Powered by TypePad

« Constitutional Crisis du Jour | Main | With Friends Like This... »

January 06, 2012

Comments

Old Lurker

Confession time?

What the heck is the feather joke about?

Captain Hate

BTW, I wuz crawling around the B&P tunnel back in the late 70s. Not sure what was worse, clinging to the manholes when coal cars were roaring by six inches from your nose

I love railroad stories. The first summer I worked for the B&O the old-timers there warned me about how quiet cars could be when being shoved on to a siding from a switcher on the other end of the yard. Being young and stoopid, I was thinking to myself that these guys hearing was wrecked from many decades of pounding the brews hard and that would *never* happen to me in dealing with at least a 15 ton slab of metal. I took their warning about staying in the middle of the space between the tracks to heart though (I wasn't a *total* idiot) and one night I couldn't hear a damn thing but somehow felt that something wasn't kosher on the track to my right. I flashed my light there and an empty flatcar, as quiet as a ghost, was passing by me. Those old-timers were pretty smart.

narciso

The rule at an OWS meeting, was no one would speak unless they were holding a feather.

Jim Miller

daddy - One of the Seattle stations did show the icebreaker this morning. I was only half paying attention, but I don't think they mentioned how early the ice was.


That Jay Cost piece was certainly disappointing, much below his usual standard. (For a much better discussion, see the latest by Sean Trende.)

Janet

...and Frau linked a story in her local paper about Dana speaking at a local OWS gathering. It had a photo of Dana passing a feather to the next speaker.

Old Lurker

Thanks Narc. Got it now.

Frau Federhalter

OL - As Janet says, at the #Occupant Claremont three-tent encampment, a person wishing to speak had to hold a feather which was passed on to the next speaker. A photo was posted of Prof. Cleo holding the feather as he lectured the useful ninnies eager students and other believers.

Danube of Thought

And the guy in Frau's picture would appear to be one Dana G. Ward. mouth wide open of course.

narciso

I had forgotten that detail, no seriously.

glasater

OT- for NK

I've found this blog by Yra Harris that is interesting:

Notes from the underground

This particular link refers to 'Carry Trade'.

Janet

Old Lurker - Here is the thread linked at Frau's first comment.

Here is the pic -

MarkO

Don't you just love the serious adults in the University setting? Peace and Love man.

They don't ever have to grow up.

Old Lurker

Now that's just too funny. Can't make these guys up, can we?

Frau Kornbranntwein

daddy- found at Insty is a PM article about re-creating the whisky that Shakleton drank in the Antarctic.
LUN

Porchlight

Clarice, that sounds wonderful. Can't wait to hear more about what you're creating with it.

Cleans itself too? Incredible.

Frau Kornbranntwein

I'm surprised Clarice is not using *two* Thermomixes simultaneously while writing her next AT piece.

Clarice

Narciso, this is not that..Your mom might like a nice cuisinart..if she's not cooking for a crowd, a 7--9 cup one should meet her needs and is not terribly expensive. Amazon has them and they are available at almost any place that carries small kitchen appliances..At one time they were fair traded and expensive (Zabar's challenged that and got the fair trade laws declared illegal) . Now they are very reasonable.

I'm probably going to use one ball of the pizza dough and some of the tapenade to make a pissaladiere for dinner with carmelized onions and good cheese and fresh thyme.

**I just finished the AT piece, frau***

Clarice

*onions and GOAT cheese**

Jane

I'm surprised Clarice is not using *two* Thermomixes simultaneously while writing her next AT piece.

Me too!

cathyf
"Yet more extreme weather is hitting Nome where, for the first time in 13 years, the temperature hit 40 below zero just after 10 a.m. on Thursday morning.
Q: Is that Fahrenheit or Celsius?

A: Yes.

Ignatz

Going by cathy's posting habits I think she should go by the name Threadkiller.
I'll leave it up to TK if he'd like to adopt cathyf as his new tag.

Manuel Transmission

Q: Is that Fahrenheit or Celsius?
A: Yes.

My favorite quiz for tech newbies: there are four temperature scales, what temperature can be unambiguously stated without specifying which scale?

Cecil Turner

Took me a couple seconds to figure that out. Of course, two can't be negative, and the other two cross at -40. Good one.

mockmook

    {Santorum} clearly seems to believe that it is up to Washington to right our moral ship

    Posted by: JM Hanes | January 06, 2012 at 01:22 PM

Any evidence, an explicit statement?

mockmook
    I'm not crazy about defending Mitt but he did balance the budget.

    Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2012 at 03:58 PM

So, he cut spending? Shrank government?

Rocco

Just one example, a Romney appointment, Eric Kriss

Anne

"With Iran brewing, he is unelectible regardless of his fed policy." Jane @ 6:31 a.m.

Interesting point you raised.

To my surprise, Ron Paul shares my views on Iran, which are, essentially, that if Iran was a threat to us, GW, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would have taken them out 5 or 6 years ago. Think about that.

BTW, Iran would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by nuking Israel. and for all of his huffing, puffing and bravado reminiscent of Sadam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chevez, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Calypso Louie Farakhan and other goofy demagogues, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a fool, nor, certainly, are Iran's Mullahs. Even the Israelis recognize that fact. They're not as concerned about it as hysterical factions in this country are.

To some extent, I disagree with Ron Paul's views on Iraq and on Afganistan. But I agree with his views on Iran.

Anne

For all of his bravado, Jane, you can be sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was either changing his underwear or having Immodium AD cocktails twice a day evey day all while GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in office. ;)

bgates

Any evidence, an explicit statement?

How's this?

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Anne

mocknook @ 2:14 pm - I didn't hear the entire discussion, because I came in on the end of it, but two commentators were saying on FOX last night that the reason why Santorum lost his Senate race by such a large margin in Pennsylvania was because, to the angst of his constituents, he lost his focus, switching to social issues from his positions on economic iussues which had gotten him elected in the first place. He is trying to hard to court the evangelicals in the opinion of some of his critics, forgetting James Carville's warning, "It's the economy, stupid."

Jane

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would have taken them out 5 or 6 years ago. Think about that

Sorry Anne, I do not agree. I think Iran is a huge threat. and what's more they would like nothing more than to take Israel and us out on their way to a better life. The exit is of vast importance to them.

Part of the plan in Iraq was to neutralize Iran, in full recognition of the danger it poses. Then came Obama.

JM Hanes

mockmook:

That was certainly the tilt of Santorum's post-caucus speech in Iowa. I watched it live, but you might be able to google up a transcript or a video. For the most part, though, I'm going from my rather strong impressions of him when he was a high-profile member of Congress, which don't come with links, alas.

mockmook

Posted by: bgates | January 07, 2012 at 02:50 PM

Where in that did he say that Washington should right our moral ship?

He's saying government has a role in promoting and policing morality. Bet you never heard that prostitution is illegal in most localities.

Cecil Turner

Santorum's signature achievement remains Welfare reform, Romney's is Romneycare. I find Santorum's focus on social issues off-putting, but trying to spin Mitt as more of a small government conservative (either fiscally or socially) is a little ridiculous.

JM Hanes

Anne:

"If Iran was a threat to us, GW, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would have taken them out 5 or 6 years ago."

GWB was never as quick on the trigger as histrionic partisans would have you believe, although I don't think it hurt the once multi-lateral negotiating position for Iran to buy into that narrative. Nevertheless, you can make a lot of hay in 5 years -- and even more in 3 when you've got friends in Moscow & Bejing, a nuclear silk road, and nothing but a modest bit of verbal opprobrium from DC. The idea that Iran can go nuclear without drastically shifting increasingly global equations for the worse represents an almost wholesale retreat from 21st century reality.

Ignatz

--BTW, Iran would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by nuking Israel.--

BTW, Japan would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking the USA.
BTW, Germany would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking the USSR.
BTW, France would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by invading Russia;
the list is nearly endless.

A fairly large number of things outsiders perceived to be 'nothing to gain and everything to lose' situations seemed to have been perceived somewhat differently by those doing the actual deciding.

Anne

Jane @ 3:09 pm

Let me alleviate your fears, Jane.

To some extent you're right: By putting staging areas and boots on the ground in Afganiistan and in Iran as pincers on either side of Iran, the Bush Administration put the fear of God into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his little band of loony, merry men in Iran, who would have us believe that they are fearsome.

But Iraq became flypaper, also, drawing in radical loonies from all over the Middle East and southeast Asia, who were then systematically exterminated by our troops and by our allies' troops in such large numbers that lonony radicals from Iran's regime. became even less of a threat than they had been already. hence, all that we are seeing from them now is smoke, mirrors and b.s., which was pretty much the threat that Saddam Hussien presented, also.

Furthermore, Iraq's Mujahedeen, which is comprised of Shiite Iranian exiles, have been providing us with excellent intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, much metter intel than the "experts" from the UN have been providing, and, in fact, for those reasons and other reasons, Israel's Mossad is breathing easier now, even putting out a statement a few months ago that THEY do not consider Iran's
nuclear program to be an extastential threat to their security.

That's a simplistic overview. But that's the gist of it.

I hope that info makes you feel better. :)

Anne

That wasn't my point, JM. My point was that GW did everything that he could possibly do to protect us and to keep us safe, following the negligence and incompetence of the Clinton Administration; gross incompetence which led to the events of 9/11. (Remember Jamie Gorelick's "wall" which prevented the FBI and the CIA from exchanging intelligence???)

GW's critics should remember that his policies not only kept their sorry asses safe all while he was in office, but those same policies are continuing to keep them safe today under this current administration of chronic screw-ups.

GW, my hero. (swoon) ;)

Ignatz

--Israel's Mossad is breathing easier now, even putting out a statement a few months ago that THEY do not consider Iran's
nuclear program to be an extastential threat to their security--

That's not a not too accurate statement.

--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his little band of loony, merry men in Iran....--

So how do loony, merry men (of a particularly nasty apocalyptic sort) square with the rationality expressed in the hope that Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose by nuking Israel?
For a believer in the 12th Imam, such believers constituting a majority of believers in Iran incidentally, there would be paradise on earth and the culmination of history to be gained by nuking Israel. Fanatics, if history is any guide, might just view the balance of gain/loss slightly differently than we do.

Anne

Whoa, ignatz, what a stretch. LOL

BTW, Those are specious arguments.

JM Hanes

Cecil:

"[T]rying to spin Mitt as more of a small government conservative (either fiscally or socially) is a little ridiculous."

Who is trying to do that? It's just that spinning Santorum as a small government conservative is a pretty ridiculous too. I don't think anyone disputes that he's more socially conservative than most. As bgates' excerpt makes very clear, though, Santorum is not exactly tuned into a conservative base with increasingly conspicuous libertarian leanings.

I thought Welfare Reform was Newt's signature achievement. No, wait, it was Clinton's signature achievement. No, seriously, Santorum's many other votes in the Senate would seem to confirm that welfare reform and Romenycare are not antithetical propositions, if Santorum is to be our model. I haven't had a chance to vet all the links in this Red State rundown of Santorum's record, but here's a small healthcare sampling:

Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding

As a North Carolinian, I note that he voted against a National Right to Work Act, but he doesn't look terribly conservative to me on a whole host of issues from extending entitlements to illegal aliens to NAFTA, to campaign finance "reform."

For those who jump to conclusions, I'll reiterate that I'm not trying to persuade anyone that Romney's putative conservative bona fides trump Santorum's.

narciso

Meir Dagan, the former Mossad head, referred
'jumped the gun' with how effective the Stuixtnet actually was, the MKO was the left opposition to the Shah run by the RAjavi's
who did attack some American targets, back in the 70s, but then became the leading opponents
to Khomeini, their political arm the NCR has served a similar function to the INC, providing intelligence on the regime's plans, on Ahmadinejad, et al.

narciso

One view of them, of course, it leaves out the context

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm

JM Hanes

Anne:

I'm not a GW critic (:-), and if he's your standard bearer, you might want to rethink dismissing "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his little band of loony, merry men in Iran" as hapless, unthreatening, actors on the nuclear -- or any other -- stage. It's critically important to understand that Iranian risk/benefit calculations do not mirror our own.

Ignatz

--BTW, Those are specious arguments.--

OK. I'm persuaded.

narciso

Iran was a much harder target, with nearly three times the population, an existing navy,
a sizable air force contingent, as we saw not long after Iraq, the same IAEA would go to their death, denying the nature of the program. the Russians and the Chinese were even more deeply involved in Bushehr and other facilities. The Joint Staff would have likely insisted on no less than a million
just as the floor for such an intervention,

Ignatz

Still waiting for you to accurately describe what Mossad has said re Iran, incidentally.

narciso

This is one account;


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/meir-dagan-ex-israeli-spymaster-netanyahu-swipe_n_870638.html

Jane

Let me alleviate your fears, Jane.

You didn't.

Anne

Jane @ 5:27 pm

LOL, I kinda figured. Oh, well ..... LOL

Cecil Turner

It's just that spinning Santorum as a small government conservative is a pretty ridiculous too.

Unless you're comparing him to somebody like Romney.

JM Hanes

"Unless you're comparing him to somebody like Romney.

Right, let's say he's no Catholic either, compared to somebody like the Pope.

Cecil Turner

Sorry, but that's nonsensical. This isn't an exercise in pinning the exact point on a conservative continuum, but comparing candidates. Romney supporters criticizing Santorum for being a "big government conservative" is ridiculous, because he's clearly more of a fiscal conservative than Romney is.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet

Not on the evidence JMH supplies at 4:27, Cecil.

Cecil Turner

Funny, then, that the National Taxpayers Union rated his voting record as all A's and B's, eh?

JM Hanes

What's nonsense is expecting Romney supporters or anyone else to sit back and smile politely when someone praises Santorum as a small government guy. GWB had a pretty good record on taxes too, but I would hardly call him a small gov't conservative, either.

narciso

It seems the ABO goes in only one direction, now mind you, JM, you are a more articulate spokesman for the center right than certainly
Romney is. It's arguable whether Santorum with his assistance to American Continental, Consol Energy, and United Health Care, is more
a statist than Newt's Freddie Mac and Center for Health Transformation support for Medicare Part D, crikey we are up the Nile, without a staff.

JM Hanes

Thanks for that, narciso. I know I'm more than a little outspoken, but sometimes I feel pretty besieged in a forum where it's $#*% RINO this and @)#%* RINO that, and pols I respect like Boehner are routinely excoriated.

Things do seem pretty bleak right now. I'm actually not enthusiastic about Romney, but you go with the army you've got, and I've reluctantly concluded that he's the most capable of the lot, save for Rick Perry, who just hasn't managed to regain any real traction. I think Pawlenty gave up too soon (bet he does too!), and I'm glad Perry decided to keep on trucking. Even if he never breaks out of single digits, he's got a great 10th Amendment argument and he's getting better at delivering it. Folks are itching for an all out assault on Obama, but it's ultimately going to take a positive message to nail down the win.

Cecil Turner

Good morning!

Well, my no doubt opinionated view is that pols in general are routinely excoriated and Boehner (and Romney) do better here than most, on balance.

And on the positive message thing, that's exactly what's got my nose out of joint. It seems that every argument for Mitt involves denigrating his closest competitor . . . from the super Pac character hit job on Newt to the most recent "big government" spin on Santorum.

Anne

Don't get discouraged, JM. I like so-called Rinos, and I like and respect Boehner, too.
(Which isn't to say that Boehner is a Rino.)

Republicans aren't monolithic. Thank God.

In fact, I would rather have a Rino from a district where only a Rino or a Democrat can get elected, and who will vote with Republicans some of the time than a Democrat from that district who will never vote with Republicans.

If only the Tea Partiers had that common sense, Republicans would now control both the House and the Senate.

BTW, 377 days 'til Obama is history. It will be here before you know it. So cheer up. :)

We survived Woodrow Wilson. We survived FDR. We survived Jimmy Carter, and we'll survive Barack (and Michelle) Obama, too. It's the common people who make this country great, not its leaders, of which real ones are few and far between.

narciso

None of these were Marxist radicals, who put us on a fundamentally unsustainable course, Anne,

Anne

Marxism is a scam by street hustlers, who exploit the ignorance and the desperation of the masses to empower themselves, and who then live like royalty, while nothing changes for the masses, for whom I feel no pity, because if God hadn't meant for them to be sheared, He wouldn't have made them sheep. It's up to all of us to make the right choices and to control our own destinies, not to ask others to control our destinies for us. That's the lecture for today, folks.

One more point: My dear, wise grammy has said, it will all be the same a thousand years from now, and life is too short. So don't sweat the petty sh*t, folks. :)

Porchlight

If only the Tea Partiers had that common sense, Republicans would now control both the House and the Senate.

This is myopic as well as unprovable. Tea Partiers couldn't win a couple of high profile races, for which they are excoriated in certain circles, but the enthusiasm powered by the Tea Party resulted in many more victories than losses in 2010. Without the motivation, energy and money provided by the Tea Party it is highly doubtful that many of the challengers would have won, and several R incumbents in marginal districts might have lost. We might have put Mike Castle in the Senate, but who would we not have been able to put in the House and in other Senate seats? Think about it.

narciso

California, Conneticutt, West Va, none of these were Tea Party choices, yet they lost
there as well, As for that little philip about Marxism, it's all well and good, but the
nation of my birth, might as well gone back a thousand years, or at least to precolonial
times, and Venezuela, forty years later, made
the same fateful mistake,

Anne

"We might have put Mike Castle in the Senate, but who would we not have been able to put in the House and in other Senate seats? Think about it."

Think about it? Um, okay, for starters, how about Chuck Davore? How about Sue Lowden? How about not alienating with Lisa Murkowski by interfering with her campaign?

Get real. Tea Partiers took credit for wins which would have occurred anyway, with or without Tea Party endorsements. Two examples of which were Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, who were already way, WAY out ahead in the polls, LONG before, as an afterthought, Tea Partiers endorsed them to give themselves credibility.

All of the publicity that the Tea Partiers got went to their heads. They did more harm than good. They are the Democrats' best asset, and rge Democrat Party's shills in the MSM know it.

Tea Partiers have their place. But don't overrate them. They are amateurs, not professionals.

Yeah, I'm soooo myopic and you aren't. LOL

narciso

Cornyn backed Crist, almost a year before the primary, he backed Specter till it weas too obvious that he had become a Democrat, and he kept trying to find replacements, like Tom Ridge, who was living in Maryland, and lobbying for Albania.Paul fought against Mitch's man, Grayson, for the better part of a year,

Anne

And oh yeah, how about Colonel West, whom the Tea Partiers endorsed and supported, and who opposed Republicans, voting with the Congressinal Black Caucus on three key pieces of Democrat sponsored legislation since he took office ..., you know, like the Pigford II scam? That phony talks the talk. But he doesn't walk the walk. Or haven't you noticed?

Porchlight

Get real. Tea Partiers took credit for wins which would have occurred anyway, with or without Tea Party endorsements.

Sure they did. And they get credit for wins that wouldn't have happened otherwise, such as Allen West.


Or haven't you noticed?

I have. But the topic was not what people did after they got in office, but how they got in office in the first place.

You posited that if the Tea Party had more common sense, we'd control both the House and Senate. I say that without the Tea Party and their supposed lack of common sense, we'd have fewer seats in the House as well as the Senate.

You really think this is arguable? That without the hard work, energy and money provided by the Tea Party, we would have won enough races to control both the House and Senate? If so, it's you who need to get real.

Porchlight

All of the publicity that the Tea Partiers got went to their heads. They did more harm than good. They are the Democrats' best asset, and rge Democrat Party's shills in the MSM know it.

More harm than good, huh.

This attitude, sadly endorsed by much if not most of the Reupblican leadership, seriously jeopardizes the GOP's chance to retake the Senate and the White House in November. The GOP needs every bit of the Tea Party's help and this kind of BS will lose votes and close pocketbooks all over the country.

Anne

"I have. But the topic was not what people did after they got in office, but how they got in office in the first place."

Um, nice try, LOL, but that was [not] the topic.
The issue here is the effectiveness of the TP.
The Republicans definitely would have regained control of the House without the help of the Tea Partiers [and] the Republicans would have regained control of the Senate, too, if Tea Partiers hadn't been so dense, shallow, ditzy and clueless. Their ignorance is stunning!!!!

Just pointing out the obvious

Anne,
Pull your head out!!! LOL
Sarah Palin provided the enthusiasm in 2008 and the Tea Party provided the enthusiasm in 2010. Without the Tea Party, the Republicans would not have had the turn out to win the races that they did.
And, the topic was how those people got into office. You change goalposts like a liberal. LOL
I don't think we need to be lectured on Republican tactics by a Ronulite!!!! LOL

narciso

You don't remember that a year ago, today, they accused the Tea Party, and it's main spokesperson, of 'accesory to murder,' and it didn't matter that the real culprit was a 9/11 denialist protected by the Pima Cty sheriff,

Anne

There is nothing new about the Tea Partiers. In another election that comes to mind, they were ditzy Ross Perot supporterss, [and] with their ditziness, they gave us 8 years of a White House turned into the Playboy Mansion, East, with all of the screw-ups that led to 9/11. Wait, don't tell me, you voted for Ross Perot, right? Or was it that other nut, Pat Buchanan? Or did you vote for Bill Clinton perhaps?

narciso

Lets see, Perot was opposed to the Gulf War
(in retrospect for the wrong reason) opposed
to free trade, his people dealt in Christic
CIA conspiracies against the US govt, that sounds more like ron Paul.

Anne

Thanks, post @10:03, you just showed me that I'm winning the argument with slam-dunks. LOL

Frustrating, isn't it?

I'm citing legitimate examples to support my position. You're posting theories and, oh yeah, fairy tales and wishful thinking, too.

C'mon, give me a contest here? LOL

Just pointing out the obvious

Anne,
That's your view? Seriously? The Tea Party is the same thing as Ross Perot voters, just a new name? LOL
George Bush lost votes to Ross Perot because he was unsatisfactory as the Republican choice. People were seriously pissed off that he broke the "read my lips" vow. He never was very inspiring, and he could not rise above his lack of the "vision thing". So people looked elsewhere. Remembering the past isn't really helpful if you draw the wrong lessons from it. LOL

Anne

Well, guys, it's been fun. LOL
I'm going to have some brunch.

Just pointing out the obvious

It sure has been fun, LOL!!!!!
Enjoy your brunch and don't choke on your smug self-satisfaction!!!!! LOL

Captain Hate

We might have put Mike Castle in the Senate

This is presented as conventional wisdom but it's never made any sense that a loser in the primary would receive overwhelming support in the general election. It worked for Joe Lieberman but he was an incumbent who lost the primary because of a slough of single issue voters.

Anne

BTW, Narcisco, thank you for your civility
and for your contributions. A good read. :)

Captain Hate - Mike Castle was way, WAY out
ahead in the polls before the TP interfered.
That ditz, Christine O'Donnell, sure was a
credit to the Tea Partiers. Yessiree, guys.
Kinda like Sharon Angle, but with better hair.

Just pointing out the obvious

Anne,
I am kind of surprised that you bring up civility.
You say very insulting things and then write LOL. I thought that made it O.K. to be as insulting as I could be - as long as I put LOL behind it.
I see now that I have erred.
What makes the rules different for you though?

Captain Hate

Christine O'Donnell was probably a poor candidate but she didn't get any help when Rove torpedoed her on the night of her primary victory because he was so butt hurt that Castle didn't get the nod. That was a clear act of undermining a candidate for which he's never had to face the music. The seat was Biden's old one anyway so it's not like the voters were used to electing intelligent people.

narciso

No signs of intelligent life, for what it's worth, she actually nabbed the lion's share
of independents. After three turns at bat,
she figured let me be assimilated by Mitt brand, 'what's the worse that can happen'

Anne

@ 11:48

There's a difference. I attack 3rd parties.
I don't attack anyone here. Let's see how
you try to rationalize that to save face.

Insinuating that I'm a liberal was sleazy.

sbw

and we'll survive Barack (and Michelle) Obama, too.

If his regime lasts one term, not two.

Anne

Oh c'mon, Captain Hate, Christine O'Donnell
shot herself in her foot and stuck her foot
in her mouth [many] times before Karl Rove
and Charles Krauthammer were critical of her.
She has only herself to blame. NOBODY ELSE.
Even Sarah Palin left her twisting in the wind.

Just pointing out the obvious

[i]That phony talks the talk. But he doesn't walk the walk. Or haven't you noticed?
Um, nice try, LOL, but that was [not] the topic.
Yeah, I'm soooo myopic and you aren't. LOL
Republicans would have regained control of the Senate, too, if Tea Partiers hadn't been so dense, shallow, ditzy and clueless. Their ignorance is stunning!!!!
Whoa, ignatz, what a stretch. LOL

BTW, Those are specious arguments.[/i]
I guess Ignatz, Pochlight and several Tea Party people don't actually comment here.

Ignatz

Alert DoT:
I think Anne is a member of the Republican Establishment.

narciso

Certainly part of the fizbin caucus;

Captain Hate

Christine O'Donnell
shot herself in her foot and stuck her foot
in her mouth [many] times before Karl Rove
and Charles Krauthammer were critical of her.

Rove criticized her the night of her primary victory so whatever she'd done prior to that obviously didn't offend the voters in the primary. If you want to state that Castle was victimized by democrats crossing over and voting in the Repub contest (which I'm not sure if it happened or not) I guess that could've happened; but for whatever reason the actual voting in the primary went counter to what polls said about how popular Castle really was. If you can't stimulate enough people to come out and vote for you, you're probably not a good candidate.

Porchlight

However poor a candidate O'Donnell may have been, Delaware primary voters chose her. There was no reason not to support her once she became the nominee, even if her chances were slim.

I agree also with Captain that there was no guarantee Castle would have won had he been nominated instead. Polls showed for many weeks that Raese was showing strongly against Manchin in WV, but he still lost.

It's interesting that people like Anne who claim that the Tea Partiers are the Dems' best asset and helped lose seats we could otherwise have won in 2010, and who also claim to hate 3rd parties, spent time and energy trashing a duly elected GOP nominee and in doing so provided untold help to her Dem opponent. Great work.

Anne

This would be laughable if it wasn't so bizarre.

Even Alvin Green ran a better campaign than the
TP did with Christine O'Donnell. Remember Alvin?

She should have been an embarrassment to Tea Partiers. She was certainly a disgrace to the Republicans.

BTW, you can bet your sweet asses that I'm a hardcore mmember of "The Republican Establishment". LOL

Porchlight

Thanks for being honest, Anne. We suspected as much.

Again, embarrassment or not - I agree O'Donnell was a poor candidate and ran a bad campaign - there is no reason to publicly trash a GOP nominee if one really wants to win elections. In O'Donnell's case, if nothing else it was a giant eff you from the GOP establishment to Delaware Republicans. Yeah, that's a great way to build support for the next GOP nominee in that state.

Captain Hate

Exactly; I didn't see what trashing COD did except identify a number of poor losers, starting with Rove, and a piss poor way of expanding the base. I've yet to have that one explained to me in terms of long term strategy.

Ignatz

--She was certainly a disgrace to the Republicans.--

Are Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mark Hatfield, Jim Jeffords, John or Lincoln Chafee, or a host of other Republicans who routinely vote with Democrats, or threaten to or when it's convenient join them, disgraces?
Of that group I'm guessing only Jeffords is a disgrace and that, not because he has no principles but because he left the Republicans.

Party before principle is what got us to the state we presently find ourselves, where the Republicans are to the left of the Democrats of fifty years ago.

pagar

"They are amateurs, not professionals."

IMO, the biggest problem we (as a Republican) party have is the fact that all of our elected officers turn into professional politicians as soon as they are elected to public office. Even before their victory speech they are trying to figure out how to win their next election.
If I have a choice between a Tea Party candidate and a Establishment Republican, I will vote for the Tea party candidate.

IMO, there should have been no doubt in any Republican's mind that O'Donnell was a better candidate than the candidate that the Democrats put up. That fact should have been clearly evident by the fact that she ran as a Republican and the other guy ran as a Democrat.

JM Hanes

Anne:

Good golly. Christine O'Donnell was a high profile mistake, IMO, but there's hardly a political pro out there (and I'm not talking about pundits) who won't tell you that it was Republican "enthusiasm" which swept us into office in numbers that nobody had even dreamed of before the Tea Party movement took off. That's where the energy and the critical margin of votes came from and that's where the terms of the national debate were changed. If you don't realize that they've shifted Republicans, themselves, in Congress to the right, you just haven't been paying attention.

The limited number of "official" Tea Party candidates, some of whom just co-opted the label, were the tip of an iceberg of candidates who garnered game changing Tea Party support. The out of state Tea Party money which absolutely poured into Rubio's campaign did, in fact, make a huge difference in things like media buys. If you track the numbers, you'll find that that's when a promising run started gathering serious momentum. Tea Parties put candidates into office, like Renee Elmers in NC, in races you never even heard about, all over the country, and gave Boehner a comfortable majority, not a slim one, to work with.

If Murkowski had thrown her support behind the candidate Republicans actually nominated, they'd have won Alaska anyway, but the idea that Republicans had a pre-Tea Party lock on the Senate is nonsense, as is your assertion that they simply jumped on the bandwagons of obvious winners. Just look at the vote tallies! Mark Kirk and Pat Toomey were no shoo-ins and Ron Johnson hardly waltzed into his win over Russ Feingold. If Christ hadn't split the Florida vote, Rubio might well have lost. Tea Partiers made a huge difference in getting out the vote, as well as voting themselves, and are still hard at work helping build the organizational infrastructure we're going to need in 2012. Why California makes your list of Tea Party failures is hard to fathom. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman?

Mitt Romney gave Scott Brown some strategic support, but it took Tea Party activists, and money to put him into the Senate, which finally gave Republicans there a fighting chance. You can also thank momentous Tea Party involvement on the ground in local races for flipping State Legislatures into the Republican column, in some cases, for the first time in decades.

As for dense, shallow, ditzy, clueless, ignorance, you're posting in a veritable nest of Tea Party supporters, which even includes me as a charter member on the Mall in DC. You've bought into a Tea Party profile that's totally at odds with reality.

Captain Hate

See, this is where I've developed an appreciation for JMH. She and I butt heads numerous times and there are certain issues where we're not gonna agree. But she understands not burning bridges and working strategically to attain the most possible good out of any contest. I think that's often lost on online discussions that are chock fulla id and ego.

Cecil Turner

Concur completely. And I think it boils down to Narciso's "one way" comment above. It's important, when working with a coalition, to understand that not all folks in the coalition have the same goals. You have to respect the others' views in order to work together as much as possible.

And so far it appears to me the Tea Partyers are a lot more loyal to GOP "establishment" types when they lose the primary than the GOPers are when the shoe's on the other foot. Which is a lot more of a problem in the long run to the GOP than a few inconvenient candidates.

JM Hanes

Captain Hate:

I'm suddenly feeling less besieged!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame