I get depressed, too. Some think I’m paranoid and too pessimistic, as well.

Still, I occasionally wonder: What if the Black Swan turns out to be something amazingly beneficial from laboratories of the Singularity? Solar power for a tenth of a cent a kilowatt? 100 year life extension? Elemental nanotech manipulation (gold from lead, pills that turn into houses)?

It can’t be entirely discounted.

My theory is that he never expected to win in 2008. When he started the race, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton or John McCain were shoe ins. He was trying to raise his profile. He figured he runs a race, build a network using social media. Then in 4 or 8 years, those people are ready for action.

He would use the time to break his ties with Ayers and the like, tone down things, and put his radical associations a few years behind him. Do the Senate statesman thing. Give speeches before foreign associations and meetings.

Then he won.

I imagine the scene like that from the movie “The Candidate” — “Now what?”

Congratulations Nemo I believe your first.

[First Instalanche, that is - ed.]

He’s an academic. He’s acting like an academic. The strength of the academic personality is seeing the complexity of things, NOT coming to a decision or setting a decisive course of action. Academics can have good ideas all day every day, but without the personality within, they will tend to be driven by the action-oriented folks around them - if they can bring themselves to be driven at all. Since it’s always better to wait until you have more and better information, there is always reason not to act.

I have said this before on a number of other blogs and it doesn’t seem to sink in. Here I go again.

It’s not about Obama! It was never about Obama! It’s about the men behind the curtain who are writing the script for his teleprompter. Who are they and why do I seem to be the only one asking the question? Ours is the only country on earth with a ventriloquist dummy for President. When I look at Obama, Biden and Pelosi I see Charlie McCarthy, Mortimer Snerd and a sort of malevolent version of Effie Klinker if anyone remembers the Edgar Bergen characters. The question no one is asking is: who is standing in for Edgar Bergen? Who is the “man behind the curtain”? Why was Obama selected in the first place? Yes, he had to be perceived as black so any criticism could be deflected as racist; as “divisive”; dismissed out of hand. And why is the media with the occasional exception of Fox colluding in this fraud? Obama’s election is the greatest political scam in our history. Is anyone paying attention?

As Instapundit says, I think the President has plans. More to the point, I think he had plans, and told us all about them during the campaign.

In some cases, he found out as President that, by golly, things are more complicated when you actually have to decide things. (Hey Guantanamo Bay, how’s it going down there?) In other cases, he hasn’t woken up yet, and still thinks his starry-eyed visions can be made to work.

I have not (yet) bought into the idea that the President is trying, maliciously, to remake the United States into a European socialist basket-case of a country. On the other hand, as someone once said, any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

History will not be kind to this President. I suspect the books will say, fifty years from now, that the American people voted for him in a landslide, and will ask, “what on Earth were they thinking?”

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

Obama has an almost mystical belief in the power of showing up and just being himself to solve any problem. This goes beyond mere conceit, verging into unrealistic narcissism. His plan has always been to just show up and tell people what’s what. Our entire foreign policy is now based on that - and it isn’t working.

Such people, when required to come up with actual plans, revert to their default settings. I think Obama has become slightly less radical over the years (he could hardly have become more radical than whining about the Constitution not addressing redistribution of wealth), but under pressure, will revert.

Thus far, his narcissistic needs and his political needs have not been in conflict, so it is possible to see either as the main driver of his actions. As those needs separate - as is now happening - we will see whether the narcissist or leftist will win out. I’m leaning toward leftist at this point, but said that about Bill and Hillary too, and turned out wrong in my prediction.

Yeah, thanks guys. All the regulars at Daily Pundit managed to run down the Pubs this past decade (and yes, they were pretty bad) so as to pave the way for the Dhimmicrats in ‘06 and then Bambi in ‘08. Way to go.

You foisted Bambi on the rest of us. “Oh, McCain is a cranky old man.” “Oh, Palin is a backwood babe with no experience. And she’s fertile!” “Oh, the Pubs aren’t truly conservative and libertarian so we might as well sit on our hands and stay home.”

And you did. Bambi won. Now you’re having buyers’ remorse.

Thanks guys. Now just stay quiet while the rest of us clean up the mess you helped make.

All of you who sat on your hands, you helped put Bambi in charge. You have no complaints.

You foisted Bambi on the rest of us.

No, you did, by thinking that we would continue to vote forever for every pile of Shit Sandwiches you tried to cram down our throats.

Now, shut the hell up while we try to clean up your mess, starting in NY-23, Virginia, and New Jersey. You have no complaints, given that you brought every bit of this on yourselves.

As a governing strategy I have some affinity to not having a plan. Ignore most problems, have a few bedrock principles and then take things as they come.

That said, if one of your bedrock principles is that America sucks and we should punish private enterprise, then we have real problems.

Obama has goals, but no real plan to achieve them. His main goal is very simply to put the government in charge of as much of Americans’ lives as possible. Thankfully, he has no real strategy to attain it, other than do it below the radar as much as possible (such as rush the health care care bill through before the August recess).

As I wrote early this month,

… there is nothing at all in Obama’s resume that shows he ever made highly difficult decisions that depended, at the end, on his own personal reservoir of wisdom and experience. So he does not tackle the inbox because its contents are above his competence. (One is reminded of Obama telling Rick Warren that when an unborn child gets human rights is “above my pay grade.”) He tends instead to lesser matters that match his lower level of competence and gratifyingly feed the ego. And so he flies to Copenhagen to deliver a speech of no significance on a matter of no consequence. Why? Because he can do that - simply standing in front of a crowd reading eloquently from a teleprompter he can handle quite well.

Let us pray his competencies do not improve.

What if the Black Swan turns out to be something amazingly beneficial from laboratories of the Singularity?

I think about this, too, Mr. Quick. One of my personal axioms is “Never bet against the materials scientists.” They will eventually find something that works.

The problem then becomes what the societal effects of these things are, and the government of the day can have a tremendous influence on how and if these things are distributed and implemented, and how the societal benefits (and political boons that come along with them) are handed out.

Essentially free solar power, with overnight storage technology to match — that would be great! A conservative government would get out of the way of producers to the greatest extent possible, offer some tax incentives and try to reduce regulatory burdens to speed implementation.

A statist government would do an immediate environmental impact study (the unobtanium used to dope the collector matrix is found only in the breeding ground of the delta smelt, for example), mandate that all US automakers (or at least the two they own) make nothing but electric cars in three years, and put a 500% tax on gasoline in the meantime to pay for the changeover. This would be the kind of disruptive technology too important to leave to venture capitalists, this would demand a crash government program (Apollo/Manhattan, pick your analogy) to implement as quickly as possible, which would inevitably result in years of delays.

Even Jesus couldn’t do miracles in Nazareth because the people didn’t believe. The current government does not seem to believe in the free market overmuch, they seem to believe in a free market with the right people in charge. Technology most certainly can be spoiled by politics. Look at the difference between France and the US in terms of nuclear power — CO2-free energy that is a political necessity in France, and a political pariah for the last 30 years in the US.

We’re on the verge of incredible technologies in many fields. But I kind of wonder if somewhere just outside of Rome there was a gentleman-scientist who finally figured out how to make a cheap and reliable blackpowder just as the Vandals burst into his villa and slew everybody.

Darren:

The current government does not seem to believe in the free market overmuch, they seem to believe in a free market with the right people in charge.

This is what I called national Marxism above; better known names are National Socialism and Fascism. (cf “Red” China)

To Rev. Sensing: Keeping in mind that not only Obama but also literally dozens of his disciples must be clueless dolts, are you sure what you are observing is incompetence and strategic vacuity? Perhaps what you are seeing is the Gramsci/Allinsky/Cloward-Piven program which has worked extremely well for popular culture, education, Hollywood, TV, news media, et al. Could it be that program writ large with the next target being financial solvency? Is there any historical precedent for hyper-inflation leading to National Socialism?

Or is it the case that Obama/Pelosi/Reid are leading a cadre of jihadists willing to “take one for the team” so long as it gets the one-way hooks set into the mouth of the big American free-market fish.

Speaking of hyper-inflation leading to a “man on a white horse” and Fascism, let’s never forget the man behind the curtain, George Soros, who specializes in currency manipulation.

Are there any DPers who believe that nobody in the Obama administration understands the long term effect of serial massive deficits piled on top of massive new entitlement obligations plus onrushing bankruptcies of Social Security and Medicare must have on the dollar? Or is that effect not a bug but a feature?

Snap out of it! What you suspect is happening is happening.
America does not fall on our watch. Not our watch.

Nemo:

Then the Governor of New York State actually is the Prince of Darkness?

Agnosticism is required here; we cannot distinguish between the two alternatives. So he may be a Prince of a fellow — or not.

A surefire indicator of impending tyranny is elimination of term limits for the chief executive. Ortega has just pulled this off and in Honduras, the president was impeached and thrown out for trying it. The Won is outraged and is punishing Honduras.

So, Steve Wright, how about a RINO controlled Congress with Steny Hoyer at the helm? Mr. Hoyer has introduced a joint resolution to repeal 22 four times since 1995. He edged out Barney Frank in that period; Mr. Frank only introduced three such resolutions.

PSF:

Snicker. And so much for the notion of waiting for the bastard pols to die off, too.

…people would work much longer, probably having several complete careers over the course of their lives.

Like Al Gore. Is this bullish or bearish?

Oops! That should be Steve White — though Steve Wright is funny too.

Meat puppet.

Can mean several things. Some of them aren’t even obscene.

ref

So, Steve [White] Wright, how about a RINO controlled Congress with Steny Hoyer at the helm? Mr. Hoyer has introduced a joint resolution to repeal 22 four times since 1995. He edged out Barney Frank in that period; Mr. Frank only introduced three such resolutions.

How about not. How about instead a Cantor-led Pub Congress. How about a little more main-street conservatism and a lot less RINO/Ivy League/east coast elitism?

The point, and it’s more clear than ever that you and Bill (and the rest of the libertarian types) miss it, is this: you don’t always get the candidates you want. In a general election, you generally end up voting the lesser of two evils.

The primaries and the special elections are where you educate the idiot RNC, RNCC, etc about the RINOs and Dedes. But if you sit on your hands in a general election you just guarantee victory to the side you most dislike.

If you’re a libertarian then you should be recoiling in horror at what Bambi and his people are doing, because everything they’re doing is anti-libertarian. Everything they’re doing is statist, centralist and elitist.

The time to stop that was in ‘08. But the libertarian/Pubs sat on their hands and the Grouchy Old Man only got 46% of the vote. Tell me how much better off we are with McCain on the sidelines.

The next time to stop it is ‘10. But if the lib/Pubs sit on their hands again then the Dhimmicrats will keep power — and use it.

You don’t like the candidates the Pubs are putting forward? Neither do I a lot of the time. The time again to fight is in the primaries.

So tell me, how many of you are working for a candidate you like in the next primary?

Beats sitting on your hands. Or even blogging.

The point, and it’s more clear than ever that you and Bill (and the rest of the libertarian types) miss it, is this: you don’t always get the candidates you want. In a general election, you generally end up voting the lesser of two evils.

WRONG!! The point, you insipid fool, is to stop trying to compel “voting the lesser of two evils” as a default position!!

It’s really nice that you may have finally started - occasionally - to support actual conservative principles - too bad it didn’t happen a few years ago!!

…the libertarian/Pubs sat on their hands and the Grouchy Old Man only got 46% of the vote. Tell me how much better off we are with McCain on the sidelines.

Go count up the total vote - there were, I would aver, damn few who actually “sat on their hands” - they just didn’t vote for your “lesser-of-two-weevils” Shit Sandwich. Instead, they voted for candidates they actually could accept - a “concept” that, to this day, apparently escapes your wee mind.

The bad part: What we got - as a direct result of the kind of piss-brained insistence on the “R” chosen by The Select Few (RINOs) In Power vs. The (admittedly) Horrid “D” (said insistence being aided and abetted by fools like you) was…The Obamanation.

Congratulations - in the end, you and all the other Rethuglican “the-Party-knows-best” fools were equally responsible - along with the Demonrats - for the Coronation Of The Won.

The slightly-less-bad part: We didn’t get four years - or more - of “bipartisan” bullshit, which would almost certainly get us to the same places the Obamaniacs, the Reidomorons and the Pelosicrats are trying to take us - just (possibly) not quite as fast, but with far less likelihood of being able to effectively oppose or reverse the Gubmint-control onslaught politically.

Picture a McStain presidency - with both sides of Congress under overpowering control by the Donks - and try to convince anyone that, based on Johnny Maverick’s whole “hands across the aisle” history and campaign schtick, there would be any substantial or effective opposition to the very same initiatives we’ve already seen. Instead - some are awakening to the disaster-in-progress - and opposition is arising - where all would have been “bipartisanship - ain’t it wunnerful?”
In short: Basically-clueless “Party faithfuls” like you were - long-term - part of the problem, not part of a useful solution.

In too many ways, you still are!!

You want our votes? Earn them, by running principled conservatives, not half-assed “moderate” or “centrist” RINOs that will simply “go along to get along” while giving us, in the end, the same lefty-”liberal” crapload - just taking a bit longer to deliver it.

The death of the republican party is a direct result of the Steve Whites of the country. Your position can be summed up as “I’ll vote for the devil hisself as long as the other devil is a tad worse.”

We are not looking for perfection. But in this race there is no question that the R’s have simply put up a candidate that should be a D.

You might save the R party. To do so you will have to start insisting upon reasonably conservative candidates. Voting for their shit sandwiches will gaurantee the death.

With foreign affairs He seems to be pretty much on schedule to isolate allies and enable antagonists.

Easily reversible.

At home the Administration and its allies both in and out of government have demonstrated a desire to adopt the thuggish tactics of a third world government.

Meaningless. “Demonstrating a desire” doesn’t change anything in the real world.

Lets see - Bullied the Congress into passing a $789 billion recovery plan. A plan that included forty years worth of Democratic wish lists.

Actually, Pelosi and Reid did the bullying, as well as writing the bill itself. Obama just signed it.

Turned the bankruptcy law on its head to satisfy one union at the expense of others (The long term effect of this is incalculable).

Well, if you can’t calculate it, it’s pretty hard to argue what it means, isn’t it?

Used the bully pullpit, and the power of the government to attack anyone considered a US enemy of the administration.

That’s SOP for any Dem President, and nothing out of the ordinary.

Moved around the world denigrating the USA and US exceptionalism. Embraced antagonists and distanced us from allies.

Again, easily reversible.

In fact, the signal thing about the Obama administration so far is how little of a concrete nature it has managed to accomplish.

Well, Steve, you haven’t managed to convince me. As for influence, you came here, and you borrowed my soapbox for your blabber, because you don’t have anything at all. I haven’t a clue who you are, and I don’t care. Neither does anybody else.

I appreciate you don’t care. If you clicked my link, you’d discover that I’m a moderator at Rantburg. I have a soapbox; not as big or as fine as yours but I’m happy enough with it. I’ve read your blog occasionally in the past, commented a couple times, but I have a soapbox. I came here today because Glenn pointed to you.

I had thought, based on the blurb Glenn put up, that you and others were getting a clue that, in a two-party system, sitting on your hands simply gives the election to the people you dislike most, who then go on to do things that are anathema to your own agenda.

I was wrong and I apologize for being wrong. You haven’t purchased that clue.

If we lived in a small European state (and therefore were meaningless) you and your fellow Libs could vie to be a minor recognized party, campaign to get your 5% of the vote and form a coalition with others in Parliament. Perhaps the Libertarian Party chair could end up as Foreign Minister; that’s the price one generally pays to the minor party that puts the big party over the top.

But we live in a two-party state in which the stakes are pretty clear: the Dhimmicrats are socialists. The Pubs are (mostly) venal RINOs with a smattering of conservatives. I abhor the former and I’m not willing to sit on my hands, or vote in a minor party that will simply NOT influence events. So I hold my nose and vote Pub, and work to get the conservatives ahead where I can.

Again: in a special election or in a primary, you put forward the people you think are right and you work like hell to get them into office.

But in a general election, you swallow and vote the lesser of two evils.

In YOUR way of doing things, the only ability you have to purge the Pubs is to keep them out of power for a generation or three. That means letting Pelosi and Reid, Rangel and Dodd, Frank and Waters, run things. Especially with Bambi, Jarrett and Axelrod around, I’m not sure we can afford that. Even you Libs might begin to notice after awhile.

And I’m really not going to argue with folks like you any more. I’m going to keep right on doing what I’m doing, and also doing my best to convince others to follow my lead.

Feel free. You and the other 1% of voters who are libertarian.

And if that way results in ultimate disaster, I’ll at least have the consolation that I’ll be taking down the folks who think a choice between socialist and socialist lite is a good deal. Starting with you, as a perfect example of the sort of moron who brought us to this pass in the first place.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult. Again, I’m the conservative here. I’m not voting for socialism lite, I’m trying to whack the elephant into turning the right direction. It’s not easy; it’s an elephant after all. But it never happens if you don’t get into the trenches and fight.

BTW, just to watch your head explode even further, I’m not a Republican. I’m a registered Libertarian. Want my vote? Put up somebody I want to vote for.

My head won’t explode, I knew this already. You’re a purist without power. You can vote with the 1% in general elections and that’s fine, it’s your vote. What we have now is an administration that is moving as socialist as it possibly can. I’d like to stop them, and voting libertarian won’t do it.

I appreciate you don’t care. If you clicked my link, you’d discover that I’m a moderator at Rantburg.

I clicked it. I got this:

Server not found
Firefox can’t find the server at rantburg.

Apparently you don’t know much about how to code a url, either, Mister Moderator.

You’re a purist without power.

And you’re a Republican without power - which you will remain until you start to accommodate folks like me. Deal with it.

As for the rest, yawn. Go back to Rantburg. I’ve known Fred since the beginning. Him I respect. You, not at all.

He, and those like him, are the reason the GOP is in such sad straits today. Rather than recognizing that the GOP had lost its principles and lost its way, he gobbled down decades of shit sandwiches on the notion that he had to vote for them because they weren’t democrats. If he’d fought for principle at the start, and backed it up by refusing to vote for Republicans who barely, if at all, even managed to be RINOs, people like you and me, Haverwilde, wouldn’t be stuck with cleaning up the ungodly mess he helped create - and, apparently, is still creating.

If McCain had been elected, shamnesty, socialized medicine, and an even greater takeover of the economy would already be done deals, not to mention probably some sort of censorship imposed on talk radio, the internet, and political contributions.

I cannot imagine anything the Dem congress might pass with large majorities that McStain wouldn’t have signed, just as GWB signed McCain-Feingold and a host of other piles of socialist and statist crap in the name of bipartisanship, setting a new tone, and other such bullshit.

Bill, Steve White strikes me as a one of the lesser withers in the great sheeple family. He wants to lead his group of ewes, withers and lambs in the right direction. But he can’t quite lead them where he wants to go, he has to wait until there is a ram or two leading a large group of sheeple in the right direction before he can make that move. In the last election, most of the ‘nutty’ rams were headed in two wrong direction, so he followed his choice of shit. Now we have a sizeable group headed toward Hoffman so it is okay. And he must rationalize his decision as being based on an intelligent choice.
Having said that, I did not mean to demean you by suggesting there wasn’t much difference between you two. He does mean well, but there are a couple of major differences, intellectual and testicular.

Mike M.
I don’t believe anyone here is underestimating the current battle with Obama. You young ones haven’t been watching this war progressing over the last fifty years. But American freedom and liberty have steadily lost ground. The above thread is just a rehashing of the last battle.
We may be reaching an unfortunate end to the war. Or we may be reaching a turning point. Only time can tell. As a regular reader here, I seriously doubt if any at the Daily Pundit underestimate Obama’s potential for destroying the last vestiges of the American Experiment.

If GDP is negative on Thursday, there is no bottom. Watch the ‘inflator’, it really should be negative or practically zero.

There’s plenty of reasons to vote for a party other than Republicans, but I believe doing that for the reason of ’sending a message’ is that it doesn’t meet with reality. I’ve voted for 3rd parties before. I voted for Big Ears when Clinton won his first term (a good example of how voting for a third party can hand the election to the person we want least) and I voted for Jesse Ventura here in Minnesota. I’m now of the the mind that it’s a petulant move.

Here’s why:

If a company A sells a product whom 1 or 2 percent of the population sometimes purchases and sometimes purchases from company C and 50% of the population very rarely purchases from them, usually chosing to purchase from Company B, which group is the company going to attempt to make the largest gains with? The group whom getting 60% of makes only a marginal difference or the group whom getting only 6% of makes them the Big Dog?

Essentially witholding our vote on the basis of stopping the trunks leftward drift accelerates the very drift we are attempting to halt. Much the same as a woman holding out on her man can find it’s done more to push him away than correct the disliked behavior.

Barry: No. You are totally wrong. … Which shows you were never properly educated, and never bothered to educate yourself.

Dang, and here I’m all out of popcorn.

Finally to Bill and others:

Note that Fred Thompson, noted Republican, just endorsed Hoffman. We Pubs are taking care of this one (and will make clear to the state and national RNC that they screwed up in picking Dede) so you Libertarians can remain pure. Stay home election day if you wish, we’ll manage.

As I said previously, special and primary elections are when you fight to get the right people in place, and general elections are when you hold off the Visigoths on the other side. No large party is pure. That leads to a hoary chestnut:

Politics is the art of the possible.

You might not recognize that, but Ronald Reagan sure did. That’s why he talked about getting half the loaf when he couldn’t get the whole loaf.

You can get things done or you can remain pure.

Finally, Bill, with respect, the Pubs don’t need you. We’re going to do well in ‘10 as long as we get things like NY-23 taken care of, as long as we get VA (NJ is up for grabs), and as long as the RNC gets the message that the mainstream is not Dede, the mainstream is mainstreet America, people like Palin and Thompson and Hoffman. But we don’t need angry Libs who sit on their hands.

Hoffman isn’t your victory. He’s ours. So is McDonnell. So is Christie if he pulls it off. We’ll enjoy it and get back to work.

Thanks for allowing me to blabber. Come by Rantburg sometime. My comments are the ones in salmon; Fred’s are in yellow.

But we don’t need angry Libs who sit on their hands.

Actually, you do. If you want to win, that is. So you’d better figure out how to come up with candidates who won’t have us sitting on our hands.

Gallup’s Conservatives and Libertarians | Cato @ Liberty

Combining the responses to those two questions, Gallup found the ideological breakdown of the public shown below. With these two broad questions, Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian.

You won’t be voting for Hoffman, and neither will I. But I did contribute twice to his campaign, and I’ve been talking him up.

I vote for and support whom I want to. I don’t vote for, and don’t support, those I don’t.

It was your party that screwed up NY-23, not me. And it isn’t your party leadership trying to fix it. Tell me, though: If the race had been a tight one between Dede and the other Democrat, would you have voted for Dede?

I would not have.

Interesting how that word “moron” ….. is so quickly throw out tonight as in — Starting with you, as a perfect example of the sort of moron who brought us to this pass in the first place.

Let’s look at the definition of moron.

Psychology: A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Maybe you really meant – Mo·rón — A city of eastern Argentina, an industrial suburb of Buenos Aires. Population: 309,000.

None of your readers fit that psychology definition. And none deserve that label placed on them.

I could turn that statement you made concerning Steve White right back to you…. your vote is important and your post indicate that you haphazardly threw it away, and now blame the rest of us, for the outcome of the election. Millions of votes got thrown away because of attitudes similar to yours, yet, you blame us who voted, not for the candidate we wanted, but cast a vote against a candidate. In primaries, we vote for who we want. In the general election, we vote for whom we don’t want. Or, we throw our vote away. An American decision as it has always been.

It’s kinda like — me remembering the 6th grade girl’s bathroom and overhearing, “Well, I don’t like her, so you can’t like her either.” “Okay, I won’t like her.”

Who wins in that argument?

Steve White, tonight, had some points to make, and he made his points….. Elections have consequences. Those folks sitting on their hands last November, or voting anything but Republican, or casting a vote against GW, or just wanting to “muck” with the party system, gave us President Obama.

Now, we live with his ideology, his czars, his Congress, his governing style, because, he is our President.

It’s simple — if we don’t want him back in 2012, now is the time to move into action. It doesn’t matter whether that movement is labeled Libiterian, Republican, Democrat, Independent, heck, I could even name it after my favorite childhood dog named Sargent.

But, Steve White is not a moron — yes, it’s your blog and you can say what you want…. but I got his points — it’s about voting — our votes are important, and frivolous voting is what got us into the mess we are in today.

Forget this discussion of who is a “moron” and who isn’t. I’m looking for discussions about how we can get control of taking back our American… and that is why….. the comments concerning Steve White has me posting.

Consider this for the talk and the vote — forget the party, forget the tag…. is the person you are willing to support adhering to the American values you hold?

Yea, they may not be exactly yours 100%, but which candidate will cause the least amount of harm to our country?

Mr. Quick — I have respect for you — so sorry, after the “stage” that Glenn Reynold placed you on, that you had to revert so quickly to the word “moron.”

And just for the record, I am of a mental age, well beyond that of 7 - 12. Well, as I get older, it probably does go down a point or two.

Listen to Mr. Fred at Rantburg….. he wouldn’t have a moderator who is a “moron.”

We seem to be in a game of political musical chairs, where every time the music stops, one more right disappears. Politicians not so concerned with the fact the rights are disappearing, so long as they still have a seat.

Steve White, we choose to fight now, at a time and on a battlefield of our choosing, rather than to rely on the “wisdom” of an entrenched governing class, that is increasingly willing to trade our rights for their power.

We effectively are no longer a two-party nation, and in that context the “lesser of two evils” strategy is deadly.

Well, it seems obvious that:

1) “Pubs” like Steve White are far too deeply vested in that “holding off the Visigoths” mode to ever let a little thing like “principle” intrude, and…

2) Folks like White have clearly convinced themselves that they really didn’t have a choice, y’know - that somehow, despite all their best efforts, Johnny Maverick was the best they could manage last year - so they had to go with “Visigoth-Lite.”

…primary elections are when you fight to get the right people in place…

Yeah…that worked so well in 2007-2008, didn’t it?

…Fred Thompson, noted Republican, just endorsed Hoffman. We Pubs are taking care of this one (and will make clear to the state and national RNC that they screwed up in picking Dede)…

Riddle me this one, Steverino - where were you, and all your “art of the possible” compatriot Pubbies, back in the middle of last year while Fred (who was, from his first day in his too-soon-aborted campaign, quite clearly a better, far more genuinely-conservative candidate than McStain) was trying to get it together?

And also: What makes you think that you - or any other Pubs - would have had an opportunity to get behind Hoffman in NY-23 (or to back any other of the truly conservative candidates that will now likely arise), had the GOP won last year’s general election and been once again confirmed in their “any candidate will do, so long as it’s ours” mindset and lockstep?

…we don’t need angry Libs who sit on their hands.

Once again: Not too many “sat on their hands” - a lot of us just refused to help you try to keep the Parade Of The Shit-Sandwiches going. We decided, instead, to let you “Party-faithful, no matter what” types get your shit sandwich shoved back in your faces. We were hopeful that, at last, a whole bunch of you dyed-in-the-wool, the-lesser-weevil characters would finally get the word, and start offering someone with some real conservative principle.

So far, it looks like the decision might be paying off…

Hoffman isn’t your victory. He’s ours. So is McDonnell. So is Christie if he pulls it off.

Don’t crow just yet - and if, in fact, Hoffman and McDonnell, and maybe even Christie, get in, don’t crow too loud. If the true horror of The Obamnation hadn’t come about, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Instead, you and your Pubbie comrades-in-arms would just be muddling along, following where that “art of the possible” route led you.

Johnny Maverick wouldn’t have been “half a loaf” - he wouldn’t have even been a few crumbs. He’d have been “bipartisan-business as usual” - and the incipient backlash against the Demonrats and their bozo Liar-In-Chief that now seems to be firming up a bit would never have had a chance to get started.

Barry: No. You are totally wrong.

Your response is classic postmodern squawk - making an equivalence where there is none.. Which shows you were never properly educated, and never bothered to educate yourself. That is why an enemy of America like Obama can amass so much power - raw ignorance is like rocket fuel for people like him.

Mike M, since you are so well educated and intelligent, perhaps you could give your reason why I am wrong, instead of blabbering through your anus about “postmodern squawk”.

Is it:

A. John McCain would not have passed a bailout bill
B. John McCain would not pass an amnesty bill
C. John McCain would not pass health care
D. John McCain would not attempt to regulate free speech
E. John McCain would not, pick your own

Dumbass.

Folks, I’m bowing out of this thread. It’s quite obvious that none of these GOPbot drones will be influenced by my arguments, and it is equally obvious that I won’t be influenced by theirs.

The fact remains: They cannot win without the 20% of America that Gallup identifies as “libertarian,” and they most certainly cannot win without a sizeable chunk of the 44% who say that “If you tell people that “libertarian” means “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” 44 percent will accept the label.” Instead, these people vote for Republicans who offer fiscal insanity and social conservatism, and wonder why they keep getting their asses stomped.

If you want our votes, you’re going to have to run and support candidates we want to vote for. That’s the bottom line, squirm as you will. And all your squalling isn’t going to change it one bit.

Fair warning: if you Republicans nominate another crap sandwich, say, a Huckabee, I - and a lot of others - not only “sit on my hands,” I’ll actively work against him. So you might fit that into your calculus for 2012 and smoke it.

UPDATE: TexLady, you’re a moron.

Okay, I’m done with this one.

The more I thought about this, the more convinced I became that this is probably very close to the truth.

That would tend to explain a lot of what is going on within this administration and may be a spot on analysis of what happened.

I don’t even know why you brought that up.

Metaphor. It could be stated “In your world, any republican is fine as long as it’s a republican”.

I seriously doubt it. In any case, it’s hypothetical speculation.

Nothing about it is hypothetical. John McCain would have passed a bailout bill, he rushed back to DC for the “national emergency”. He is for amnesty and made it very clear with his “plan”. John McCain has already sponsored, voted for and GWB signed McCain - feingold, restricting free speech.
C. John McCain would pass health care “reform”. Possibly hypothetical, but I doubt it.

Obama hates his country and he wants to destroy it.

You’ll get no argument from me. It matters little if you “love” your country but destroy it all the same, precisely what crap sandwhich republicans are doing, with the help of voters that vote for anything with an R after their name. Hell, Stalin probably loved Russia. He didn’t mind destroying it as long as he was in power. It is clear that John McCain and many republicans have no respect for conservative values or the constitution. Clear to anyone with an education anyway.

You are the one blabbering about “postmodern squawk - making an equivalence where there is none”. I, and many others, don’t believe there is enough difference in many of the R’s and the socialists with D’s behind their name and don’t plan to continue voting for them. If you do, don’t be suprised if you get more of the same.

The fact is, prior to the election of hopeydopey, rino’s and squishy republicans were in control of congress and the WH and did nothing to roll back the socialist tide. They increased it. GWB never met a spending increase he would veto, worked with fat teddy on “education”, signed McCain-Feingold even though he though it might be unconstitutional, and… The republicans might point out loaning money to people who couldn’t pay it back was bad, but would they fight tooth and nail to stop it? No. Republicans might point out we have an energy problem, but did they open up prohibited areas for drilling, get new nuclear plants going? No. Why they might even put their finger in the wind and decide it feels like global warming. We’ll need more regulation to fix that.

Exactly what is it that republicans did during their time in power to reduce government size, decrease spending, or enhance liberty? Nothing. they did precisely the opposite.

Whats my point? People like you claim to be conservative, but your not. You will vote for any statist/socialist/communist as long as he registers as a republican

The “purists” f%$ked the whole country over, the same as all democrats did.

Tell you what. You keep right on whining about how it’s all our fault, and see how that works for you going forward.

Sorry you bowed out, Bill before you actually made any arguments. Repeating “I won’t eat a shit sandwich” doesn’t qualify as an intellectual argument. There is a decent argument for having a limit on how bad candidates can be and still have us vote for them, but you aren’t making the argument. (Nor are the commenters, in general)

You are confusing a tactical issue with a moral/philosophical one. Steve White thinks it works better long term if we limit damage in general elections. You believe that strategically, the only way to get Republicans to change is to withdraw your support when they go too far awry. Yours may be the better strategy, (I don’t bet on horses) but trying to cast it as a point of honor is just silly.

And when people get silly and call it a point of honor, it usually means they aren’t thinking very clearly.