We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, August 30. 2012
Remember, by the end of the debates, a lot of people saw what I meant when I said at the beginning, "I completely agree with 75% of what he says. The other 25% scares me to death." In many, if not most ways, he really does have the right answer, but in the general election, every vote for Ron Paul is most likely a vote taken from Romney. That stuff's fine during the primaries, but we're trying to win the big one here. The best thing we can hope for is that the press (continues to) completely ignore him. The less press, the less votes. The less votes, the greater our chances.
Remember Ross Perot in '92? Result? A Clinton dynasty.
Say, I've got a good idea. How 'bout an Obama dynasty? Cool idea, huh?
Vote for Ron Paul!
More inane blather below the fold.
But at least I'm honest about it.
For all those bitching about how Romney isn't just 100,000% perfect, allow me to remind you how imperfect our former flames were. What about Bush and 'Shamnesty', when he was ready to capitulate to the Dems and grant a free citizenship pass to all the poor, hapless undocumented workers out there?
How about that aforementioned McCain fella joining the Lefties during the anti-torture brouhaha while the Iraq War was raging? Big help, John.
In the first vice-presidential debate four years ago, Sarah Palin indicated she believed in man-made global warming. She has since rescinded, but what if she hadn't? Way to knock one out of the park, Sarah.
It's not a case of 'most perfect'; it's a case of 'least bad'. All politicians have flaws.
With all due respect to the people currently suffering in Louisiana from Hurricane Isaac, I might note what a good thing it was to have Monday cancelled. People tuning in on the first night then saw Ann, who really might have been the most important speaker of the entire event. She had to connect with America's women, and I believe she did. Some polls had Romney shooting up 4% the next day. I'm sure lots of people tune in the first night, just to check things out, but not so much the second night, so this was important. Republicans in Louisiana, your sacrifice shall not be in vain.
He threw a few more yucks in, and hit some good points, but it wasn't quite what I was hoping for. Huckabee's likeable enough, but he really doesn't have that charismatic edge that Christie does. His speech is here.
The crowd gave her the biggest welcome so far.
I don't know who it was, but whatever blogger I read this morning who predicted Condi would focus on foreign matters is certainly crowing today. She stuck exclusively to foreign issues for most of the speech, ranging from security issues to trade agreements.
As any of you who read my wrap-ups during the debates know, I place all kinds of meaning on crowd reactions. There are a number of subtle variations to applause; duration, intensity, and whether it was a response to an 'applause line' or spontaneous.
Not only was the crowd applauding her every 'applause line', but they were going nuts over inconsequential things she said. All she ended up saying at one point was the simple platitude, "...that it does not matter where you came from, it matters where you are going", and the crowd wouldn't shut the hell up!
And I think I figured out a big part of her appeal. She never raises her voice. Contrast that against some fireball like Mia Love, who spoke yesterday. Condi introduces passion into her voice at the appropriate time, but the actual decibel level barely changes. If I were to put it metaphysically, I'd say that, rather than having the loud finale shoved in your face, you find yourself reaching out for it, instead. It then evokes the applause from you.
And here's a writing technique I like using, myself; doubling back on something you said earlier, completely disproving it, and making an even larger point in the process.
She then goes on to shred our current educational system. All in all, a very enjoyable experience. Her speech is here.
I would also note that if the Tea Party is looking for a back-up for Palin, Gov. Martinez might be a likely candidate. Just a hunch. Her speech is here.
And here's a good Republican Convention trivia question:
When did the first boo-birds come out, and what triggered it?
Answer: When someone finally ended a sentence with the word ObamaCare. It had been mentioned before in passing, of course, and there was always a negative reaction from the crowd, but it wasn't until Ryan actually ended a sentence with it that the audience could really let go.
Personally, though, I'd have a stern talk with Ryan's speech coach and speechwriter. There were too many 'applause lines', and his speech coach should have told him that you don't wait for the applause, you keep going and let it interrupt you. Looking like you're expecting it is amateurish. But he'll get better. His speech is here.
Then Mitt will address the crowd and that'll wrap things up. The schedule I'm using is here, and YouTube is streamcasting it live.
The finish line.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Question for you.
On Condi's speech, we were listening on channel 44.1 (PBS) and three times at the end the picture and sound blacked out for at least a minute. That rather broke up the pace and conclusion of her speech.
Did you see that? Other than that it seemed that PBS was doing a better job on broadcasting more of the GOP speakers. Then of course they had that liberal panel in-between acts. Tho the suit from the NYT wasn't bad a example of the type.
I agree with you - absent any sort of calamity or national emergency Romney/Ryan seem to have this election in the bag. The President and his crew have created so many unfilled promises, so many message gaffs, so much rhetorical nonsense that its hard to believe that he's in this to win. I get the impression that he just isn't "into" reelecting himself instead he's into adoration when he's out raising money. Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he spent the closing month of the campaign setting himself up for a loss such that he moves to some larger role internationally - like SecGen of the UN.
Has Paul Ryan—has anyone at the convention—pointed out that if Obamacare stands, America fundamentally changes as a country, comes under a leftist totalistic bureaucratic nightmare, the outlines of which we’ve already seen with the birth control mandate? I don’t think so. The Republicans put Obamacare under the standard rubric of “big government” which they oppose. They don’t say that Obamacare is a big-government threat of a different order from the big-government steps we’ve had in the past.
Yes, vote for Romney. Because statist, collectivist policies are SO much more palatable when the power-hungry SOB ramming them down our throats has an "R" after their name.
Good grief, how do you think we GOT here? The go-along, get-along, status-quo RINO's currently vomited out by the RNC have only one thing in mind: Maintaining their power by being re-elected. The only difference between the communist-type collectivists and the fascist-type collectivists is the speed with which it's being done.
The current crop of the Rep-wingers are paying only lip-service to the concept of Constitutionally-limited government. And the only reason they're doing this is that they've realized that the true-conservative/libertarian vote can only be won that way. As soon as they've assumed the mantle of the presidency, it'll be under the bus with principles, and "reasonable compromise" with the left-wing collectivists will be the order of the day.
In reality, they'll simply put a different shade of lipstick on the pig, and we'll get exactly the same results as we would have leaving BHO in office, just done in a "bi-partisan" manner by "reaching across the aisle".
How do you "compromise" with someone whose intent is to kill you? Do you offer to let them put 3 bullets into your brain, instead of the 6 that they originally wanted to? How do you "compromise" with groups whose intent is to destroy every last vestige of individualism and liberty?
I shall try to put my thought on that into succinct form.
It's all about 'time'.
Of the three choices, two in-the-system and the opt-out third choice, the one that promises the most time --let's say, peacetime, to move the electorate by persuasion rather than be letting slip the dogs of war --is the GOP/TEA coalation.
Explain why the failing Republican Establishment just alienated the Liberty and TEA Party force...which is growing and which is working effectively at the local level.
But still we slurp up this Republican circus sideshow, this empty set of rhetoric and transparent platitudes issued by one half of the One Party System.
The Liberty and TEA Party coalition doesn't need Republican lies. And they stopped standing for them years ago, hence their local effectiveness.
I get a huge kick out of how the staunch Maggies Farm club, this commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankees, who value freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots, are acting like tools for the biggest scam in the biggest political fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
That fraud would be that you have effectively enacted your earnest choice to reform this trainwreck we've inherited by just installing another instance of the same statist machinery.
As a sympathizer who agrees with the basic tenets from which you speak, all I can say is that when you are faced with choices which will impoverish you one way or the other, you seek the choice that will do the least amount of damage.
Yeah, lesser of two evils, etc. No, I'm not a Romney fan. But this is one election that I truly believe a third party vote is problematic. There isn't a huge difference between Romney and Obama.
But there is a big enough difference for me to recognize that one has more to offer than the other.
I'm scratching my head in this election when I see the kinds of responses you and Blackwing1 put up - not because they confuse me, but because I agree with them and I know that a third party vote does have value beyond the old "you wasted your vote" nonsense. But my confusion grows because Obama is just so truly bad, just so utterly awful, I do not believe 4 more years of him in office can be good for anyone.
I rarely hold my nose and vote. But I have done it, and in this election I'm going to do it. I don't expect that anyone who is so solidly sold through on the Libertarian agenda that they are inflexible to an extreme will change their mind. But if you are so solidly sold and inflexible, then you're really not a Libertarian, you're just another extremist.
And there are times to be an extremist. I don't believe this is one of those times. In 1992 and 1996 when I voted Libertarian, I felt good about my vote. I felt that way in 2004, too. I didn't care that I knew my vote wasn't likely to make a difference, I knew my vote carried a message.
But in this election, we don't need a message, we need a change. I agree that a true Libertarian would be a great candidate who could potentially make a real difference - but that option is literally non-existent. So in this election I'm looking at degrees of what I find acceptable. In Obama, I find utterly unacceptable in every category but 2 or 3, and those are social issues which are meaningless anyway.
In Romney I see acceptable in 2 or 3 issues which are economic in nature and therefore meaningful.
This is important. I don't see many scenarios where the US emerges after 4 more years of Obama with all 50 states acting as a unit. I see massive poverty and massive debt.
I could be wrong, too. But I doubt it.
With Romney, I don't see sunshine and roses. But I don't see things getting quite as awful, and I see a potential future where the Democrats realize that in losing they were pursuing an outdated and obsolete agenda. I see more movement toward a Libertarian philosophy as people realize the status quo isn't providing them the change they need.
I could be wrong on this, too, but I doubt it.
Every election is perceived to be 'important'. Every 4 years we hear "this is the most important election we've ever faced." I've never believed the hype, and I've always voted my conscience.
This time, I do believe the hype, and we don't have many viable options. The Libertarians in my area have all agreed that the enemy we are truly facing isn't moneyed interests, but out of control government. The moneyed interests always do what they do. They are predictable. The government is not, thus it represents a much larger threat than anything else.
As a result, we're not supporting Romney and we're not campaigning for him, but we will vote for him.
Not only are you not hearing what you're being told about really doing the right thing - and who's doing it, SUCCESSFULLY - but I wonder if you're hearing yourself. All that has been said since at least Goldwater.
And yet here we are.
Look, I'm not dogging you, 'Dog, because I get the ostensible logic. But at some point you accede the battle and go to work in the ammo dump with your eye on the war, to mangle a metaphor.
Not just because it's right, but because it's WORKING.
ORomney is a disaster in the making. He's as much as told you that already. So regarding Ryan's flowery platitudes leaves me cold. I've been around since Goldwater too.
How many of us really grasp two hundred fifty TRILLION dollars in debt and unpaid entitlements? See what I did there? You can't.
Do we think this just goes away? Really? Or that slowing its rate of expansion is a solution to Obama?
It's easy to criticize -- not so easy to propose viable solutions. 'Viable' being the key word.
Oh bullshit; that line is the last refuge of not having a realistic perspective yourself.
My solution? This nation needs to stop looking to Washington DC for anything. It needs to refuse to look to Washington DC, including to this tool ORmoney when he mistakenly promises jobs.
Who gave him the right to dispense a single goddamn thing?
From that single realization we dismantle the entire federal apparatus. Are you not aware of what a quarter quadrillion dollars is, Merc? Why are we having this conversation, such as it is? Do you really think that trimming even ten percent from the current trajectory is going to amount to change?
As far as your solution, apparently you don't know what the word 'viable' means.
Sure thing, Merc. I couldn't possibly know what viable means. Not especially since I keep pointing out how effective voting for evil has been for you and you never address it.
But tell me. Do you know what (third time now) a quarter quadrillion dollars means?
Do you know what O'Rmoney trimming the federal budget the impossible figure of even ten percent means in light of it?
And I don't know what's viable? Tell me, Mercury: What's viable about a Romney Adminstration? He's your boy, this is your blog, and these are your Republican Convention posts.
Go on. Let's have it. How does Mitt Romney save the country from certain collapse?
You don't seriously think people should waste time arguing with someone like you, do you?
I can chase your goalposts around all night, Mercury. You really don't have shit to back your point - such as it may be - do you? Sad.
Go back to carrying water for the Republican circus in Tampa.
See? You did it again.
"Go back to carrying water for the Republican circus in Tampa."
You didn't suggest who I should be carrying water for. Criticize, criticize, criticize, but no better suggestions. Are you honestly that boring?
"ya dance with the one that brung ya".
In this case, we don't have a choice. I'm not a Romney fan either, but...
He is a skilled business man, he is a sound family oriented personality, he had success as a Governor, private citizen and NGO chief. Romneycare? Yeah, I know, but when it was first implemented it made some sense. What the legislature did to it after he left office if not his fault. And he has admitted that mistakes were made in developing the plan. So I can live with that.
Ryan perfectly compliments Romney in that he is an idea guy, a politician who understands the Law of Large Numbers, has a quick wit, can think on his feet and in general is well liked by serious politicians on both sides of the aisle. I have a hunch that Ryan is going to be a very busy and visible VP - the first in years.
So no nose holding here - I'm all in for these two. If it had been Portman or Pawlenty, not so much.
"But still we slurp up this Republican circus sideshow, this empty set of rhetoric and transparent platitudes issued by one half of the One Party System."
The bombastic libertarians (see above and below), confuse heat with light. Like Henry Clay (...would rather be right than be president; so the country honored his wish...), the bombastic libertarians would rather make noise than work towards a solution. Thus, they condemn themselves to perpetual fringe group status, getting a lot of press, but having precious little effect on events. Contrast them with the much lower key tea party crowd, who, love them or loathe them, have unquestionably influenced events big time.
You're not paying attention either, are you? Assuming you can get over all the butthurt about being told how things are, consider that the Liberty movement has already revolutionized at least four States. That they got the Fed audit bill passed with 100% Republican support and a huge number of Democrats. That that old kook that worries you so much has, at 77 and on the eve of retirement, become the single most powerful and influential representative in the whole sordid mess.
Light and heat, huh? Wake up, join up, and have your eyes opened. Really.
Thanks for helping to prove my point. (Four years old when the old kook was born.)
Don't you love it when people tell you to "wake up"? That always cracks me up.
Yea, especially at 81, with three advanced degrees in diverse fields and four professional careers - hard, 50's-style science, aviation, self-employed and NGO, all successful, meaning the organizations and myself were more capable when I left than when I got there. After that kind of life, it's easy to tell the blowhards from the doers.
...and, when time permits, still fun to egg the blowhards into huffing louder.
Yes, but it makes the rest of us suffer! At some point legal action might be required, to recover the hours you've stolen from us. Just sayin'.
I watched as much of this pathetic GOP hate-fest as I could. You right-wingers would do well to truly consider WWJD. He sure wouldn't have voted for this pack of clowns.
...pathetic GOP hate-fest..
Please elucidate. Inquiring minds want to know.
Trolls call me
moon of dwelling-Rungnir,
seeress's friendly companion,
guardian of corpse-fiord,
swallower of heaven-wheel;
what is a troll other than that?
I didn't waste time defending Pubs, but asked him to defend his position. Prove it. Let him do the work.
He couldn't prove it, so he didn't defend it.
@Ten: "Explain why the failing Republican Establishment just alienated the Liberty and TEA Party force...which is growing and which is working effectively at the local level."
You mean by actively pursuing candidacies like Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin? Yeah - real effective.
The libertarian movement has sat back and declared itself holier-than-thou being extremely critical of the GOP for not being more like them. Never mind that libertarians almost always falls short of implementing any big ideas and big actions that may make a difference. YOU ARE NOT PURE ENOUGH!! The emphasis libertarians put on Ron Paul is more akin to the cult of personality we often complain about with President Obama. Paul does have some interesting ideas, but ideas are a dime a dozen. If an idea or concept has some appeal and weight, it will eventually attract a wider audience and gain some traction. Ron Paul is just a grumpy old man with sycophantic followers - that does not a movement make.
A true political movement must have two things to make it viable - logical consistency and conformity to reality. The Libertarian movement, and in some respects the Tea Party movement, holds logical consistency - where it fails is that this logical consistency does not adhere to current reality. It's all or nothing, our way or the highway. And that just doesn't work.
The firebrands here should consider the election of 1860. Had Lincoln been defeated, there would have been no seccesion, and no war, and yet slavery would have ended soon just the same, as it was failing in the court of public opinion, south as well as north, world as well as USA.
There was a big battle in the Civil War in a north Louisiana village name of Pleasant Hill. My grandparents lived there, i used to spend childhood summers there in the 1950s. The old folks --whom a 5 or 7 year-old will spend a lot of time with, if they will tell the kid stories, has the war stories straight from them as lived through that battle as kids themselves.
The fury, the starvation, the bloodspilling of kin soldier and civilian, women and children, burning of farms, shelling of woods full of terrified civilians, the particular horror of enemies who looked and talked just alike yourself and yet were shooting down everything amove, was still heavy in the mid 1950s, still controlling a large area in the emotionbal lives of the children of the children of those who lived through that one little fight.
I'm not pacifist. I'm armed up and have always been, and i'm listening to the signals, and sometimes i think we will need to have another war and win it this time.
But we should never believe that another civil war will restore the good life for the fighters. For their distant descendants, yes.
anyhoo, Ann Barnhardt's recent is on this very topic --the 'why' of territorial integrity as is. It's worth a read @
Lastly, i'd say, i may have skipped over the middle, of why immodertation could cause a fight --and would suggest that the other fellow's immoderation in running their guy in 2008 is precisely what has brought us to the edge of the abyss. If we now do tit-for-tat we might well sail off into it.
Is that what we want to do? Right now, when the winds are --or at least seem to finally at long last be --shifting our way on a tide of incrementally bringing our crazy left back under the tent of the human beings?
You mean by actively pursuing candidacies like Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin? Yeah - real effective.
No Tom, by bringing entire States back from the brink of statism, including States bootlicking Republican statism had wrecked every time they cave to the left like they did with Akin (in his case only to have him polling even again.)
The Republicans are craven cowards without half a principle between them.
Research Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and so on. By in effect forcing the weak-hand Republicans to actually change the damn delegate rules in a national convention - that on top of screwing the Liberty movement out of delegates for the last four years at least.
But the Liberty guys aren't ever giving up. They're winning. You know why, Tom? Because they're right and they know it. They, like the TEA Partiers and scores of other movements are transforming the ancient, corrupt GOP from within.
And you're missing it. Maybe you could wake up a little too, Tom. This is big. Have the brass to be big too. Join it.
Why do you assume we're all 'missing it'? I was the head coordinator for the Florida Keys Tea Party chapter in 2010. What the fuck do you want?
What do I want? I want people involved. I want them refusing to live under any tyranny, no matter the cost and no matter the Party.
In your case I want you to hear me when I call this Republican bullshit of yours out.
Then I want you to finally grow a set, step off the Republican platform, close your big mouth, and have the meat to stand "the fuck" on your principles and only your principles. Since you asked.
The principles you only allude to in passing in a comment. How about you brew up a nice headline post about what liberty really means and how it'll never ever return under either of these two parties.
Did you just imply I'm a Republican? Do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about? I have a whole section on my site full of anti-right-wing blogs. Did you not read my (75%) glowing report on Ron Paul at the beginning of yesterday's post? Did you not see my reference above to my involvement with the Tea Party? Sorry, but you're really coming across as inept here.
Ha! Doc, you're a Republican. What the hey! Next it's going to dis hippies.
A few years back I was walking down Michigan Avenue and there was a guy on the corner accusing everyone of something. He was wild eyed and shouting loudly. I avoided eye contact and walked on by. Suggest you do the same....
As I said on my political blog a few years ago, Progressive ideals but conservative values. Hard to put it any better than that. If I do say so, myself.
And I do. :)