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
Wednesday, November 23. 2011
There's nothing quite like being chewed out by the boss to act as a motivational factor. For those of you who saw my morning post, I pretty-much kissed off any further debate posts because of the lack of responses the recent posts have been getting. Worse, of the five comments left in my last debate wrap-up, all five were deprecating and derogatory of the candidates, that same ol' whiny "Can't we have somebody ELSE?" attitude I see in the comments over at Hot Air and PJ Media. As I said to Bird Dog in email, I can abide 0 comments, but I can't abide -5.
Anyways, after a couple of verbal lashings from the boss and some emails drifting in from (now-former) friends calling me 'Dr. Bitchy' and 'jma' (a real long-time Farmer) piping up in the comments to another post, I figure I'm cursed with the job. Blogging isn't an easy life, let me tell you.
Maybe it's just a simple matter of imposing a new comments rule:
Happy thoughts only.
In the previous two debates, not a barb or bomb was hurled. As I noted at the time, the candidates were all in complete agreement that Social Security needed a major overhaul and abortion-on-demand wasn't the way to go, and they only differed on exactly how they'd approach the problem.
But when it comes to things like national security, with such gems as a nuclear-armed, Islamic-driven nation like Pakistan on the table, the rules change. The question now isn't 'how to fix the problem', but where does the problem exist?
Do we threaten to cut off aid to them? Do we offer them even more money? Do we handle them with kid gloves? Do we talk tough to them, threatening them with sanctions? Do we seek their permission for every drone we lob at some bad guy or do we just tell them hey, if you aren't going to handle it, then we will, and lob away to our heart's content? Is there a 'problem' with Pakistan at all, and, if so, is it with the government or the fundamentalists?
So, while no bombs were hurled, there was a lot of electrically-charged "I highly disagree with..." going on as each chose to stake out their claim. I'm not sure two candidates agreed completely with one another the entire evening, in vast contrast to the amity they've shared in the last two debates. It wasn't quite cantankerous, but heading that direction quickly.
I'd also note that we had a debate on national security just a few weeks ago and there was nowhere near the distance between the candidates as was displayed last night. Credit the good folk at CNN and famed game show host Wolf "Blitz" Blitzer for coming up with just the right questions to create the most division and animosity between them. As they say, professionalism always shows.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
TWENTY UP TWINKLES!!! (that's counting toes you understand)
I agree with you actually (thinking happy thoughts), but I would disagree on one thing - the whole immigration issue that Newt brought up with respect to being "amnesty" (if you're here for twenty five years, have respected our laws, good "citizen" and such, then you're part of the club) seems kind of counter intuitive - if you are here illegally then you aren't a law abiding non-doucumented citizen. That might have been a "Perry" moment for Newt (the heartless thing) - I think Bachmann took him to task for that - can't remember.
Anyway, happy thoughts - tra la la - zippidy do - up twinkles to everybody. :>)
Tom - It's funny. For years I've been hearing people refer to you as "Ol' Twinkle Toes", but I just never knew why until now.
Well.... 25 years? A third of a lifetime? I'd be asking any critics of that, "Where do you draw the line? 50 years? 75? 200?" At some point it just gets absurd. If Newt had said "5 years", it might, indeed, be a watershed moment, but a quarter of a century? I don't see that as gaining much traction.
Happy thoughtsfully yours,
Just as you don’t have time for a big write-up, remember we out in comment land might have extra holiday duties that leave little time to point out the flaws in your analysis. ;-)
I’ve only seen the first fifteen minutes. Man, is that Blitz guy annoying. Why does he have interject his comment after a question and before the real response?
For the several candidates who endorsed PATRIOT, I wonder if they see the big picture. The law is seldom used to prosecute terror threats. In practice it is used to harass the unlicensed pharmaceutical industry.
More to come…
Fox - If I ever start doing any of that 'analysis' stuff, please stop me immediately. These are supposed to be 'impressions' as seen through the eyes of the ardent popcorn-munching fan.
As for the Patriot Act, none of them answered exactly as I hoped they would. Cain came the closest, as I recall. On the face of it, the Patriot Act is a runaway behemoth that, much like the Commerce Clause, gives WAY too much power to key figures. It should be gutted, keeping the core parts for which it was originally designed, inter-agency communication. If the 'core' had already been in place, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened. They had all the info they needed, but it just didn't get shared and no conclusions were drawn or action taken.
At least, that's my impression. :)
Ditto with up twinkles.
Honestly, rather be hunting than thinking about politics right now. One can only take so much of the soap opera it is, and I am probably representative.
But I do enjoy your posts. I'd never watch these things myself, and suspect they matter little in the end. You do the dirty work for me!
"You do the dirty work for me!"
What greater honor can I ask for!
I accept that many responses are whiny but that is in fact how we feel. Imagine a great disaster where you and your fellow 300 million countrymen are facing a horrible future and you search for one person in the 300 million who will lead us all to safety. About 2/5ths of the population are dedicated to following those who have intentionally caused this disaster and intend to use it to become 3/5ths and control everyone else. So you look towards that 2/5ths of the country who espouse what you believe in, i.e. following the constitution, smaller government and spending within our means. And who do they offer us as potential leaders?? Seriously! Are their no better conservative leaders out there? This batch of potential presidential contenders either want to be "Obama light" or simply slow the rate at which we crash and burn. Should we simply accept the inevitable and bite our tounge and vote for a candidate who won't even meet us halfway?? Some of us truely believe we are in the "end times" of our great country. Obama and the Democrats have either through stupidity/incompetence or intent pushed us into bankruptcy and divided our country into the productive who must be punished and the lazy who must be rewarded. A wishy washy Rino isn't going to fix this and all we will get is more of the same with someone different to blame. Obamacare was intended as a poison pill one that we cannot get rid of but will destroy us. Will any of these Rinos get rid of Obama care?? I'm not asking what they have said when they want your vote I'm asking for a common sense answer based on what we have seen our politicians do to us in the past. Obama care will destroy our excellent health care system and further destroy our budget. But I have zero faith that any presidential candidate will reverse it. Instead what they will do is begin on day one running for election four years off. And we should be happy to vote for them?? Frankly I would rather vote for Obama and give him back the House and let them finish their agenda so that the 3/5ths of the population now asleep finally wakes up. Which is better? Four more years of Obama and his destructive policies that "might" just wake us up or four years of some Rino that will more or less do most of the same things and doom the Republican party in future elections???
You made some very good points and asked some excellent questions. This one:
"Frankly I would rather vote for Obama and give him back the House and let them finish their agenda so that the 3/5ths of the population now asleep finally wakes up."
was asked by Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) in the run-up to the 2008 election with McCain at the wheel, and while he promptly got soundly thumped for it by the right-wing bloggers, it does make something of a point. And, as it turns out, he was right, in that Obama's election eventually galvanized the Tea Party and others and the first result was the 2010 election.
As far as the current crop of candidates go, I'm not sure we could get any more Tea Party-ish than Bachmann. What's your beef against her?
"Frankly I would rather vote for Obama and give him back the House and let them finish their agenda so that the 3/5ths of the population now asleep finally wakes up."
That doesn't work. It is my observation that the progressives have been pushing us closer to the type of world they want all my life. Sometimes they are blocked for a time from moving their agenda but they never lose ground. How can they, they own the media. We gave them the schools.
One permanent result of Obamas first term is two, young, hard-core leftists on the Supreme Court who will be on the court for a very long time. Another term, ONE more Obama appointment and its game over. There will be no stopping judicial overreach, making law from the bench.
All this election is shaping up to be is another holding action. We impose some fiscal restraint, get some money in the treasury to pay for the next cycle of progressive over-reach and soon there is nothing left of the Republic to protect.
If Sam Adams were alive today he would be organizing and stockpiling muskets. When the 3/5ths wake up it won't be to vote, They will be asking Sam for a musket.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
- Claire Wolfe
Dr. Merc ... explain the fascination of commenters with 'twinkles', an incredibly asinine preoccupation for folks like the Occupiers who ought to know better. A simple 'yes' or 'no' would elevate the discussion off the playground, where it seems to be stuck with the whiners right now. How anyone who is watching these tantrums can have any respect for those who are indulging I do not know. The servile mainstream press is working very hard to insist how "significant" these folks are, and to compare them to the tea partiers. There is no real parallel here. Almost a million 'tea party' folks went to Washington to demonstrate, which they did, quietly and courteously like adults. Then they cleaned up after themselves, policed the area and left the Park Police almost weeping with gratitude. The Occupier brats are a total contrast. How can they expect us to listen to them when they defecate on police cars, disobey park rules, insult the home owners who live near the parks and generally make a mess?
Oh Marianne - you break my heart.
It is a joke - a goof on the OWS crowd who initiated the whole up/down twinkles thing in place of yes/no and to stop applause from happening when speeches were made. Its part of the street theater of OWS and a really stupid one.
I don't know if you've ever seen on of their rallies where they do that whole "If you want (pause) If you want" thing, but it is hysterically funny to watch them do this call and response and do the up twinkles or down twinkles thing. You'll fall off your chair watching it you'll be laughing so hard.
So it is kind of fun to parody it when given a chance.
On a serious note, the whole "mike check" and call/response thing is a good way to control a very large crowd because they can all hear what is being said because it is being repeated. That part is really scary.
"explain the fascination of commenters with 'twinkles'"
Five twinkles down for your attitude, Marianne! C'mon, it's a delightful word. Kind of reminds me of wishing upon a star, coupled with a delicious Hostess treat.
As for the Tea Party and the press, this pretty much says it all.
I hearby endorse the chart (in the link).
re the reader comments debate on the Merc debate comments re the post-debate posts on the debates:
...but seriously folks, the debates themselves are comments. Comments on those comments are like faxes of faxes --how can they but fog the original?
When they add clarity, whose clarity?
It's like writing a book about how to read a book --could be a great book or a lousy book but either way who could it possibly help?
Mr. Larsen -
"When they add clarity, whose clarity?"
You are clearly one of the deep thinkers of our time. Someone whose mind makes that 'extra leap' into heretofore unknown territory, bringing back its rewards that we might all grow from it.
Now tell me why you capitalize every sentence and acronym perfectly but don't capitalize the word 'I', as you didn't four times in your morning comment.
If it's due to shyness, you needn't worry. Your secret is safe with us.
hmm, i like to think it's mechanical (i hit CTRL as often as i hit SHIFT, and when i DO hit SHIFT sometimes i don't WANT to turn the other cheek and thus must disobey), but it could be psychological, and thus related to the reason you zero'd in on the 'whose clarity?' --we'd both rather make universalist observations but are --ugh --stuck with ourselves?
Ask and you shall receive -
You owe me one.
PS, if you can read you can't use it; if you can't read you can't use it
Ahem - Point Of Order!
There is a book about how to read a book - a rather famous one in fact written by Mortimer Adler.
Just sayin'. :>)
well, okay, then it's like writing TWO books about how to read TWO books --
Just finished watching the debate via the internet time machine. Blitz' seemed to be trying to marginalize Cain by repeatedly re-asking the AEI questions and qualifying some of his own questions with, " Herman Cain. You may not know this...."
I have a clearer picture of who I think is not qualified to be president. Who can win against Obama in the general is less clear. Romney and Gingrich are politcally adept, Paul is right on alot of issues, but not viable, Santorum and Bachman have big hearts, Huntsman is pure diplomat, and Perry is out of his element.
Well summed, Randall. Perry admits he's not very good at debates, but unfortunately that doesn't help him when the debates are all people have to go on. Personally, I think he should study Will Rogers. He needs to do that wise, slow-but-sure-thinkin' good ole boy routine, sagely weighing the question and then answering in a slow, drawling fashion like he's spewing nothing but good ol', down-home common sense straight to us likewise good ol' down-home folks. By gum.
"Huntsman is pure diplomat"
Shocking, I know. :)
I liked him at first, and even had he and Mitt sharing my prestigious 'Most Presidential' award after one of the early debates, but he's starting to wear on me. After last night, I wouldn't be surprised to hear what shred of a percentage he has was cut in half. He and Santorum need to get out of this thing. Bachmann needs to stay around lest we again start hearing how chauvinistic politics are.
I might as well give my over all impression.
1 - Romney is a weasel but at least he's our weasel. The only thing I can say about Romney is that he is not William Weld who was a successful Republican governor of Massachusetts - socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.
2 - Gringrich is mystery to tell the truth. He does have statist beliefs and opinions - those are well documented. He is emblematic of the unfulfilled promises of the "Contract With America". His Speakership wasn't anything to write home about and he has personal flaws, which do not automatically disqualify him but they are there. He is an insider but lives outside normal politics. He is learned and adroit with a quick wit, but comes across as W's smarter brother.
3 - Perry. I am good friends with the CEO of a mid-cap company that produces very high tech vacuum sputtering machines. He can't stand in front of an audience and not loose his train of thought and kind of look lost and lonely - that is until he has a few belts to loosen him up and he is right on the edge of getting a buzz on. Perry reminds me a lot of him when I watch these debates. It's almost as if when he has a few of those back country Texas bourbon and water's, he's on and ready to go. Its just an impression, but I'd be willing to bet I'm right.
He is probably the one that could possibly beat Obama and as we all know, is the ultimate ABR candidate. However, one word stands in his way - Texas. That's the killer. Nobody wants a repeat of GWB.
4 - Bachmann - I think you're right here. She's gonna stick it out to the end and hope to ride it to a Cabinet position - maybe even an Intelligence slot. The woman isn't stupid by any means, she is articulate, knowledgeable on affairs of intelligence foreign and domestic, she seems to have gotten over her gaff problem and in this last debate, shown some moxie. Not a Presidential candidate though.
The rest? Get out and stop taking up valuable space - especially Ron Paul. Just like Lyndon LaRouche, he's going to keep on keeping on until he dies and I bet he will run as an independent just to be a PITA to the Republicans who dared not to nominate him.
Every time i watch Huntsman, for some reason i start going over the argument over which, the 1950s one or the remake, is the better Invasion of the Body Snatchers
There's a point to be made about Paul. If he went 3rd party, that would/could/should cost us the election. Ergo, it's in our best interests to keep him involved as long as possible, past the time when he could muster any support as an independent. Long Live Ron Paul!
(Doc grabs diary, scribbles down "Actually said something nice about Ron Paul today." 'Firsts' are always such treasured events, don't you think?
No bet on your Perry theory. Excellent insight on your part. Plus, this means from now on I can tell people, "If you want first-hand information on drunks, Tom's the guy to ask for." I'd betcha you're right.
"the ultimate ABR candidate"
Uh, Average Bronco Rider? American Board of Radiology? Auditory Brainstem Response?? Dish, baby, dish!
Say, have you met my good friends over at Hot Air? They specialize in people like you. I think the two of you would make an ideal couple. God's Critic could refer to a "non-Romney candidate" and you could let out a big 'Huzzah!' in the comments.
Then, when Romney's nominated, you can report back to us on how they're now trying to convince you to support the Republican candidate after six months of badmouthing him.
Should be quite a show.
I'll tell you - Hot Air is starting to annoy the hell out of me. I like Ed Morrissey (but he can get annoying at times too), but I'm not a big fan of God's Critic - not at all.
I'm more of an Ace of Spades guy - and I hang out at The Hostages occasionally.
And you're right - all the bad mouthing Romney is going to turn into nose holding support when (I hope not) he gets nominated. It will be grudging support though - much like McCain had and we're doomed to another four of Obama. Hopefully we'll take the Senate and keep the House which will restore some balance to things and keep the administration from wandering too far off track.
You guys must really hate the Constitution.
Perry is a Republican insider. He will say anything to placate those Americans who can't think for themselves. Remember, Perry wants to white wash the Spanish firm that is still building the Trans Texas Corridor and is still going to court to claim land under color of law for that roadway. That's the highway he keeps saying isn't being built anymore.
Perry is as tough on immigration as Newt is. Both of them are more than willing to give illegals a free pass with the rest of us paying their way.
Why are the MSN front runner candidates using Paul's talking points? Because that is what mainstream America wants. Paul pointed out that the want to be emperors weren't wearing clothes and now they are all trying to cover themselves.
The average middle class guys that I work with and talk with don't like the MSN labled front runners because they are empty men who will continue to destroy the middle class and to destroy our freedoms.
What's the rush anyway? There is still plenty of time to let the GOP sort itself out.
Thanks, Doc. Feel better now that you're back.
I agree with Tom Francis on the viable four, but would add Paul as he IS right on several issues (the Fed, MUCH smaller government, Obamacare) and it doesn't hurt to keep those issues in front of the public. Cain has initiated some excellent points (Chilean/Milton Friedman model for Social Security and totally over-hauling the tax system) that are now part of the dialogue, so these debates do serve a purpose. I'm a ABR myself, but...
Please, don't even think about another four years of Obama! I've had to tolerate his BS for 30 years in multiple areas of his "organizing" and the guy will kill this country if awarded another term.
Cheers until the next debate! Happy T-Day!
In re immigration -
The Statute of Limitations is a venerable and hoary tradition of Anglo-Saxon common law and jurisprudence.
What Gingrich was proposing, de facto if not specifically, was an SOL on the civil offense of illegal entry. We have an SOL on all matters, both civil and criminal, except murder. Why should illegal immigration be an exception to a bedrock principal?
Good show, Merc --stand out in front of folks' houses screaming 'WILL you GET your ASS out here and TALK about these CANDIDATES?' and sho nuf we do, we do.
OMG! That's RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!
(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)
Back to the important subjects, so, what you're saying is, the reason you use a small 'i' is because it's symbolic of the anarchist deep inside of you who refuses to abide by the cheap, fatuous dictums of society and instead wishes to break out into a new and more glorious future where the 'I' has been reduced to 'i' in the new socialist state where all i's are equal?
My suggestion, good friend, is DO NOT read Ayn Rand's 'Anthem'.
It would destroy you as a human being.
That Capital "I"!
The captured eye
pictures Greco-Roman column
stacking stones slaves had to haul 'em
but little 'i' is two together
simply marking here with tether
"I" weighted toppling symbol fraught
with destiny and fate and haught
'i' just a lilt of dash-dot tune
like day and night and sun and moon
e.e. cummings, he would be proud
despite the ominous dark cloud
thrown over your soul where ego doth dwell
roots of slavery, chains of hell
but then a new day dawned
where 'i' met its death
and 'I' became handsome
because you'd finally read
Ayn Rand's 'Anthem'
admitting frets & sweats so radical
they Swiftly cull the mere grammatical
yet this crazy old man in attic'll
try to read the Rand thematical
It's not a book, or novel thematical
it is, in fact, highly pragmatical
Be on your mark, ready and set
For Ayn Rand's fine novelette.
Buddy's in town
to reviews and a rave
with smooth smooth face
thanks to a shave.
Doc. you give Blitz too much credit. The questions actually were composed by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
"you may not know this" labels Blitz as an a$$hole, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Yeah, I knew where the questions came from, but I just had to work "Wolf 'Blitz' Blitzer" somewhere into the post to echo Cain's cute gaffe.
And from James Taranto's column later that day:
whom Herman Cain memorably dubbed Wolf "Blitz" Blitzer
When you see a meme in the making, you've just got to run with it. :)
--wonder if Blitz ever interviewed that Danish dude who ran the UN weapons inspections program. in Iraq right up to the Run to Baghdad. His name was Blix, Hans Blix.
Wolf n' Hans
as Blitz n' Blix
put the nix on Saddam trix
say he got no nukyular weapons
guess we'll wait & see what heapons
Of course everyone is whiney. Theres no such thing as a perfect candidate. Look how BHO turned out. Reagan wasn't well thought of in 1980. How quickley we forget. Anyone of the Repubs will be better than BHO. Or would you rather give him a second term?
I see that Mass. Sen Brown is in trouble. Not right enough. Not Tea-Party enough. So you'll see Warren get it, huh? She left enough for you, huh. Get off your asses Mass. You got a New England Republican. Wish I could vote for Brown.