deferments, ONLY winding up at best to your purported "4F" in December, 1972, FIVE YEARS later.
Now tell me where I read the document wrong.
I notice that you're avoiding the fact that Nugent, a draft dodger, has no business smearing the patriotism of others. Be that as it may, your silence on the issue is deafening.
And why be so hot to defend the military record of an admitted liar who never served?Like I said, Clinton never smeared anyone's patriotism.
Posted by: moxieman | November 08, 2012 at 11:36 PM
What the hell are you talking about moxieman? Clinton put it in writing to his draft board that he despised the military and then he beat feet to a foreign country and bad-mouthed us and our efforts in Vietnam.
Posted by: Sara | November 09, 2012 at 12:20 AM
1) Her 20-something "boyfriend" hustles her over there as soon as he finds out that she is pregnant in order to ensure that nobody interferes with his opportunities to impregnate her again.
2) The 12 yr old's mother brings her there so that afterwards the 12 yr old can be taken home and the father/stepfather can continue the rapes.
Look, rape and incest are both heinous crimes, and from the rapist's point of view, abortion-on-demand is a wonderful thing that helps him cover up his past crimes and get away with future crimes. Which makes the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd accessories to rape and incest both before and after.
I know where you are coming from, Sara. I think maybe a possible tactic in responding to these abortion-rape questions is to pull a look-squirrel and demand to know why the pro-abortion side is working so hard to help rapists and pedophiles commit their crimes? I mean, let's be clear here, when a 12-yr-old girl shows up at the abortion clinic she didn't drive herself there, and she doesn't pay for the abortion. The two typical scenarios:Posted by: cathyf | November 09, 2012 at 02:17 PM