Matt Bai of the Times writes about the Tucson shooting and attempts a history of national turning points. We are troubled by this:
Not all transformational moments entail violence. John Lewis Gaddis, the pre-eminent cold war scholar and Yale professor, sees a national turning point in 1954, when Senator Joseph McCarthy testified before a Senate subcommittee in what came to be known as the Army-McCarthy hearings.
The interrogation of McCarthy by Joseph Welch, an Army lawyer — “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” — resonated throughout a country that was just then discovering the nascent power of television. Years of ruinous disagreement over the threat of internal Communism seemed to dissipate almost overnight.
“The whole McCarthy moment — the air just went out of it altogether,” Professor Gaddis says. “McCarthy was politically dead at that point and physically dead in three years.”
Hmm. The biggest problem here is that McCarthy was not the witness being interrogated when the famous “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” exchange ocurred. In fact, Roy Cohn was being questioned by Army counsel Jesph Welch; Senator McCarthy interrupted him, leading to the famous exchange.
That said, the next witness called was Joe McCarthy himself, who was grilled by Sen. Symington. That did not go well for McCarthy, either - we turn to Wikipedia:
Late in the hearings, McCarthy, after refusing to sign a document that he claimed had false statements in it, rebuked Senator Stuart Symington by saying, "You're not fooling anyone. I'm sure of that." Symington fired back with an angry but prophetic remark to McCarthy: "Senator, the American people have had a look at you now for six weeks. You're not fooling anyone, either."
Althugh it was overshadowed by the famous exchange with Welch, the NY Times highlights for the same day describe McCarthy refusing to sign a letter offered by Symington. I have some excerpts below:
Bottom line: Matt Bai did Yale Prof. Gaddis no favors by tossing in the "Have you no sense of decency" line to jog our memories. Welch interogated Cohn; Symington interrogated McCarthy. My guess is that Prof. Gaddis knows this inside and out but Bai managed to muddle it up a bit.
More contemporaneously, I also question this from Bai:
Not even the terrorist attacks of 2001, which surely rank high among the most jarring events in American history, did much to unify the society in any lasting way. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers had immediate and significant consequences for the nation’s foreign policy, but any sense of common purpose had more or less vanished by the next year’s elections, when Republicans slammed their Democratic opponents —including Max Cleland, a man who lost three of his limbs fighting in Vietnam — as insufficiently patriotic.
Hmm, that loss of common purpose was all the Republican's fault? The Democrats had insisted on civil service-level protection in the new Department of Homeland Security, figuring, perhaps, that wars on terror come and go but government union voters are Democrats forever.
The Democrats held up the DHS until after the election, when, having felt the heat, they saw the light. I would infer that the "sense of common purpose" had dissipated at the point when the Dems decided to treat the DHS as a new source of campign contributions rather than when the Republicans attacked them for it.
I think that sense evaporated the moment Teddy Kennedy referred to Iraq as a war "cooked up down in Texas."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 01:16 PM
Uncle Joe (of the day) was on to something though and we continue to suffer from the left's penetration of all levels of our society. Obama himself is a product of what Uncle Joe was trying to expose both in influential Hollywood, at the time and in other forms of media. This was way before the 24 hour news cycle and opinion was easily fashioned. Sure there were a number of civil liberty abuses but in terms of dispicable behavior it was a mirror of what we are seeing today. If you can stifle free speech no matter what side of the debate then you have the upper-hand in exposing your side as the one God is on.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 01:21 PM
For me the insistence on the unionization of the DHS was the very last I really mean it LAST straw.
Don Surber's not to keen on participating in civil discourse right now either after 10 years of Dem perfidy and viciousness.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/28041
Posted by: clarice | January 16, 2011 at 01:25 PM
When the study of American History left education and was replaced by the hazy study of different political and racial groups, it meant that all the fluff we have seen in the last 10 days, including this rather fatuous brief for Progressives as moderates, could easily find a hold on the uninformed public. But, because Progressivism is a religion, history is not its friend. All religious history is only so much advertising.
No educated person would accept this article.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 01:37 PM
If the Rs agree to the seating scheme they are done, over, put a fork in 'em. What a bunch of hosers.
Posted by: bunky | January 16, 2011 at 01:45 PM
History is infinitely malleable for these folks. Why worry about the details when it's the grand themes they are worried about.
Loughner spray-painted "CX" (meaning, he told police, Christianity) on a "Stop" sign. Stop Christianity--perhaps he thought that was clever. See if that detail ever makes it into the New York times. You'll learn there that he tagged a road sign, but evidence that he shares the beliefs of the NY Times target reader is too dangerous or offensive to be included. It complicates the narrative.
Posted by: Thomas | January 16, 2011 at 01:46 PM
Don Surber's not to keen on participating in civil discourse right now either after 10 years of Dem perfidy and viciousness.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/28041
Thanks for pointing that out, C; great stuff as is his subsequent takedown of Scarblowhard. No, I'm not gonna stfu in the name of what the idiots dictate as "civility".
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2011 at 01:51 PM
I'm not either Clarice and it really pisses me off. For 2 years republicans were prohibited from any form of governing and now the same jerks are demanding all sorts of things. We didn't get a word on healthcare and now they want to add amendments to the repeal.
I say screw em. I'm in not mood to fabricate some so called "decency" on their behalf.
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | January 16, 2011 at 01:53 PM
The sole reason the Democrats want festival seating is that when they stand to clap for their Hero, it will appear on TV that the applause is bi-partisan. What do they call it these days? The Optics.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 01:59 PM
I repeat, Mark. Consider this proposal a free i.q. test of your Republican Congress.
Posted by: clarice | January 16, 2011 at 02:02 PM
In the spirit of our new civility, I give credit where it is due. The NYT is making an effort. I count only two lies in this sentence.
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | January 16, 2011 at 02:05 PM
I'm just piling on, Clarice. It just seems such a transparent ploy. Maybe that's what Obama meant with his transparency pledge.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 02:05 PM
McCarthy was, no doubt, am unpleasant man. Many politicians are.
Yet the Soviet records which have been opened tend to substantiate the case he was making.
Cultural, Frankfurt-School Marxism is now dominant throughout Western academia. Certain professional qualifications leading to employment in the public sector are not available without paying at least lip service to the cult. "The Long March through the Institutions" has been successful for the enemies of freedom. That is why PC and multiculturalism dominate.
Posted by: Edward Spalton | January 16, 2011 at 02:07 PM
The Surber link is great. Exactly how I feel.
Posted by: Janet | January 16, 2011 at 02:08 PM
Roy Cohn flew in from the Bahamas to speak when I was in law school. It was winter and, when I first looked at him, I thougt he might be Jamaican. I can't remember a word he said, but the tan. What a tan.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 02:12 PM
Don't Skype and type. You'll miss an "h" or two.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 02:13 PM
Clarice's Don Surber link.
Posted by: boris | January 16, 2011 at 02:14 PM
Iowahawk says he's gonna write columns for National Review.
Good for him. Even better for NR.
Posted by: hit and run | January 16, 2011 at 02:15 PM
The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late historian Howard Zinn.(Surber)
May Zinn be plagued with unrelenting nightmares.
I notice the same old misrepresentation of Max Clelend's Vietnam accident and the campaignl charge against him.
Posted by: Frau Nebenan | January 16, 2011 at 02:15 PM
Doh Surber is spot on and it is good advice to Boehner and McConnell. But the MFM will only misplay the attitude and actions and rather want to focus on how wonderfully bi-partisan McCain, Graham, Young and Snowe are in their civility. I would love to see someone Alan West get in the face of some Dem who wants to sit next to him to make the SOTU more Kumbaya than UFC. We need some stalwart, no backdown, Marine culture oozing through the republicans, not a bunch of "mamby-pamby jack-wagons".
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 02:23 PM
I think that sense evaporated the moment Teddy Kennedy referred to Iraq as a war "cooked up down in Texas."
You mean the phantom sense of unity after 9/11?
On 9/11, Michael Moore was complaining that the murder of thousands of Americans made no sense because the victims were in states that had voted against George Bush.
The Washington premiere of his next film was attended by a Who's Who of the Democratic Party.
At the 2004 convention, Moore was given what I can only assume the Democrats intended as a position of honor beside Jimmy Carter.
The sense of unity collapsed before the WTC did.
Posted by: bgates | January 16, 2011 at 02:36 PM
This was another good rant from Nov. 2010 (I think it was linked on Instapundit). Same sentiments as Surber's post.
I think this part is very true - "So we took your tools and began to employ them against you. And you don't like it very much. Except we don't have to pay anyone to come to our rallies, and that just infuriates you further."
I think the left especially hates the Tea Parties because of this. Protests were their domain.
Posted by: Janet | January 16, 2011 at 02:40 PM
I think at this point, only the brave pols who say and do what's right without regard for the media can hope to prevail--the media will lie no matter what and lucky for us are daily losing their power to break a pol.
Here, via Legal Insurrection is a fantastic cartoon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LNJqQ527q4&feature=player_embedded>Sarah Palin is stupid
Posted by: clarice | January 16, 2011 at 02:41 PM
You can always count on the sap McCain to go along with this kind of crap, especially now that he's scrambling to recapture that Strange New Respect.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Good news! Obama went to http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/obama-to-attend-church-service.html>church today
Disconcerting: they http://plixi.com/p/70414384>sang a hymn called "I Am on the Battlefield for My Lord"
Eliminationist rhetoric...
Posted by: hit and run | January 16, 2011 at 02:43 PM
I say screw em. I'm in not mood to fabricate some so called "decency" on their behalf.
Now, Jane, civility is a good thing. I welcome it.
That's not to say we shouldn't insist on some small token of good faith, perhaps a Walk to Canossa-style show of self-mortification. I think if a thousand of the most vile and egregious slanderers of Republicans and the Tea Party were to make a pilgrimage of sorts to Wasilla or Crawford to kneel and beg forgiveness for their outrageous and utterly unjustified slurs, I'd be willing to put the whole decade behind us.
Posted by: bgates | January 16, 2011 at 02:43 PM
I forgot the link! Here it is.
My Rebuttal to a Progressive who Admonished Me to Play Nice ....
Posted by: Janet | January 16, 2011 at 02:43 PM
Well I don't mind if the GOP shares the short bus section during the SOTU, I suggest their T-shirts say "Bite Me and Thrive" since imitation is the highest for of flattery...
Posted by: Enlightened | January 16, 2011 at 02:45 PM
***form fo flattery***
Posted by: Enlightened | January 16, 2011 at 02:48 PM
LOL - ***Form Of Flattery***
Not.Enough.Coffee.This.Morning...
Posted by: Enlightened | January 16, 2011 at 02:49 PM
When do they unleash John Bolton and Dick Cheney? They could be the new spokesmen for the Republican Civility Movement to counterbalance the McCain-Graham vitriol that poisons our politics.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 02:52 PM
Heh, Hit. Also fantastico, bgates.
Posted by: clarice | January 16, 2011 at 02:55 PM
It is possible to say "no" politely. That's enough.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 02:57 PM
I found this blog quite interesting: The Zombie Speculation Bubble Is Ready To Burst.
Here's the opening:
Think over what he has to say, then try to envision two years from now.
Posted by: anduril | January 16, 2011 at 03:00 PM
Another half-time post:
From Fraser Nelson's A debt-filled New Year:
"In the original Superman film, the hero rescues Lois Lane as she falls from a skyscraper. ‘Don’t worry, ma’am, I got you,’ he says, midair.
‘You got me? Who’s got you?’ she replies.
This is the question that no one is asking now. If China is lending to us, who is lending to China? If the governments are saving the banks, then who will save the governments? If the European Union is offering a safety net, who would be there to bail out the EU?
There are other questions not being asked: which country, in recent economic history, has successfully borrowed its way out of a debt crisis?"
Posted by: anduril | January 16, 2011 at 03:02 PM
((The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.))
the pinnacle of which, imo, was their display at 0's inauguration
Posted by: Chubby | January 16, 2011 at 03:07 PM
Instead of "Together We Thrive", how about t-shirts that say "Together we screwed up the country...so we're going full blown small government conservative now. To hell with liberalism!"
Posted by: Janet | January 16, 2011 at 03:09 PM
Here is the sad video Chubby.
Posted by: Janet | January 16, 2011 at 03:18 PM
Why are we here noting the slings and arrows of the progs, dems and the left? That is their MO (and that is not Michelle). Nothing new. Its like complaining about the sun rising in the east. What are we and our political leaders going to do about it? At least Rush, Beck and Palin along with Levin, D'Souza and Goldberg are prepared to take them on with out backing down. But it seems that when it comes to Congress or discussing the libs attacks, slanders and libels on MFM TV its nicey, nicey. Even on those "fair and balanced" panels Fox likes to use on every one of their shows its still nicey, nicey. I like once to have someone call out Bob Beckel as the hack he is (Professor, my ass) and not try to appease his slanted views of politics.
Stop being nice and start being right, hard and resilent.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 03:37 PM
Clarice, we don't even need to grade the test.
Two senators from different parties say they'll skip tradition and sit together during President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. The decision by Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York comes amid calls for greater civility . . ..
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 03:39 PM
I'm sorry to read that about Tom Coburn. I hope he packs a vial of anti-venom serum if he plans on sitting next to Schumer.
It is within somewhat recent history that Newt Gingrich thought he could work *with* the Dems. He tried to extend his hand and look how he was smeared and blistered. Clinton shut down the government and Newt took the blame.
Bite me, too.
Posted by: Frau Nebenan | January 16, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Mark O,
If Coburn sits next to Schumer, any idea what he will have in his syringe for Chuckles? How about sodium penathol?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 03:57 PM
JiB, that's old school. So old I've had it. What about propofol? Or, are you thinking about "truth." If so, he's immune.
Posted by: MarkO | January 16, 2011 at 04:19 PM
For a minute there I thought I was looking at the transcript of a conversation between Surber and the Vice President.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 04:23 PM
For a change of mood, here's a woman who knew why the health care takeover bill was a bad idea, understands that advertising American weakness is a bad idea, and believes in the fundamental values that make America exceptional.
Unfortunately she won't hold hands with people who hate her and she says "aw, geez" a lot, so she isn't taken seriously by people I can't take seriously.
Posted by: bgates | January 16, 2011 at 04:33 PM
Anyone think the Jets have a chance?
Did you see where the NFL is backing the Presidents call for civility by cracking down on trash talking which is the equivalent of free speech anywhere else except in Pima County.
But this free speech does purposely lead to violence and controlled mayhem. When and who will be the first to introduce The Omnibus Anti-Sports Vitriolic Rhetoric and Induced Violence Act of 2011? Also known as The Cromartie/Ryan Law.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 04:36 PM
How long will it take you to learn you are passing a whore house, and there’s no love going on inside.
Posted by: Neo | January 16, 2011 at 04:36 PM
Wes Welker to be benched at the beginning of the game because of his footsie talk. I suspect the benching will be short-lived.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 04:39 PM
Jack, interesting that Bill B. kicked Welker off the starting unit for his thinly-code remarks, yet he was on the field for special teams before the offense ever got on the field.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 16, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Shorter lived than I thought. Welker was the punt return man.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 04:47 PM
anduril asks: ``Which country, in recent economic history, has successfully borrowed its way out of a debt crisis?"
How about the United States during the Ronald Reagan administration.
And haven't wingnuts been predicting economic collapse since the day Obama took office?
Now that the GOP runs congress, it's going to be so much fun watching wingnuts simultaneously claim that their congress saved the economy while Obama ruined it.
Posted by: bunkerbuster | January 16, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Nice run after interception by the Jets' David Harris. OK, no more commentary.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 04:55 PM
I think Belichick was just delivering a subtle insult to the oaf Ryan about whether or not you let your players mouth off with impunity.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 04:57 PM
How about the United States during the Ronald Reagan administration.
I'm guessing that the phrase "debt crisis" has thwarted your limited reading skills.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | January 16, 2011 at 04:58 PM
Quote of the day (after bgates')
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=24129
These people are who we knew them to be. And it’s been great to watch them try to hang themselves. Now, if only the establishment GOP will stop rushing over to cut the rope.
Posted by: clarice | January 16, 2011 at 05:00 PM
One more. I love Algie Crumpler. Prevents a Jet TD after the interception, and now makes a bruising run after catch dep in Jets territory.
JiB, I think the Jets have a chance. After all, the Jets so far have looked bad, and it is still scoreless.
Whips! Algie drops one in the end zone.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 05:05 PM
I agree that Hoodie was taking a shot at Footsie by keeping Welker out of the Pats' first offensive set, DOT.
Whoops! Who is Obama's Civility Commisar? Like a good servile member of the bureaucratic state, I need to confess my uncivil "taking a shot" comment in the preceding paragraph.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 05:11 PM
Although I am a Long Island boy I am not a New York man. So I am pulling for the Pats. It's an East End/South Fork thing. Plus Ryan is a complete jerk who couldn't carry Belichick's clipboard. What?. Correction, Ryan at one time use to carry Belichick's clipboard and his earphones and got his coffee for him.
DoT, did you know young Billie at Navy?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 05:11 PM
I think Belichick was just delivering a subtle insult to the oaf Ryan about whether or not you let your players mouth off with impunity.
Me too, as well as saying "we can beat you without him". And I doubt it had anything to do with the moralizer in chief.
Then again it's fair weather and I am a fair weather fan.
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | January 16, 2011 at 05:16 PM
If I were a Jets fan, I'd be happy the score is only 3-0 Pats at the end of the first quarter.
Is Mel lurking? Celebrating the Bears win, Mel?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 16, 2011 at 05:17 PM
Trappist monks made Christina's casket
LUN
Posted by: Stephanie | January 16, 2011 at 05:21 PM
I knew Steve Belichick--very well-liked guy--but don't remember Bill. A lot of my contemporaries do.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 05:26 PM
Now it's 7-3. I think I am bad luck.
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | January 16, 2011 at 05:28 PM
Keep watching, Jane. The Pats need Central Mass Tea Party karma!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 05:31 PM
Antonio Cromartie has nine children by eight wives in six states, and has been named in five paternity suits. One of the most painful videoclips around shows him trying to recite the names of his kids. I am sure that, whatever career path he may choose when his playing days are over, he will be successful, and the kids will be proud of their dad.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 05:31 PM
I'm not sure who're (strange how that contraction looks in this context) the bigger idiots in cases like Cromartie and Shawn Kemp; them for banging so many skeeves with no protection or de wimmens. I can't decide so it's all of them.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2011 at 05:37 PM
Pats have creeping cause for concern...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 05:45 PM
strange how that contraction looks in this context
Somewhere in America there's a child whose mother wanted her to have a celebratory name.
"It's pronounced 'Hoo-ray.'"
"Y'all are ignorant."
Posted by: bgates | January 16, 2011 at 05:52 PM
Best half-time reset coach in football. The gears are churning, the play book is being revised and I predict they score a TD on their first possession and stop the Jets dead in their tracks. But that said, it will be close and low scoring but its the W that counts.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Well know that was stupid. I guess I am a jinx. Sorry TC and Dave.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 05:55 PM
How about the United States during the Ronald Reagan administration.
The point of Reaganomics was not to borrow more but to restructure the tax code to encourage business activity. Unfortunately, spending was not restrained--that's another story. Right now, spending isn't being restrained--quite the opposite and the increases have been far more extreme than during the Reagan years--and the tax structure remains the same. It IS surprising that BB didn't point out that the current crisis has followed upon unusual irresponsibility by government. Perhaps because that unusual irresponsibility has been compounded by unprecedented irresponsibility.
Posted by: anduril | January 16, 2011 at 05:57 PM
Maybe part of the halftime reset will be no more fake punts. Biggest LOL of the first half was watching Cromartie cross himself; maybe praying for divine intervention for no more bastard kids. I don't care if he's a conservative; I can't stand listening to that idiot Nantz.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2011 at 06:01 PM
14-3. Oh yeah.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 16, 2011 at 06:04 PM
My karma apparently sucks.
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | January 16, 2011 at 06:04 PM
Don't worry about it, JiB. We'll get to see whether the Patriots have the comeback cojones the Steelers demonstrated.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 06:05 PM
"Two senators from different parties say they'll skip tradition and sit together....."
Decorum could be served just as easily at the SOTU address as it could have been in Tuscon with a simple, firm, request from POTUS that his remarks not be interrupted by applause. Post-game analysts, denied their traditional, meaningless, tally of applause breaks, could follow suit with an even more ponderous examination of the equally meaningless, applause-free, trappings of the New Civility.
What I'm waiting to see is whether video cams can do irony. Will they pivot to the Supremes, when Obama exhorts us to imbue our rhetoric with respect?
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 16, 2011 at 06:05 PM
Actually, the tax structure did not remain the same. Many of the items that were tax deductible for families and individuals (just as they continue to be for corporations) disappeared in the TEFRA restructuring.
No more tax deductions for interest paid on credit cards, cars and other goods for example. So while they were exhorting everyone to jump on the credit train, they made it significantly more expensive to ride.
Now they want to take away the home mortgage deduction in the midst of a housing crisis and make it more expensive, too. How stupid is that?
Posted by: Stephanie | January 16, 2011 at 06:07 PM
Bunker buster, I believe the cost of borrowing for the US declined significantly under the Reagan/Volker policies, and it didn't take unending QEs to do it. We'll see how Treasuries do now under the Obama/Bernanke approach.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 06:10 PM
Decorum could be served just as easily at the SOTU address as it could have been in Tuscon with a simple, firm, request from POTUS that his remarks not be interrupted by applause.
That's the only reason Toonces shows up to give one. Plus that would take away the effectiveness of the sooper brilliant master plan of the mixed seating that addled dimwit McCain signed on for.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 16, 2011 at 06:13 PM
You sound like a Jets fan, Extraneus. On which side of the GW Bridge do you reside?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 06:13 PM
Grew up in Staten Island, TC.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 16, 2011 at 06:17 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Stephanie. I'm not into paying interest, so that skipped past me. But I think you get the idea. Reagan used tax policy to encourage economic activity. Obama somehow thinks that inflationary policies will do that. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Posted by: anduril | January 16, 2011 at 06:18 PM
If Coburn and Chuckles sit together then isn't one of them sitting in either the Republican section or the Democrat section? So, who really crosses the aisle? I lay odds it won't be that slimeball Chuckles. Also, now that Coburn has a beard he looks like someone who should be on the Krugman side of the aisle.
Don't know why the Pats are running the ball 3 straight times to start? Nothing is going the Pats way even punts want to bounce the wrong way.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 06:20 PM
If leftists are so interested in civility, I have an easy way for them to demonstrate their commitment to it:
Stop using the term "teabagger."
Posted by: PD | January 16, 2011 at 06:21 PM
Actually that's "on" Staten Island to Staten Islanders. Been too long.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 16, 2011 at 06:22 PM
I wrote this on the other thread, how the Fox News panel, was mostly dismissive of Sarah's short and to the point statement,
I was reacting off an earlier review on the C4P blog,' because she can' and because it needed to be said, because as we've seen, all the usual suspects, haven't given up
the ghost, (Krugman, Rich, are mendacious
as ever)
Posted by: narciso | January 16, 2011 at 06:22 PM
And since the President has been heard to use the term, perhaps he too can stop using it.
Posted by: PD | January 16, 2011 at 06:22 PM
Ex,
My great-grandfather was a cricket professional for the New Brighton Cricket Club back in the 1857-58 season. He was also friends with the Outerbridges. They brought the game we know as Lawn Tennis back from their winter home in Bermuda.
One of the best, unexplored parts of New York - also its hilliest.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 06:25 PM
Sorry, should mention that New Brighton Club was on Staten Island.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 16, 2011 at 06:27 PM
This has to be one of the most stupid statements I've read from a leftist so far.
NPR's Scott Simon: Shootings Just 'Didn't Happen When 63 Million Watched Walter Cronkite Every Night'
Not to mention that cities were being burned and our brave members of our armed forces were being treated as pond scum.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | January 16, 2011 at 06:27 PM
Not wrong. Paying for a loaf of bread is still paying for a loaf of bread whether it is one buck or ten. The economic activity hasn't changed one whit.
That the nine additional dollars spend on that loaf could have also purchased ham, lettuce, tomato and mayo is where the standard of living drops. And there is no economic activity in not producing the meat for the sandwich.
Meat - it's what used to be for dinner...
Posted by: Stephanie | January 16, 2011 at 06:29 PM
In addition, cities were being burned and brave men and women of our armed services were being treated as pond scum. And what was Kent State?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | January 16, 2011 at 06:33 PM
Sorry, thought I'd posted and left off the last paragraph, but it was only the last line. Had a rough night last night with a sick 80 lb dog that had to go out about every 15 minutes, nasty stuff. I'm dog tired in more ways than one.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | January 16, 2011 at 06:38 PM
I hope both the dog and you are feeling better soon, Sara(Pal2Pal). Is the dog now on a more regular going outside schedule?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 06:44 PM
This game is l'histoire. Never seen Brady/Belichick so dazed and confused, including the SB against the Giants.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 16, 2011 at 06:46 PM
Did you turn it off before this drive, DoT?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 16, 2011 at 06:48 PM
Algie hangs on this time. Looks like a great fourth quarter.
I don't think the Pats should have gone for the two point conversion, although they made it. 14-11 Jets.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 06:53 PM
Jets are wilting. Big Mo with New England.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | January 16, 2011 at 06:55 PM
Still watching, Jane?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 16, 2011 at 06:56 PM