Powered by TypePad

« Fitness Buffs Clutch Their Hearts | Main | CNN Joins The Choom Gang »

August 07, 2013





OL@11:23-- ALL TRUE,... Alas.


Duke Energy has just pulled the plug on a $23+billion Nuke they wanted to build here in Florida.

Get to keep $1 billion in advance money via billed rates and will now build a 1,800MW NG Combined Cycle plant instead.

Buy GE and/or Siemens.

Thomas Collins

In the last week or so, two sets of legacy media properties were sold at fire sale prices, neither to anyone who will seriously go against mainstream prog narrative (I suppose one could argue there is hope with Bezos, but I am doubtful). Legacy media may be close to the end of the line, but it still is the center of gravity of tone setting in the USA, and will be in 2016. And as far as I know, noone has taken over a lifestyle website (such as Your Tango or Cafe Mom) from the progocracy.

With the above in mind, although I think Ryan or Walker could make it a good race, the likelihood is we'll have Hillary Rodham Clinton taking the oath of office in January of 2017 with a GOP House and a Senate divvied up almost 50/50. That's the brutal reality. Legacy media will go all out for Hillary, and the Dems will still have the Big Data advantage.


TC, Don't know about that - I think its a sign that the legacy media is in a transformative stage. Also, recent polling seems to indicate young voters (18-30) are becoming more and more libertarian in their world and security views.

And didn't someone post an article that shows some abandoning of Hillary by single women?

Blacks won't be showing up the way they did for Obama (even the ones who voted 6 to 8 times:).


Unlike the line from Sun Tzu, a battle is not won before it is fought, which seems to be the strategy they are going for. For god sakes even Bob Dole, narrowed the gap in '96, inspite of himself.

cap'n crunch

(Reuters) - Details of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program that feeds tips to federal agents and then instructs them to alter the investigative trail were published in a manual used by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for two years.

NSA (drip, drip) then DEA (drip, drip) to IRS (drip?)

They removed it from the manual, so it's all good. Nothing to see here. They don't listen/look at everything, they just keep it in case.



Thomas Collins

I think what you have pointed out, JIB, are the weaknesses in my argument, and I hope you turn out to be correct. However, keep in mind that legacy media has barely begun what will be a full court press to have Hillary become the first woman POTUS. In addition, I think the 20 and 30 somethings still won't get it that they are getting the shaft with the Dems (perhaps by 2020 they'll get it). The AA vote will be upwards of 92% for Hillary, and urban fraud will carry the day in battleground states. The popular vote will be close, but Hillary will have a comfortable margin in the EC. I hope I'm wrong.

Thomas Collins

I am also predicting that Janet Yellen will sugar mommy the economy as Ben B has sugar daddied it, and that the reckoning will come late in Hillary's first term, not before the 2016 POTUS elections.

Danube of Thought

it remains a non-sequitur

Au frickin' contraire; it's right on point. Someone is going to be the GOP nominee every four years. It is idle to say that the party lost because it nominated the wrong guy without saying who was the right guy.


TC and Narc both make very good points. TC is correct to say that the Legacy Media will dominate the LIV mindset in 2016. The Legacy Media as part of its death rattle will go Completely IN for HildaBeast as their last act of influence, and the Hildabeast strategy to scare off primary and Repub challengers will obviously be INEVITABILITY, and the Legacy Media will push that meme endlessly. That will also be the way to attack the Beast-- nominate someone who can legitimately attack the BOOMERs Cromwell style, "you've stayed too long in this place .. for God's sake be gone." and can legitimately attack the entitlement/pension disaster that will eb clear by 2016. Scott Walker can do both.


If not Hillary?



TC-- right again, but OPM will run out before 2016.

Jack is Back!


Typical left wing/enviro wishful thinking.

The real story is 1) a very successful nuclear utility, 2) building an advanced BWR, the AP1000 on an existing 2 unit PWR plant site and, 3) construction well under way in a very red state.

Here is a progress report from May.

Full disclosure: My old firm designed Vogtle 1 and 2 for Southern Company.


Tes, the Southern Alliace for Clean Energy wouldn't lie to us, would they, facepalm TK.


The "party" leaders did more nominating than its members.

“Governor Romney’s strong performance and delegate count at this stage of the primary process has made him our party’s presumptive nominee,” Mr. Priebus said. “In order to maximize our efforts I have directed my staff at the R.N.C. to open lines of communication with the Romney campaign.”


“It’s my intention to have a seamless and complete merger between the presumptive nominee and the Republican National Committee,” Mr. Priebus said. “That means political, communications, fund-raising, research and the chairman’s office, along with the governor’s main operational team, are completely merged.


Selected then rejected...

Thomas Collins

NK, I agree Walker has the best chance to beat Hillary. OPM is the wild card. If you're right, Walker wins a comfortable victory (I think legacy would prevent a landslide , even if it is clear before the 2016 POTUS elections that OPM has run out).

As to Running Rabbit Warren, I'd rather have Hillary as POTUS. Hell, I'd rather have John Kerry or Ed Markey as POTUS than Warren.


Why does OPM run out before 2016--
1. many other municipal defaults follow Detroit-- INCLUDING ChiTown(?),
2. Illinois, RI, Ct get desperate ask for and get State bankruptcy passed through Congress;
3. rising Long term rates skyrocket US Interest Costs on $18T+ debt, it squeezes out other spending;

debt and interest costs, plus the $70TRILLION Medicare/SS nut --UNFUNDED, get into the national consciousness, and 20-30somethings are disgusted by it. So OPM runs out POLITICALLY before it actually runs out financially. HUGE oportunity to rollback the debt, and that necessarily rolls back the welfare state.


Sorry for the lack of research on the nuke link. I was more interested in the government involvement in the first nuclear generation in several decades.

It seems so un-Obama.

cap'n crunch

"JPMorgan is also one of 18 banks that a federal regulator accused of selling troubled loans to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC

— the government-controlled mortgage finance giants — without fully disclosing the potential risks. The regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, recently rejected a settlement offer from JPMorgan, the people briefed on the matter said, raising the prospect of a drawn-out legal battle."




It is my contention that Jesus Christ, running as a Republican, would have lost the election in 2012. The one thing Obama does well is sell himself.


Well as with Pro Publica, 'trust but verify'


Her first mistake was taking 'Crazy Larry' seriously enough to appear on her show.


TC-- the tell on Walker? The LegacyMedia hate him soooo much, because they fear him. They knew his plans would work for Wisc, and if Walker succeeded in Wisc and was re-elected, he's a real threat to HildaBeast. The LM hate Cruz similiarly -- albeit for different reasons. he's 'Hispanic' but off the Left reservation --to the LM he must be destroyed. The LM don't fear Ryan, he's part of the DC game now.

Thomas Collins

NK, I like your distinction between OPM running out politically as opposed to financially. That could be the factor that causes my Hillary prediction to be wrong (which would make me happy).


He dreams of more Fukushimas.

Account Deleted

"OPM will run out before 2016"

The OPM Famine is going to be manifest in the Bluest Hells in '14-'15. ISTM that arguing from a 'Napoleon holds Moscow, all is lost' perspective is rather shortsighted. The economic damage done by BOzocare is going to be clear by '16 and Hilarycare predated Romneycare on the road to ruin.

The prognosis for progressive rot is going to be confirmed by the increasing stench emanating from the Blue Hells and Eutopia.


Going into election day 2012 a lot of us thought that Romney had a good shot at the presidency. His own numbers said so.

There is a book out on the election just recently by Dan Balz, Collision 2012, that describes the 2012 campaign as a red meat to the base, get out the vote, bullshit blindly campaign.

Obama used every trick in the book, and now it looks as if he stepped way over the line in using government agencies as tools to suppress opposition turnout. he had the entire Googleplex behind him. he had a compliant media.

He looked like a complete fool on television and Clint talked to an empty chair. The Dems went to their convention and denounced God, went radical on abortion, and suppressed a major vote on national TV and still won.

Please do not give me this crap about Romney. I wasn't a fan, but he is a more than decent man and a hell of an administrator and manager, much in the vein of GWB. Maybe he wasn't ideal for many here, but it was Obama who won the campaign.

No reason to kick a man when he's down.


--It is idle to say that the party lost because it nominated the wrong guy without saying who was the right guy.--

Perhaps, but there is a seeming supposition embedded in the sentence that there was a "right guy".
I doubt there was and the really pertinent question is not who was the right guy; it's WTH is wrong with a party of many score millions swimming in hundreds of millions of dollars that they can't even develop, let alone field, a decent candidate?


I'm with matt-- the numbers tell the story compellingly. Axel-Plouffe outperformed the polls by 3-5M votes through old fashioned GOTV and Big Data GooglePlexing 20 somethings. RR UNDERperformed the polls by 3M votes. They FAILED to GOTV. Why they failed is the question as far as I'm concerned.


Saying Romney would have been a moderate disaster as Pres is not a personal attack nor even an attack on his professional competence; it's recognition that moderate nice guys finish last when facing a gangster organization like the Dems.

Danube of Thought

The "party" leaders did more nominating than its members.

Simply wrong. The reason Priebus made his announcement was that by that time Romney had it in the bag - on the basis of GOP votes.

Here's to the next one, which might even be this one.

A republic, if you can keep it.

Danube of Thought

there is a seeming supposition embedded in
the sentence that there was a "right guy"

I've been saying all along that there wasn't. And that makes it a rather empty exercise to continue to denounce Romney. I'm with Sue - the GOP candidate could have been wearing The Robe and he still would have lost.




--It is idle to say that the party lost because it nominated the wrong guy without saying who was the right guy.--

Given the complaint is the slate of GOP candidates is flawed, then the problem is with the method or system of filters that winnow out names from the possibles into the short list. Who was winnowed out that should not have been? Beats the hell out of me.

I won't demand that you prove a negative by arguing no one better than the slate we had exists. I realize your demand for names has nothing to do with the problem as I have defined it. Hence "non sequitur".




"In the bag" is sufficient enough to allow a violation of Rule 11.


DoT, I don't know how many different ways to say it. So I'll repeat myself. The dearth of strong candidates is precisely the problem we are trying to address. That dearth is not like Planck's Constant, it is a symptom of problems with the party, among other things. You can throw up your hands and say there's nothing to be done, it's like the weather, but to me that's like Krugman's take on Detroit--no one's fault just losers in the lottery of capitalism.


I'd like to replace my response with jimmyk's @12:29.


"So OPM runs out POLITICALLY before it actually runs out financially. "

The Democrats don't believe that.



Pagar-- I know you were being sarcastic, but that MuslimCommie Ellison is a sharp guy-- he knows the dilemma. The Left/Dems have to grab TRILLIONs over the next 10 years to payoff their base, but the money's not available, because if they grab it, the persuadable voters will destroy Dems the next 3-4 election cycles and they may never get back into power before OPM runs out LITERALLY. They 2014 and 2016 are Life/death elections, for everyone.

Captain Hate

Are we really to the point where because a squish like Romney didn't win that nobody could have including Jesus? No, DoT; that's not being an apologist for the GOP ::rolleyes::


my take on the Al Q'aeda and Yemen situations.



"It is idle to say that the party lost because it nominated the wrong guy without saying who was the right guy."

In my experience, almost anyone can find a problem; real skill lies in finding a solution. The issues are terribly complex, including media bias, the candidate's performance, acts of God, fraud, racism, among others.

The "right" guy assumes a charismatic type that can surmount these other forces without changing them. That mysterious stranger likely wants no part of a process that destroys his family and him.

To win without Jesus on the ticket, the GOP will need to confront the environment in which a not-so-right guy can't win. This will require access to a broadcast network and at least one or two major, although dying, news outlets. (This is why the WaPo was sold to a friend after all.)


Good call, Matt, of course, Johnsen isn't a journalist, so he should know better,


Which was a neat trick on Herb Allen's part, although Buffett probably provided the access, therein lies the rub, why did Warren extend his stake in the paper, because it's a losing proposition.


I'd like to see Sarah Palin take on Hillary.

Not only is she solid on every issue. Not only would she make a better president than any of the 2012 candidates, but I bet she'd have the guts to call the beast out as a liar and more without batting an eye. Would a man?


The interesting thing to me is that when the Republicans were in the political wilderness, congressionally speaking, they had the likes of Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan to run.
Since they've become competitive in congress they fielded Dole, McCain and Romney with only W standing out as a truly talented politician, and of course he didn't come out of congress.


They say Mukaysa is in Oman, not Yemen, well at least currently.


Maryrose, I was going to say the same about your post. GMTA and all that.

Captain Hate

She'd have to fight a multi-front war, ext, including the harridans of both parties whom she'd make insane.

Btw why does Preibus still have a job? It must be due to sucking up to the swells because Steele did better vote wise in 2010.

Captain Hate

The GOP: the party of Lincoln, Reagan and give us over a hundred years for the next good one.


It's a Ripley's Believe it Ornot question, but the same can be said of Cornyn after 2010.

James D.

RR UNDERperformed the polls by 3M votes. They FAILED to GOTV. Why they failed is the question as far as I'm concerned.

And one we haven't really gotten a good answer to.

There were many other self-inflicted wounds by the Romney campaign. While I understand his unwillingness to talk about his personal life and the many, many lives he and his family have touched, it was a huge mistake, and it absolutely handicapped his campaign.

So did his unwillingness to really, aggressively confront Obama...and note that the biggest movement both in the polls and in the MSM came the one time that he did, during the first debate. The tactic worked...And then the campaign backed off completely from it, almost immediately.

Given the MSM's love for Obama, the hordes of LIVs, Obama's willingness to both break the law and further bankrupt the country buying votes, etc. Romney night have lost even if he did run a perfect campaign.

But the fact is that he ran a campaign that was far, far from perfect, and a lot of what he did wrong was things that we - and many others - saw and talked about at the time.

Maybe another candidate (whoever it might have been) would have made the same mistakes, or avoided those but made other, equally crippling ones, or have had even worse negatives for Obama to target, etc...but we know what did happen, and Romney, who if nothing else was supposed to be not only the most "electable" but also the most competent and businesslike and efficient candidate...failed in the campaign, and his failures were mostly avoidable.


Btw, Megyn is taking Hannity's spot, why couldn't it be O'Reilly, rhetorical question?


I'll post this on the current thread, too.

Thank you all for your support. Just got home 30 minutes ago. Sore, achy, but with nice pain meds.

DoT, thanks for the background. The Walsh book should be read by everyone touched by prostate cancer. Seven days to the pathology report. Fingers crossed. But it will be what it will be and we approach it positively and with good humor.

Oh, I forgot to say that the surgeon was a jolly, positive Duke grad. Heh!


"To win without Jesus on the ticket, the GOP will need to confront the environment in which a not-so-right guy can't win"

Good points, Mark. But that also requires the GOP to recognize the problems and have the will and drive to confront and address them. It might even require standing behind imperfect nominees rather than running for cover who get trashed by the MSM for the least mistakes. It might require excommunicating turncoats like Specter and Christie.

Danube on iPad

"Are we really to the point where because a squish like Romney didn't win that nobody could have including Jesus? No, DoT; that's not being an apologist for the GOP "

Again: if you can't tell me who would have won, then it makes no sense at all to claim that we lost because Romney was a squish. If that was the reason, then it follows that there is some non-squish who would have won. I don't think there was, and you suggest there was but you won't name him. I'm not aplogizinf for the GOP, I'm stating a fact which you insist on declining to refute.


Reagan was a big tent guy. Remember that. The Republican Party has always had factions. Seward was more abolitionist than Lincoln and thus too radical.

Romney, Christie and others live(d) in big blue states where the knuckleheads have sway. You can only do so much in those environments.

Republicans typically also play by the rules more so than Democrats. The ends justifies the means to most Dems and screw the hypocrisy, corruption, and the law.

Republicans have to be more hard nosed and more effective in communicating their message. They also have to craft a positive message instead of reacting all the time.

The country has a negative self image like back in Carter's time. Someone has to offer hope. Hell, we have a gas boom that could drive the economy back, and is in fact doing so despite that Mr. 50 Jobs best efforts to quash it.

The Republicans have the issues.They need to communicate that better.


Good news, SBW!

Some Guy

Perhaps instead of rehashing who didn’t win, we should look at who has won and be realistic about why.

Anyone who wins their party’s nomination is by definition a skilled politician. So I don’t really think that’s really the important factor we too often think it is.

Anyone who wins their party’s nomination is guaranteed a certain number of votes (47% perhaps?), so maybe it’s more about winning the margins coupled with enthusiasm boosts within your own ranks. Put another way, it’s winning LIVs and your own party’s dissatisfied/sit-on-our-hands voters.

So, whether a winning candidate is strongly conservative (Reagan), moderately conservative (W), moderately statist/left (Clinton), or strongly statist/left (Lightbringer), doesn’t it all come down to selling the middle something that by definition they DON’T want?

Now to completely oversimplify everything, it seems to me that the key for both Clinton and Zero was to flat out BS their intentions and positions – “the era of big government is over” or Obama’s Keynote and other ‘moderate/healer’ schtick. Whereas for Reagan and W, it was instead about not being embarrassed or apologetic about conservative principles – being comfortable in their own skin and positions.

In two cases, you have the winners pretending to be more right leaning than they truly were, and in the other two cases, you have the winners NOT being afraid to be seen as coming from the right.

So why don’t rightward candidates always win? Because it’s a hostile media battlefield and it takes the rare individual who can enter the fray and not act like the abused-red-headed-step-child (I’m looking at you McCain).


Great news, SBW.


SBW-- best wishes for your continued improvement


if you can't tell me who would have won

Sigh... It's like asking who the Astros should have brought in from the bullpen to hold their leads the last two nights, when the right questions are: Why is their bullpen so crappy, who is responsible, and what can we do about it?

No one is suggesting that there was a candidate who could have won. The issue is why there was no better candidate.

I would add that I'd rather lose with a principled candidate (like Goldwater in '64) than lose by a slightly smaller margin with someone who won't fight for those principles but will try to be more like a Democrat.


Right on, jimmyk.


Reagan was a big tent guy.

I don't think he was viewed that way early on. It's true that he did not let himself get trapped into dwelling on issues like abortion, and didn't specifically align himself with "the religious right," whatever that is. His tremendous ability (and adherence to principles) enlarged his appeal so that he *became* a big tent guy. That's the point.


In two cases, you have the winners pretending to be more right leaning than they truly were, and in the other two cases, you have the winners NOT being afraid to be seen as coming from the right.

Well said, SG.

Frau Wahnsinn

Mega-best wishes, sbw. It's so good of you to let us hear from you. Isn't it great to have support from all over JOM country?


Megyn Kelly's taking over the 9 p.m. slot on Fox--Hannity's slot. Good news. Before I stopped watching tv I thought he was ill=prepared and the proram unwatchable.

Thanks for the report SBW


"Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment


I think the smartass at the 4:44 link got exactly what he had coming.

Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 07, 2013 at 06:30 PM

Oh? And what exactly made that such a smartass remark? Your ignorance on the subject? And pray tell, what exactly did he or he or she get that he deserved to get for his or her smartassaryness?

BTW, He or she made a valid point. You look pretty stupid there in my spotlight, kneeling behind Porchlight with your nose up her ass.

(sigh) They're so stupid. They never learn.

James D.

One thing winning candidates do is to maximize their advantages and play to their strengths.

Romney clearly didn't do that. We talked about it at the time - the way he absolutely refused to talk about his charity work, especially the many people he and his sons personally helped in hundreds of ways on countless occasions. I don't give a damn how humble the man is, and I know the what the Bible says about that sort of thing...

But we're in the media world of 2012. I'm not saying Romney would have won if he'd filled his ads and the RNC convention with the people whose mortgages he paid or surgeries he facilitated or jobs he created, etc...

But it would certainly have gone a long way towards countering the Dems caricature of him as a cross between Gordon Gekko and the top hat guy on the Monopoly board. Which is something that Romney himself, or his surrogates, NEVER did successfully during the campaign.

You don't ignore one of the biggest assets you've got. That's not a winning strategy. And many people DID say it at the time, and Romney wouldn't (couldn't bring himself to, I guess) do it.

Rob Crawford
I'd like to see Sarah Palin take on Hillary.

At 300 yards, with a rifle?


Welcome home, Clarice (where I hope it is cool and comfortable).

Will you begin watching TV again, with Megyn in that time slot?

Captain Hate

Best wishes, sbw.

DoT, I'm tired of arguing when you get trollish like this. The only fact in this is that Romney lost. Anything beyond that is opinion.

Rob Crawford
(sigh) They're so stupid. They never learn.

And yet they keep posting troll comments, under a myriad of names.

James D.

Rob @ 2:01

That might not be enough to do the job. I'm thinking that to be sure, we'd want a wooden stake, plenty of garlic, a nice roaring fire and a bucket of holy water.

And even after all that, I don't think I'd turn my back on Hillary...


Did Reagan never speak ill of Gerald Ford?

In any case, at some point choices must be made. Here's a glaring example (from Wiki, but accurate):

In 2004, Specter faced a challenge in the Republican primary election from conservative Congressman Pat Toomey, whose campaign theme was that Specter was not fiscally conservative enough. The match-up was closely watched nationally, being seen as a symbolic clash between the conservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party. However, most of the state and national Republican establishment, including the state's other senator at the time, Rick Santorum closed ranks behind Specter. Specter was supported by President George W. Bush. Specter narrowly avoided a major upset with 51% of the primary vote.

Needless to say, 5 years later Specter returned the favor by switching parties. (And yes, we know there's no such thing as a "national Republican establishment.")

There are plenty of other examples.

Frau Venus von Willendorf

Hell, we have a gas boom that could drive the economy back,...
Don't you think Hillary! will claim that as *her* gift to the nation?

Unless her diet guru can produce dramatic results, her present figure will support(!) the Earth Mother of Our Country image, her bosoms offering comfort to those "tarred" from the injustices inflicted by the One-Percenters.

(NK - it's "Wahnsinn")

Some Guy

I also think that one of the winning characteristics of Reagan was his willingness to use humor as a means of undercutting the pretensions of the Left. W did it as well, even sometimes more cleverly (believe it or not). Reagan wasn’t afraid of being overtly corny, as long as it served to deliver a message.

Which brings me to Dole. Dole was very funny. Wickedly funny. So why wasn’t he a great candidate?

DCititis. His humor had been derided over the years as too biting or mean-spirited (though it wasn’t), and he rather unwisely took that criticism to heart. The establishment likely saw how effective a weapon it was for Reagan, and feared it in Dole, so they deemed it ‘bad’ and Dole was too much a creature of Washington to buck it.


"In this edition of Capital Download, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka discusses need for change to accommodate today's workers, and a new plan for the organization to partner with the NAACP, Sierra Club and other non-union groups."


It's way past time to investigate the Sierra Club. They are everywhere in the Dem. agenda.


something to explain the sheer arrogance of the groupthink of what passes for leadership today:

Chronological snobbery:

From C.S. Lewis:

Barfield never made me an Anthroposophist, but his counterattacks destroyed forever two elements in my own thought. In the first place he made short work of what I have called my "chronological snobbery," the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also "a period," and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.


@ 2:04 Um, yeah, that was rational and well-thought-out, and, mind you, effective, too. LOL

Danube on iPad

"Anything beyond that is opinion."

Have it your way: my opinion is that no Republican could have won in 2012. Your opinion is that there is someone who could have, but you won't identify him. That's a pity, because if we knew who it was we could start getting behind him for 2016.

I neither support nor oppose the Republican party. I earnestly oppose the Democrats, and the only practical way to express that opposition is to vote for Republicans. I don't blame either Romney or the GOP for the 2012 loss; I blame the American electorate, an enormous slice of which is politically illiterate but knows it likes free stuff.


@ 02:20 - Well, duh



I am not sure if your Diana West comment was directed at me in particular but I was in shock at Ron's response. Why would she be so careless and then defensive at backing up what she wrote.

If you have never read my black helicopter standard, it goes like this. You simply do not make such alarming accusations unless you are certain you can prove them with people's own words. Otherwise it discredits everything that is correct, If you are slaying dragons which she is, you have to b right and doublecheck it.

I don't get why she would be so careless on Hopkins. I met and talked to Harvey Klehr about 2 and a half years ago. He is very meticulous.

Having said all that though if I ever warn you that black helicopters are coming, assume:

1) I have personally seen them;

2) I can prove it; and

3) I have doublechecked to verify if the the helicopters are navy instead of black so the description and warning is accurate.

Conspiracies do exist around political power but it is an area that calls for tweezers and tracking until you can find the people in positions of power essentially confessing what they intend to do. Which happens with shocking frequency if you follow insiders to their insider conferences electronically.

I just downloaded an EPA official off in another country for example laying out their intention to re-invent the nature of commerce as it has always existed.

Ok. Pretty sure that's not in the agency mandate but then neither was Fast and Furious.


Good thing the Founding Fathers built their ultimate eligibility firewall on the backs of the politically illiterate.


Your opinion is that there is someone who could have

Straw man. I don't believe CH or anyone here has made that claim, though you keep saying so.

Please document anyone having said so. The most anyone has said is that Newt would have been a stronger candidate, not that he would have won.

But by all means, keep arguing against that point, instead of addressing the points actually being made.


Romney would have won if he embraced the Chic-fil-A crowd.

Same goes for Newt, or anyone else who showed a backbone.

Some Guy

Same goes for Newt

Newt's problem is Newt.


Do they have whisper mode, like Blue Thunder or more like Airwolf, rse, I looked up some of the authors of that panel, Bennett and Luftglass not to mention Gomez, and it harshed the mellow.


I worry that the RNC will fight the last war instead of the next one (e.g. Rove's specialty since his glory days), and we seem to be doing that here as well. We lost 2012. If there is a fnork approach to 2016, it appears to be preemptive appeasement (amnesty, roll over on ACA funding, etc). Stinks of 90s triangulation. Better ideas? Some like Walker (or Daniels before him), which implies a promise to defund the opposition by attacking their most noxious elements. That was public employee unions, for 2016 could be Planned Parenthood or the racial grievance industry. Whatever the target, it will take more intestinal fortitude than we have seen so far.


It's a fair point, henry, that's why Mittens speech rang particularly hollow, trying to tamp at the exciting and possibly engaging strategies.


--the Earth Mother of Our Country image, her bosoms offering comfort to those "tarred" from the injustices inflicted by the One-Percenters--

No lunch today.
Thanks a lot, Frau.


Romney, despite being a mush and apparently believing his own polls the last month of the campaign and trying to coast with the Mr Nice Guy image, still could have won had he done something like, you know, try, toward the end.

I'm not at all convinced a Barbour or a Daniels, had they run right and pressured the barroom brawler, couldn't have won.
That they didn't run I suspect says a lot more about the GOP and the nutty primary process than it does about them.


Ig@3:08--- Ia gree with all of your points.


To go further with the baseball analogy, the reason a team stinks often goes back to their player development. Suppose the party bigwigs had backed more conservative challengers like Toomey back in '04, or Laffey vs. Chafee in '06, or any of dozens of other examples where squishy incumbents were supported over challengers, maybe there would be more viable conservative candidates today. But we see the same thing happening now with Liz Cheney vs. Senator whatshisname from Wyoming.

Jane -walk like an Egyptian

Best wishes from here to SBW. I like all the optimism I hear.

I'm back too, and also exhausted. I'm gonna try real hard to not go to bed before 7.

The comments to this entry are closed.