Glad to see Trump won’t run…his possible 3rd party run was kinda scary. I do hope he keeps blasting away at Obama though.
Newt should go away. He’s left overs when we need red meat.
They are setting up to lose..
They don’t want the lemon…
and don’t realize what will happen, or do and don’t care, or do, and are perfectly fine with it…
In a 25 March 2002 Weekly Standard review of Robert Warshow’s critical writings, Terry Teachout quotes one of Warshow’s “blunt” and “fearless” attacks on “the corrosive effects of ‘the mass culture of Stalinist liberalism’ on American intellectual life”:
In the 1930s radicalism entered upon an age of organized mass disingenuousness, when every act and every idea had behind it some “larger consideration” which destroyed its honesty and its meaning. Everyone became a professional politician, acting within a framework of “realism” that tended to make political activity an end in itself. The half-truth was elevated to the position of a principle, and in the end the half-truth, in itself, became more desirable than the whole truth.
As Teachout then writes:
The insidious and inevitable result of such activity, Warshow argued, was to corrupt art as well as liberalism: “The whole level of thought and discussion, the level of culture itself, had been lowered…. The Grapes of Wrath was a great novel. Eventually, Confessions of a Nazi Spy was a serious movie and Ballad for Americans was an inspired song. The mass culture of the educated classes–the culture of the ‘middle-brow,’ as it has sometimes been called–had come into existence.”
and a bunch others…
follow the laws that were put into effect (last century in the model we copy), not by name, or title, but what they do up front, and long term… and match them up to the new ones, ideas, methods, and so forth…
but things been long in the works if yuo know history
Senator Chris Dodd’s father Honorable Thomas Dodd, made an odd request last century. As a senator from Connecticut, Dodd chaired committee hearings on bills “To Require Registration of Firearms” and to build a national firearms owner database.
it was such a registration that made owning guns not an issue for the new regime. they just visited the homes.. Senator Dodd owned personally a copy of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68) was enacted, Senator Dodd asked the Library of Congress to translate Dodd’s own copy of that Law. GCA 68 tracks the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 in structure and effect. The framers of GCA 68 apparently borrowed even the idea of classifying weapons according to their “sporting purpose” from the Nazi Law’s “hunting weapons” terminology.
and that chess piece was put in place in 68…
when the project was started in the 20s, and 30s…
and now we are 2011…
how many OTHER chess pieces are in place i mentioned? no one looked.
how about the laws which are unconstitutional but not enforced, so that they cant be tested? (speech laws and other laws the politicians claim were made for purposes of a statement, even though they cant be enforced. yet)
TONS of stuff…
but we dont want to look what has been put in place since 1920… its too old to have an effect…
Looks like the nominee will be either Daniels or Romney. I’m guessing neither will break 47%.
Thank God.
After the “f” word laced speech a few weeks ago – I HOPED and PRAYED (yes Nyom I did) that Donald would do the right thing and realize he is not the one for the country.
Whether that was his thought process or not – I thank God (yes I do Nyom) 🙂
All ribbing aside – I think a lot of people were excited about him but we have to understand that it isn’t about a person, a Messiah.
It’s about the solutions and ideas – whoever espouses them should be above the “f” word 4 times in a speech.
And PEOPLE!!!
Let’s let Mitch Daniels speak for himself.
Same as Chris Christie etc.
The complaints against them seem shallow and Palinesque like in attack and nature when we have so much INFORMATION at our disposal.
Let’s champion conservative ideas when they speak them and not tear down the individual.
Daniels might have 47% or whatever – but he isn’t known by everyone. His name recognition is NOWHERE near Obama’s and yet he’s already polling above Obama.
I would love it if any one of these conservative leaning people ran and won.
Then we could say, “We won”.
I agree with arts 3:00 P.M. post, but thought the same thing (and said so right here) at last POTUS election. They didn’t want to win. How else do you explain McCain?
Are private pensions next? Is all this an accident, unforeseen, or just poor management? Yeah, right.
Read The Naked Capitalist for those who have not already done so. It’s 40 years old, and right up to date.
Lock and load. We all know it’s coming. They knew it long before we did. They see it as a necessary part of the plan. Oh yeah. And I’m a conspiracy nut case, right? Read the book, follow all leads, and be shocked and astonished.
What I have always taken for granted–that a President’s most important duties are foreign policy–isn’t taken for granted by most people. I’ve always assumed Congress does and should be the economic center and should be a small center. Therefore, I look for a Pres who is good on foreign policy: Bolton. Next, who will dismantle and reduce the size of the federal government. Daniels. Next, who reflects my values? Palin. Bachman. Cain.
Gingrich did an “inexplicable” again! Maybe his politics were better when he was despicable. Kind of like Tiger Woods losing his edge.
So, did Trump become a better or worse guy for not running?
I don’t visit AM Thinker as often any more. It seemed to be turning into a forum for establishing what true conservatism is rather than applying conservative principles and values to real world problems. The article you linked seemed rather fuzzy to me–lots of data with no context. Like you I think foreign policy is the most important job of a president, yet there was no mention of how Obama has screwed this up, how he has lost credibilty with allies and emboldened our enemies. There is plenty of room for us to criticize him.
As to the economic issues, you can not convince me that Obama’s ever-changing policies (eg, put the coal industry out of business; stop drilling; allow drilling but encourage EPA flacs to delay it; run up the price of energy; blame the oil companies for charging too much, etc, etc) can possibly create a sound basis for businesses to plan future investments and expansions. As Jim Geraghty said, “Everything Obama says comes with an expiration date.” I think the country is starting to see through this, and should Reps be tempted to compromise with the left, I think the country will protest. We are all too willing to eat people on our side when we disagree on certain positions, but we ignore that Obama is wrong on all of them. Of course we shouldn’t hide our disagreements, but we should also point out the areas where we do agree. For instance, it’s fine to say we disagree with Romney on health care and we don’t trust him on this or that, but we should also point out that he is far superior to Obama on economic issues. I also think we have to try to be optimistic about some of the younger blood in the party. The Ryans and Rubios really do want change and they will work very hard to keep our next president in line. The oligarchy may not be what it once was.
Don’t forget John Huntsman. He’s got quite a resume’.
Thanks, expat for reminding me of the negative importance of Obama. Unfortunately, his policies have yet to reach full effect.
I do run between the two poles of “it really doesn’t make a difference who is in power because the policies of the two parties don’t really matter after their execution” (gasp) and always being a Republican. There are some very challenging stats in the article which support the first pole and were disappointing especially as how I’ve been touting an awakening is occurring. Yet I suppose the awakening is too young to have had much of an effect on the stats. They lag.
You raise all good points.
More than any time I can remember the philosophical roots of the two major parties are becoming clear. Democrats have always been known as tax and spend, but that is a behavior rather than a philosophy. Now we know that what drives it is a belief in big government that reaches into every aspect of life. Republicans are beginning to make it clear that they believe in a limited federal government and limited taxation. What remains to be seen is where the American public falls. I fear it is with big government.
The WSJ really gives it to Newt, and the commenters seem to agree.
He may even lose his pundit jobs with his latest moves.
Gingrich another major disappointment. Another coward in the end – not brave enough to credit Ryan with a great idea.
I’ve been saying for a while now – it’s going to come down to Palin. She has been the one true warrior so far. The rest will eliminate themselves. They are all too timid and the very thing the country needs right now is ferocious courage. Since that is the very thing we need, then we must get it because the consequences of not getting it are unthinkable.
I think there are only two people right now who could do it: Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin. They both have guts to spare; both are fearless; and both have the right ideas and the right principles.
It’s all a matter of timing.
“They didn’t want to win. How else do you explain McCain?”
“they” can’t really make that choice – we still do that.
The problem is still the same and it is twofold – one is that competent people, being competent, see what happens to anyone that runs as a republican and want no part of that. Heck even if they had full support it takes someone on the line to do the job of the President of the US now, let alone knowing the continual attacks that will occur to everything and everyone around you. So that tends to give us not too good candidates to choose from.
Secondly it is our system for choosing the candidate – for whatever reason primaries are still really low turnout and often are dominated by what I would refer to as “armchair policy wonks” – that is they are trying to choose based on “ability to win” and, being policy wonks, this is determined by extensive reading of political theory, not really based on policy.
Thus McCain was the Right Person at the Right Time – after years of partisan politics we have the well known “Maverick” that single handedly brought closure to many of the last few decades major partisan battles and was a war hero to boot. Truly from a navel gazing policy wonk point of view he was the only one with any chance against the democrats.
Never mind that those “closures” were wildly unpopular, that his actual policies were haphazard and unpopular at best (his continual election at Arizona had more to do with ability to bring money in that policy), and generally things that matter to people who actually vote in the major election were bad.
Heck, we would have probably been better off if “they” could have chosen.
Until we realize that *we* choose them and act on that it isn’t going to improve – we can improve the selection process by a large margin. I don’t know what to do about the environment, I do not know that there is anything we can do – even outside of the media environment it almost requires a certain broken personality to want to be President.
I have a dark feeling that something really huge is brewing on global scene, – war, economic turmoil, mass hunger in poor countries – which would be a harsh test of the whole system of international relations. This will significantly change electorial landscape in unknown and inpredictable way.
Sergey,
I share your apprehensions about the world scene. There are too many people who don’t see the big picture. Rather than admit their insecurity, the concentrate on carving out little niches where they can appear to be the strong man. Whether its tribal wars in the Arab world or competing victim groups in the US, fragmentation seems to be the trend.
And what do we have to offer–an election system that encourages us to chew up our best, brightest, and most honorable. We are like a baseball team fighting over who throws the best curve ball and ignoring the need for batters and fielders. The guy who lays down a bunt will never make the headlines or be voted MVP, but he will be the second run when the guy who follows him knocks one over the fence. When you are down 1 to 0 in the ninth, that counts for a lot.
Mike Mc.: I agree completely that what we want, and need, for a 2012 Republican nominee is ‘fire in the belly’.
Sarah Palin has it in spades. There may be a politician with more courage or conviction than her, but no one has had to prove it the way she has.
There are others. Ryan comes to mind, as does Michelle Bachmann. I like both Herman Cain and Allen West a lot.
I’d love to see a ticket with Palin on top, with either Cain or West as running mate. (I’m sorry to say this, but I don’t think America is ready for an all-female ticket yet.)
Personally, I don’t think Bachmann or Ryan have the executive experience we need. (A career in the legislature does not prepare one for making the tough executive decisions; see example O.)
I really don’t like Romney. He made a good point, that the States are a laboratory for social and legal experiments… but single-payer health care was an experiment he should have known better than to try, he should now admit full-force in public that it hasn’t worked, and he should accept responsibility for smoothing the way for ObamaCare. His combination of bland arrogance is, to me, very unappealing.
Having said that… I’d vote for Romney over Obama in a heartbeat. We’ll do the best we can to get the best Republican candidate we can get… and then we simply must unite behind whomever is chosen.
(Unless, of course, we can convince President Obama not to run for re-election. Then it’s an open ballgame.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
The huge dark ominous threatening feeling is the great violence being planned against Israel. All who have or share any biblical sentiment know that Israel is the center of importance. An attack upon Israel is an attack for evil against good.
Is this too simple? And stupid, yes?
Much like Sarah Palin’s “gutsy” trip to India. The liberal defenders of America assume we should bow before the might of China and appease them–definitely not aggravate them by aligning with India. That is stupid. But Palin’s view is informed by “stupid” that is by simple concepts of right and wrong. The right thing to do is to oppose tyranny and support democracy. This, in the view of educated people is just too simple. Stupid. Like Palin.
Curtis,
I think you are correct.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Glad to see Trump won’t run…his possible 3rd party run was kinda scary. I do hope he keeps blasting away at Obama though.
Newt should go away. He’s left overs when we need red meat.
They are setting up to lose..
They don’t want the lemon…
and don’t realize what will happen, or do and don’t care, or do, and are perfectly fine with it…
In a 25 March 2002 Weekly Standard review of Robert Warshow’s critical writings, Terry Teachout quotes one of Warshow’s “blunt” and “fearless” attacks on “the corrosive effects of ‘the mass culture of Stalinist liberalism’ on American intellectual life”:
In the 1930s radicalism entered upon an age of organized mass disingenuousness, when every act and every idea had behind it some “larger consideration” which destroyed its honesty and its meaning. Everyone became a professional politician, acting within a framework of “realism” that tended to make political activity an end in itself. The half-truth was elevated to the position of a principle, and in the end the half-truth, in itself, became more desirable than the whole truth.
As Teachout then writes:
The insidious and inevitable result of such activity, Warshow argued, was to corrupt art as well as liberalism: “The whole level of thought and discussion, the level of culture itself, had been lowered…. The Grapes of Wrath was a great novel. Eventually, Confessions of a Nazi Spy was a serious movie and Ballad for Americans was an inspired song. The mass culture of the educated classes–the culture of the ‘middle-brow,’ as it has sometimes been called–had come into existence.”
Read more: http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-george-clooneys-good-night/page-6/#ixzz1MXmWRWNH
4th amendment dead…
resurrection, or finally?
and a bunch others…
follow the laws that were put into effect (last century in the model we copy), not by name, or title, but what they do up front, and long term… and match them up to the new ones, ideas, methods, and so forth…
but things been long in the works if yuo know history
Senator Chris Dodd’s father Honorable Thomas Dodd, made an odd request last century. As a senator from Connecticut, Dodd chaired committee hearings on bills “To Require Registration of Firearms” and to build a national firearms owner database.
it was such a registration that made owning guns not an issue for the new regime. they just visited the homes.. Senator Dodd owned personally a copy of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68) was enacted, Senator Dodd asked the Library of Congress to translate Dodd’s own copy of that Law. GCA 68 tracks the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 in structure and effect. The framers of GCA 68 apparently borrowed even the idea of classifying weapons according to their “sporting purpose” from the Nazi Law’s “hunting weapons” terminology.
and that chess piece was put in place in 68…
when the project was started in the 20s, and 30s…
and now we are 2011…
how many OTHER chess pieces are in place i mentioned? no one looked.
how about the laws which are unconstitutional but not enforced, so that they cant be tested? (speech laws and other laws the politicians claim were made for purposes of a statement, even though they cant be enforced. yet)
TONS of stuff…
but we dont want to look what has been put in place since 1920… its too old to have an effect…
Looks like the nominee will be either Daniels or Romney. I’m guessing neither will break 47%.
Thank God.
After the “f” word laced speech a few weeks ago – I HOPED and PRAYED (yes Nyom I did) that Donald would do the right thing and realize he is not the one for the country.
Whether that was his thought process or not – I thank God (yes I do Nyom) 🙂
All ribbing aside – I think a lot of people were excited about him but we have to understand that it isn’t about a person, a Messiah.
It’s about the solutions and ideas – whoever espouses them should be above the “f” word 4 times in a speech.
And PEOPLE!!!
Let’s let Mitch Daniels speak for himself.
Same as Chris Christie etc.
The complaints against them seem shallow and Palinesque like in attack and nature when we have so much INFORMATION at our disposal.
Let’s champion conservative ideas when they speak them and not tear down the individual.
Daniels might have 47% or whatever – but he isn’t known by everyone. His name recognition is NOWHERE near Obama’s and yet he’s already polling above Obama.
I would love it if any one of these conservative leaning people ran and won.
Then we could say, “We won”.
I agree with arts 3:00 P.M. post, but thought the same thing (and said so right here) at last POTUS election. They didn’t want to win. How else do you explain McCain?
Are private pensions next? Is all this an accident, unforeseen, or just poor management? Yeah, right.
Read The Naked Capitalist for those who have not already done so. It’s 40 years old, and right up to date.
Lock and load. We all know it’s coming. They knew it long before we did. They see it as a necessary part of the plan. Oh yeah. And I’m a conspiracy nut case, right? Read the book, follow all leads, and be shocked and astonished.
What I have always taken for granted–that a President’s most important duties are foreign policy–isn’t taken for granted by most people. I’ve always assumed Congress does and should be the economic center and should be a small center. Therefore, I look for a Pres who is good on foreign policy: Bolton. Next, who will dismantle and reduce the size of the federal government. Daniels. Next, who reflects my values? Palin. Bachman. Cain.
Gingrich did an “inexplicable” again! Maybe his politics were better when he was despicable. Kind of like Tiger Woods losing his edge.
So, did Trump become a better or worse guy for not running?
Whaaaat?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_article_liberals_are_too_s.html
It’s official. Oligarchy.
Are the primaries settled already? George Will predicts Pawlenty and Daniels. Well, in 1979 he thought Ronald Reagan wouldn’t catch on.
How about Herman Cain? In this YouTube video, he straightens Bill Clinton out on the true costs of HillaryCare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ
Curtis,
I don’t visit AM Thinker as often any more. It seemed to be turning into a forum for establishing what true conservatism is rather than applying conservative principles and values to real world problems. The article you linked seemed rather fuzzy to me–lots of data with no context. Like you I think foreign policy is the most important job of a president, yet there was no mention of how Obama has screwed this up, how he has lost credibilty with allies and emboldened our enemies. There is plenty of room for us to criticize him.
As to the economic issues, you can not convince me that Obama’s ever-changing policies (eg, put the coal industry out of business; stop drilling; allow drilling but encourage EPA flacs to delay it; run up the price of energy; blame the oil companies for charging too much, etc, etc) can possibly create a sound basis for businesses to plan future investments and expansions. As Jim Geraghty said, “Everything Obama says comes with an expiration date.” I think the country is starting to see through this, and should Reps be tempted to compromise with the left, I think the country will protest. We are all too willing to eat people on our side when we disagree on certain positions, but we ignore that Obama is wrong on all of them. Of course we shouldn’t hide our disagreements, but we should also point out the areas where we do agree. For instance, it’s fine to say we disagree with Romney on health care and we don’t trust him on this or that, but we should also point out that he is far superior to Obama on economic issues. I also think we have to try to be optimistic about some of the younger blood in the party. The Ryans and Rubios really do want change and they will work very hard to keep our next president in line. The oligarchy may not be what it once was.
Don’t forget John Huntsman. He’s got quite a resume’.
Thanks, expat for reminding me of the negative importance of Obama. Unfortunately, his policies have yet to reach full effect.
I do run between the two poles of “it really doesn’t make a difference who is in power because the policies of the two parties don’t really matter after their execution” (gasp) and always being a Republican. There are some very challenging stats in the article which support the first pole and were disappointing especially as how I’ve been touting an awakening is occurring. Yet I suppose the awakening is too young to have had much of an effect on the stats. They lag.
You raise all good points.
More than any time I can remember the philosophical roots of the two major parties are becoming clear. Democrats have always been known as tax and spend, but that is a behavior rather than a philosophy. Now we know that what drives it is a belief in big government that reaches into every aspect of life. Republicans are beginning to make it clear that they believe in a limited federal government and limited taxation. What remains to be seen is where the American public falls. I fear it is with big government.
The WSJ really gives it to Newt, and the commenters seem to agree.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576325600063166340.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_1
He may even lose his pundit jobs with his latest moves.
Gingrich another major disappointment. Another coward in the end – not brave enough to credit Ryan with a great idea.
I’ve been saying for a while now – it’s going to come down to Palin. She has been the one true warrior so far. The rest will eliminate themselves. They are all too timid and the very thing the country needs right now is ferocious courage. Since that is the very thing we need, then we must get it because the consequences of not getting it are unthinkable.
I think there are only two people right now who could do it: Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin. They both have guts to spare; both are fearless; and both have the right ideas and the right principles.
It’s all a matter of timing.
“They didn’t want to win. How else do you explain McCain?”
“they” can’t really make that choice – we still do that.
The problem is still the same and it is twofold – one is that competent people, being competent, see what happens to anyone that runs as a republican and want no part of that. Heck even if they had full support it takes someone on the line to do the job of the President of the US now, let alone knowing the continual attacks that will occur to everything and everyone around you. So that tends to give us not too good candidates to choose from.
Secondly it is our system for choosing the candidate – for whatever reason primaries are still really low turnout and often are dominated by what I would refer to as “armchair policy wonks” – that is they are trying to choose based on “ability to win” and, being policy wonks, this is determined by extensive reading of political theory, not really based on policy.
Thus McCain was the Right Person at the Right Time – after years of partisan politics we have the well known “Maverick” that single handedly brought closure to many of the last few decades major partisan battles and was a war hero to boot. Truly from a navel gazing policy wonk point of view he was the only one with any chance against the democrats.
Never mind that those “closures” were wildly unpopular, that his actual policies were haphazard and unpopular at best (his continual election at Arizona had more to do with ability to bring money in that policy), and generally things that matter to people who actually vote in the major election were bad.
Heck, we would have probably been better off if “they” could have chosen.
Until we realize that *we* choose them and act on that it isn’t going to improve – we can improve the selection process by a large margin. I don’t know what to do about the environment, I do not know that there is anything we can do – even outside of the media environment it almost requires a certain broken personality to want to be President.
I have a dark feeling that something really huge is brewing on global scene, – war, economic turmoil, mass hunger in poor countries – which would be a harsh test of the whole system of international relations. This will significantly change electorial landscape in unknown and inpredictable way.
Sergey,
I share your apprehensions about the world scene. There are too many people who don’t see the big picture. Rather than admit their insecurity, the concentrate on carving out little niches where they can appear to be the strong man. Whether its tribal wars in the Arab world or competing victim groups in the US, fragmentation seems to be the trend.
And what do we have to offer–an election system that encourages us to chew up our best, brightest, and most honorable. We are like a baseball team fighting over who throws the best curve ball and ignoring the need for batters and fielders. The guy who lays down a bunt will never make the headlines or be voted MVP, but he will be the second run when the guy who follows him knocks one over the fence. When you are down 1 to 0 in the ninth, that counts for a lot.
Mike Mc.: I agree completely that what we want, and need, for a 2012 Republican nominee is ‘fire in the belly’.
Sarah Palin has it in spades. There may be a politician with more courage or conviction than her, but no one has had to prove it the way she has.
There are others. Ryan comes to mind, as does Michelle Bachmann. I like both Herman Cain and Allen West a lot.
I’d love to see a ticket with Palin on top, with either Cain or West as running mate. (I’m sorry to say this, but I don’t think America is ready for an all-female ticket yet.)
Personally, I don’t think Bachmann or Ryan have the executive experience we need. (A career in the legislature does not prepare one for making the tough executive decisions; see example O.)
I really don’t like Romney. He made a good point, that the States are a laboratory for social and legal experiments… but single-payer health care was an experiment he should have known better than to try, he should now admit full-force in public that it hasn’t worked, and he should accept responsibility for smoothing the way for ObamaCare. His combination of bland arrogance is, to me, very unappealing.
Having said that… I’d vote for Romney over Obama in a heartbeat. We’ll do the best we can to get the best Republican candidate we can get… and then we simply must unite behind whomever is chosen.
(Unless, of course, we can convince President Obama not to run for re-election. Then it’s an open ballgame.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
The huge dark ominous threatening feeling is the great violence being planned against Israel. All who have or share any biblical sentiment know that Israel is the center of importance. An attack upon Israel is an attack for evil against good.
Is this too simple? And stupid, yes?
Much like Sarah Palin’s “gutsy” trip to India. The liberal defenders of America assume we should bow before the might of China and appease them–definitely not aggravate them by aligning with India. That is stupid. But Palin’s view is informed by “stupid” that is by simple concepts of right and wrong. The right thing to do is to oppose tyranny and support democracy. This, in the view of educated people is just too simple. Stupid. Like Palin.
Curtis,
I think you are correct.