Via the Maha Rushie today:
Here’s Paul Johnson in the Wall Street Journal: Sarah Palin “is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against. She’s got courage. That’s very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven’t got guts, if you haven’t got courage the way Margaret Thatcher had courage — and [Ronald] Reagan, come to think of it. … It’s the central virtue.” Courage is the central value of American politics. If you don’t have that the rest is irrelevant. Paul Johnson, brilliant British historian and journalist.
“Sarah Palin has more courage in her little finger than our presidential field. Same thing with Michele Bachmann. The gonads on our team happen to be wearing skirts.”
Sad, but true.
Speaking of the courage of Ronald Reagan, here he is in 1961 in the Operation Coffee Cup campaign against the Democrats’ proposed socialized medicine policy:
RUSH: Let’s listen to Reagan, 1961. This is the Operation Coffee Cup campaign against socialized medicine, as then proposed by the Democrats. This is a portion of Citizen Ronaldus Magnus from a recording distributed by the American Medical Association.
REAGAN: Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas — six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket — said, “The American people would never vote for socialism, but,” he said, “under the name of ‘liberalism,’ the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
RUSH: This is Reagan. This is 1961, fifty years ago. Fifty years ago! Another portion of what he said.
REAGAN: Let’s also look from the other side at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I’m only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms. It’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients; they’re equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has the say to him, “You can’t live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else,” and from here it’s only a short step to dictating where he will go. This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.
RUSH: Amen, and that is a superb way of looking at it: Do we have the right to take that way from anybody else, to dictate where they have to live. By the way, this was in HillaryCare. HillaryCare was going to apportion doctors geographically. Pure and simple. Here’s more: Operation Coffee Cup campaign against socialized medicine proposed by the Democrats, 1961.
REAGAN: You and I can do a great deal. We can write on our congressmen, to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms, and that at the moment the key issue is we do not want socialized medicine. Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day — as Norman Thomas said — we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.
RUSH: Fifty years ago. Five-oh, five-oh years ago. Now, many things become obvious and apparent, that is the left never goes away, they never stop. Look how patient they’ve been, 50 years they’ve been pushing for this. That health care bill’s been written, sitting in some staffer’s draw for who knows how many decades with just modifications made to reflect current times. Philosophically, they’ve had that health care bill that’s now Obamacare written for who knows how many decades. Now, how do you interpret Reagan describing this? I mean, that’s pretty tough here to talk about losing our freedoms. We’re losing our freedoms! That’s not an idly irrelevant thing to say.
It’s pretty hard hitting, but how many Republicans these days want to talk about in terms of the Obama agenda resulting in loss of liberty or freedom? Oh, no, no! I don’t know too many, how many, if any. When you constrain yourself simply to talking about policy, freedom and liberty are kind of tough to integrate as a policy. Now, how can you have an honest debate on policy when the other side simply lies about their policies all the time? It’s why it’s so important to talk about where they’re coming from and who they are, so that their real agenda — what the real policies are — can be explained and exposed.
She goes on about Palin shaking feminists by presenting a different ideal, an idea that others have noted.
And as I always note: Yes, that’s true, but liberal men were just as aghast at this performance. Sarah Palin committed two crimes that night: She spoke of Obama as if he were not, in fact, an earthbound god, but an unqualifed, shady pretender, a figure not ripe for worship but for lampooning; and therefore she threatened the chances of a liberal winning the White House.
It has to be remembered that before her speech, Obama won every poll, easily; it was no an election so much as a coronation. After that speech, at least for two weeks, McCain/Palin surged ahead of Obama/Biden; she scared the shit out of them. I still think that when they see Sarah Palin, she reminds them of those weeks of terror, the same way you’ll always be reminded of a death if you see the person responsible for it. It’s emotionally wrenching just to be reminded that for three weeks in September and October of 2008, A God Bled.
If Liberals Really Want to Improve the Political Debate, Here are Some Suggestions on Rhetoric that can be Toned Down
I have been too infuriated with the MF-ing media, the Left, the Democrat Party and Obama himself using the mass murder of people in Arizona to their political advantage to smear conservatives, that I have not been able to start writing anything on the subject without going off on an angry rant. Thankfully, Rush has been expressing on his show everything that has been going through my mind on the subject this past week. Here’s an example:
Commentators right and left — make that left and far left, actually — are telling us that toning down the political rhetoric will improve our national body politic. Let’s take that premise. If liberals really want to improve the political debate, I have some suggestions on rhetoric that can be toned down. I would first ask the media and President Obama and the Democrat Party, to tone down all this class envy rhetoric. I’d stop with all the lies about the evil rich getting richer on the backs of the poor and about the rich who pay most of the taxes in this country not paying their fair share. If I were the far left, I would stop all this talk that is pitting one economic group of people against another. I’d get rid of it. It is creating a climate of distrust and anger and resentment. I would also ask the left and the Democrats to tone down the anti-business rhetoric. Try to acknowledge for once we have the best environmental track record in the history of the world, that we have the highest living standard thanks to American innovators.
All of this talk about Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Plastic, Big Retail as being the enemies of the American people, stop it. What are you gonna do, require Target to change their brand name? How many Target stores are there with their logo and icon all over the store and their printed materials? You gonna take after them next? And along the same lines, those of you on the left, I would tone down all the anti-capitalist rhetoric. Acknowledge that free enterprise has brought more prosperity to the world than any other economic system. Tone down all the anti-doctor rhetoric. The president of the United States accuses American doctors of doing unnecessary surgeries for personal profit in the midst of the health care debate. And again, all the rhetoric against Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Oil, Big Plastic, Big Retail, big everything, Big Profit. It is the left that has an enemies list, and it is every high profile success story having to do with capitalism in America.
I would also say, those of you in the civil rights industry, how about toning down your rhetoric? What is it that gives you license to call everybody who disagrees with you on anything, from affirmative action to illegal immigration, racists? In fact, those of you on the left, you’ve gotta stop something else. Every time somebody disagrees with you, you call it hate speech. You gotta stop that. You’re creating a climate here that is unstable. You’re creating frustration and anger. Notice how the left gets a pass on all this, every time this entire topic comes up. The left, harmless little angels out there just trying to make sure all the bad guys don’t get away with it. What about Reverend Wright’s rhetoric? Obama said he could no more disown Reverend Wright for what he said than he could disown his own white grandmother. There’s some pure hate in Obama’s church that he heard for 20 years.
And then after you leftists start toning down your rhetoric, start toning down your policies that rob Americans of their freedom and their prosperity, if you do all of that, if you leftists take my advice, the political climate in this country will improve beyond measure, the happiness quotient will improve beyond measure, economic prosperity will once again become the order of the day. Happiness will spread far and wide throughout the country. But then that doesn’t help advance your agenda, does it? You need chaos. You need people feeling displaced and aimless. You need people feeling worried about the future so you can set yourselves up as the saviors and the solution. Yeah, it’s pretty offensive. Pretty offensive to listen to the architects of all that’s wrong with this country blame people who have literally nothing to do with anything they’re being accused of doing.
Offensive is an understatement. Sarah Palin was spot-on when she called it a “blood libel“.
Michelle Malkin is also spot-on to point out that we are being lectured on civility by people whose words and actions for the past decade have been the epitome of vitriolic hatred and incitement to violence and murder: The Progressive “Climate of Hate”: An Illustrated Primer, 2000-2010
The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.
They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.
Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.
And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.
They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.
The progressive climate of hate: A comprehensive illustrated primer in 8 parts:
I. PALIN HATE
II. BUSH HATE
III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection
Also see: Blame Righty: A Condensed History
Would we be still mired in a depression and headed towards a ‘double-dip’ recession? My guess is no.
However, I think most of us know from Obama’s America-hating, Marxist background that he had no intention of fixing the economy and all of what he has done to destroy the economy since taking office has been deliberate.
But it is interesting to see people now proposing ideas that Rush Limbaugh had proposed within a week of Obama taking office. Here’s Ace today at AoSHQ: Dick Morris: Make Obama Own the Double-Dip
So how could Obama have gotten the $1.2 trillion in stimulus he thought he needed?
Easy. Give the Democrats the $600 billion in stimulative spending, skip the “ornamental” pork, and give Republicans $600 billion in tax cuts. (My preference: A holiday in the payroll taxes for businesses to encourage hiring and employee retention.)
Not only would he have had his Shock and Awe stimulus, he would have gotten it with more than half of the GOP caucus voting for it, and thus would now have the useful political cover of bipartisan action (not [to] mention the unifying aspect of same — if you coopt your opponents into joining you, they have skin in the game as far as scoring a victory, too.)
But he didn’t. Because he decided he didn’t need Republican votes, and would rather have a delectable partisan victory.
And so we spent a huge amount — $1 trillion plus with interest — to no discernible effect and in fact really can’t shoot another stimulus bullet, even if our lives depended on it. (And, you know, they might.)
And this Bush’s fault?
No, this is the Miserable Failure’s fault.
Now, here is Rush back on January 29, 2009: My Bipartisan Stimulus — Let’s cut taxes, as I want, and spend more, as Obama would like.
There’s a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they’re left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.
I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don’t believe his is a “stimulus plan” at all — I don’t think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This “porkulus” bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party’s power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party’s majority power for decades.
Keynesian economists believe government spending on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects — schools, roads, bridges — is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.
Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.
Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there’s an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.
Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It’s important to remember that it’s the people’s money, not Washington’s.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, “I won. I’m going to trump you on that.”
Yes, elections have consequences. But where’s the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate — at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations — in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There’s no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There’s no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There’s no reason to insist that recovery can’t happen quickly, because it can.
In this new era of responsibility, let’s use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy — and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn’t know the difference. This is about jobs now.
The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let’s stop the acrimony. Let’s start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?
Notice that Rush Limbaugh suggested a truly bi-partisan compromise approach to helping the economy back when Obama came into office. Now, some 18 months of Obama’s failed economy-destroying and job-killing policies later, people are finally coming around to suggest things similar to what Rush suggested… last year.
And people wonder why liberals and the MF-ing media hate and smear Rush Limbaugh. They know they can’t challenge him and debate him on the merits of his ideology, because they know it makes complete sense. So, instead, they smear him as a “radical” and “controversial” and “extremist” to try to distract people from the content of what he says. They know if people actually listened to the substance of what he says and compared it to the utter lack of substance of Obama and the Democrats and the MF-ing media and the Left in general, they would realize what all we Rush listeners have known for years… Rush is Right!
Just imagine where we would be today had Obama actually taken Rush’s advice his first week in office, instead of smearing him and going on a personal jihad against him…
It is possible that a bigger push for a conservative candidate by the rightroots/Tea Partiers could have gotten someone more conservative the nod.
The trouble was no one really knew that a victory in Illinois, in The Obama Seat, was even possible. All of this has snuck up on us. Well, I think I can say “us.” I don’t think too many people were expecting the Brown win, or… this.
Mark Kirk actually ran. Can’t get too angry at him for being the only major Republican candidate to show up for the party.
Once again, we see pundits simply baffled by the reality that when people are given a real choice and alternative to liberal Democrats — even in supposedly liberal areas of the country — these people will choose the alternative. Conservatives — accused of being “purists” who “live in fantasy land” by “pragmatic moderates” — have been saying this all along. We have faith in the common sense of the people that if you stand for conservatism, explain it and defend it unapologetically, the people will choose it over liberalism most every time.
The key is that you must get out there and try. So-called “pragmatic moderates” and eeyores keep saying “oh there is no possible way that people will vote for conservatism or Republicans in this area, so it’s a waste to even bother to try”. Hogwash. That’s just cowardice and lack of principle.
This is a center-right country. Conservative policies and principles have succeeded throughout the history of this nation. All one has to do is get out there and stand for those policies and principles and you will win people over. It has happened time and time again. People who start out liberal in their mentality and ideology move to conservatism after having it explained to them and seeing the logic and correctness of it. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh has caller after caller each year telling him that they tuned into his show when they were liberals because they wanted to “find out what the enemy/other side was saying”, only to end up agreeing with what he was saying and becoming conservatives themselves.
“The trouble” is not that “no one really knew that a victory in Illinois was possible”, the trouble is that there are eeyores out there who refuse to even bother to try to find out. The negative, “it’ll never happen, so don’t bother trying” attitude of these so-called “pragmatic” Republicans is what is holding back conservatism.
You don’t convince people that your principles and ideals and policies are correct by not bothering to sell and explain them to people. You convince them by first having faith in the people to understand them and then proceeding to explain and express them.
The so-called “pragmatic” Republicans who refuse to stand for conservatism all across the country are simply practicing the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. This is a liberal mentality. Sad to see that Republican pundits have this attitude as well.
Amen to this:
Hey, he was the most conservative likely candidate the citizens of Illinois would elect.
I don’t buy this line of reasoning, at all. Conservatism, if articulated properly and accurately, is a winner anywhere anyplace with people who work and pay taxes.
We need to get out this silly mindset of ‘electability’.
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 12:58 PM
Exactly. These same “pragmatic” Republicans focus on “electability” simply to get the GOP in the majority, and then turn around and whine when the GOP majority is a majority of RINOs who govern as liberals. What the hell is the point to winning an election if the people who win are liberals?
We saw that during the Bush 43 years, when the GOP controlled Congress from 2003-2006. Sure the GOP had the majority, but they were not fiscal conservatives. Then, the Left puts out the meme that “GOP=conservatism=fail” and then earn HUGE victories in 2006 and 2008 based on that.
So guess what… the “electability” strategy is a failed strategy.
Ronald Reagan is admired and revered to this day, because he unapologetically stood for conservatism, explained it and defended it and didn’t resort to compromising his principles for political expedience. He won two HUGE landslide victories using this strategy. Yet, “pragmatic” Republicans continue to say that strategy is a loser and “electability” and compromising principles for the sake of winning an election is the way to go. Brilliant.
I do not get this at all:
Now — IF, as is possible, the Democratic Parties in these states contain lots of Reagan Democrats willing to be called into the conservative fold…
…and if such Democrats break the tradition of just voting Democrat even if it’s a liberal they don’t like…
…and if they become more persuadable by more conservative and more Republican candidates, then things change, and we can start pushing true-blue conservatives.
You can go a lot further with the wind at your back than in your face. Yes, the winds just changed, and that’s awesome, but they just changed, like a month or two ago.
You know, for years, we have said of the differences between the poles, “Conservatives look for converts, liberals look for heretics.”
I am dismayed that it seems we are joining liberals’ in their counterproductive heretic-hunting.
We need converts. If we were a LOSER PARTY, frankly, we might as well be as ideologically pure as possible, because we’re going to lose anyway, so we might as well do so with integrity.
We are not going to be losing. We have to get into the winner’s mindset here and stop trying to construct a rump party that only exists to propagate a message and nothing else.
Posted by: ace at February 04, 2010 01:08 PM
Um, the “winner’s mindset” is that you stand strong on your winning principles no matter if the wind is in your face or at your back.
And someone explain to me how you win converts to conservatism by running liberal Republicans. Unless, as I suspect, “ace” doesn’t care about winning converts to conservatism, but simply wants to win converts to the Republican Party. That right there exposes him as a “squishy moderate” who doesn’t stand for conservatism, but simply Republicanism… which is basically anti-Democratism (“anyone but Democrats”). Which is a loser’s mentality.
He doesn’t have faith in conservative principles and ideals at all, he doesn’t have faith in the American people to understand those principles, so he decides to just play the same games as the liberals and Democrats and use strategies like “electability” and sacrificing conservative polices X, Y and Z in order to trick the electorate to vote for a Republican, thinking s/he is a conservative, only to find out that once they get into office, they aren’t conservative at all. But, hey, we won and have a Republican majority!
Big deal. We have a liberal Republican majority who simply will govern and legislate not as conservatives, but simply less liberal than Democrats.
Meanwhile, after they fail in their less liberal than Democrats governing, we are right back to the Democrats pointing out the GOP’s failures and getting back into power again.
The problem is that these “pragmatic” Republicans are more concerned with superficial “victories” instead of long-term success.
Balls: A lot of “better candidates” were not candidates at all because they were too afraid to run, thinking this was Obama’s year.
Well, Kirk ran. (Hughes ran too, but had never run for anything before, nor even voted much, and was pretty much a protest candidate.)
So — you know what all of your preferred candidates were lacking?
Ambition and drive and belief and even a little courage.
Kirk had those. The imaginary “better candidates” didn’t.
No one can win without those.
Woody Allen said 80% of success was just showing up. Kirk showed up. Other “better candidates” didn’t. I’m sort of not understanding why were are talking about gutless candidates who didn’t even bother to stand for election.
So let me get this straight…
First you “pragmatic” Republicans say “there’s no point to even trying to win this seat, it’s not possible, so don’t bother”. So people listen to your “pragmatic” advice and don’t run. But now you turn around and call those people cowards for not having the balls to run in a race you said was un-winnable.
Guess what, genius. If there were less “pragmatic” Republicans like yourself doom-saying and being ‘eeyorish’ and telling people to not even bother trying, because you’re never going to succeed, then we’d have a lot more opportunities to get conservatives we want to campaign and win office. You go around calling conservatives “purists” who “live in fantasy land” when we say we want to campaign conservatives in liberal States, then turn around and say if we don’t campaign conservatives in liberal States, we’re cowards who lack balls. Nice having it both ways there, jackass.
I find it ironic that a pessimistic “pragmatic” who goes around telling people “it’s never going to happen, so don’t bother trying” is lecturing others about not having any balls.
Effing A-men to this:
Politics is the art of the possible.
Politics is the art of marketing. Politics is the art of advertising.
Marketing and advertising are about telling your idiot customers what they should want (i.e., your product). It’s about pushing their emotional buttons so hard and so often that they feel absolutely COMPELLED to forgo paying the rent just to buy what you’re selling.
Marketing is not about passively listening to customers, and letting them tell you what to sell to them. It’s just not. It’s about manufacturing consumer demand for your product.
But no one in politics knows anything worth a shit about marketing or advertising. They think that TV spot with the wolf-with-the-red eyes crap is a state-of-the-art ad. It’s not. It’s a fucking joke.
If you want genuine, conservative, pro-market, anti-socialist change in government, conservatives need to learn how to be better marketers. The Left is better at marketing than the Right. They have been for a long time. They own the media, and the media knows marketing. The fact that the Dems are losing so badly right now is 20% attributable to improved Republican marketing, and 80% attributable to Democrat stupidity. Their recent losses are a testament to their utter corruption and avarice. Only they are dumb enough to fuck up a super-majority/White House combo. It’s like the Star Wars prequels — astronomical success should have been a lay-up, a gimmie, but they somehow found a way to turn it into shit. Republicans shouldn’t praise themselves too much for Democrat self-defeat.
The Republicans could blast out a super-majority of their own, with a fire-breathing, rock-ribbed, free-market, small-government agenda, if they knew how to market it properly. The right kind of clear marketing message, properly delivered (by them, not by sideline pundits) would CREATE the demand among voters for the conservative message.
The Republicans don’t need to be passive followers of voter opinion. When passivity is your marketing strategy, then the Dems end up controlling the message, and the Republicans end up selling a watered-down, milquetoast version of the Democrat message, which no one wants. (See, e.g., McCain, John.)
Posted by: Phinn at February 04, 2010 02:12 PM
And the hits just keep on comin’…
I didn’t mention that, because I knew the rightroots (internet right) was on the side of Hughes and I didn’t want to be seen as thwarting the Tea Party Movement and supporting a dreaded RINO.
I just shut up, so as not to hurt Hughes’ chances. But I kinda knew, based on reader input, that not only would Kirk win, he should win, because even if a miracle happened and Hughes won the primary, he wasn’t a strong enough candidate to even come close in the general.
Really? The same people who were sure there was no possible way that a Republican could win a Senate seat in Illinois (or Massachusetts) are now certain that Hughes could not possibly “even come close in the general”. The same people who said the GOP was dead last year and were going to be in the wilderness for years. The same people who last year would have said not to even bother trying for the Senate seats in Massachusetts or Illinois now are political geniuses based on hindsight. Brilliant.
Oh, and the same guy who goes around telling other people they are cowards with no balls comes out and admits that he shut up and didn’t campaign for Kirk, because he was afraid of criticism from Hughes supporters. What bravery.
That’s as childish as a college football fan who goes around and gets in everyone’s face about how awesome he is for supporting his team and how idiotic the supporters of the other team were/are… after his team wins.
In other words, it’s just like voting “present” and not taking a side, then waiting for the results to either take credit for a victory or curse the other side for a loss. Right-of-center pundits emulating the cowardice and condescension of Obama. Brilliant.
Ah, you knew it was coming:
I feel compelled to point out that there wasn’t really much of a primary because the conservatives got in too late because no one thought it was worth the expense (yes, I see the obvious counter there). Posted by: Methos
As in, “Whose fucking fault is it that the conservatives were late for the primary?” That kind of thing?
Posted by: Iskandar at February 04, 2010 03:11 PM
Well, smartass, it was partly your “fucking fault” — and that of those “pragmatic” Republican pundits like “ace” — who last year were going around saying conservatives will “NEVER EVER” win in liberal areas and you shouldn’t bother even trying and if you think you can, you’re living in “fantasy land”. I’m sure that kind of brilliant, winning attitude had nothing to do with it, right? Idiot.