This is really a great article. I'd observe on one hand, though, that it's not gonna help our reputation of being a league of dorky gentlemen. On the other hand Batman has been very good to us.
Because I'd do a hell of a lot more than that if it'd assure Newt the nomination. I would really enjoy seeing a Mondale redux this election with Newt playing the part of Mondale.
An alternative version I read once was that you see a train thundering down the track and you are standing at the switch. As currently set the train will careen into five people who have no hope of avoiding the train (indeed they're unaware of its approach). You could, if you chose, throw the switch sending the train careening down an alternative track into one individual (similarily oblivious and incapable of evading the train) instead or foul the switch and derail the train killing dozens. It is established that you are too distant to warn either of the people on the tracks nor can you halt the train. Your options are to do nothing, allowing the train to kill five people, throw the switch causing the train to kill one person or foul the switch causing the train to kill dozens.
If they've done everything on that list then Romney would probably be fine with his base. But you seem to suggest Romney would have room to govern as a moderate and it's quite beyond me where you think his base would give him that kind of slack. As I mentioned before they have sacked their own presidents before. They don't even need to mount a primary challenge, they can just be pissed and stay home or protest vote. Romney would be keenly aware of his bases options and I see no reason that a man as keenly intent on being president as he is would endanger that by governing moderately because of some sort of hidden scruples.
Well Obama has promised to veto it if it gets through the Senate. I honestly can say that if he caved on this issue I'd very very seriously consider not voting for him in the election.
Yes well your monster is both shaped like a heart and also equipped with horns and impressive tusks. Clearly a lover and a fighter and a quality monster beside, I don't blame you for wanting to retain it.
Patrick , I think you are yourself underestimating Romney's desire to be re-elected but more saliently miscalculating what he'd need to do to be re-elected. An enormous amount of re-election (or election for that matter) is base turn out and for the GOP especially turning out the base is absolutely essential. A President Romney seeking to be re-elected would be utterly bound to pay close mind to the mood of his base. Bush II, by contrast, had deep cultural loyalty from his party's base so they essentially ignored his myriad apostasies simply because he was one of them and did the gee wiz Texan party fella shtick so well. Romney would enter office with none of this leeway, his party distrusts him and the conservative stalwarts strongly dislike him. He would get no breaks from them for deviations from their ideologies and especially not any breaks from them if he’s also going back on campaign promises. Remember, if you will, that this party had one of their sitting presidents in recent history defeated on almost exactly this kind of violation: Read my lips. Romney won’t have any room to maneuver. If he wants to be elected he would flat out have to adhere to his wing nut promises to keep his base from revolting and maintain a hope o re-election and thus, tadaa, we have an invasion of Iran.
Fair enough Nob, I think that's a plenty valid interpretation but I lay a lot of that at Obama's feet for going at the very slow rate he did while he courted the GOP. Yes he defended his whole bipartican bona fides to the general public. That and a buck'll buy him a cuppa Joe; the GOP still accuses him of being partisan and the drawn out sideshow of the whole thing was a significant source of fuel for the TP.
My own impression of the HCR issue is that Obama was astonishingly miserly there. He set records for "leading from behind" there that he hasn't topped in any other avenue. Almost all of his effort went into courting Republicans (and letting them kick him in the balls repeatedly) while he left writing and pushing the damn bill entirely to Pelosi and Reid. Consider this: If Obama had not been in the equation much how different would the bill have been? I submit not very much. If Pelosi or Reid had been out of the equation, on the other hand, the whole thing would have died when Brown got elected.
For a conservative I can kindof grant that the assumptions that Romney is better on economics are semi defensible. I'm actually more boggled by the push on foreign policy myself.
My own read is that he has proven to be a remarkably conflict averse President and astonishingly miserly with his political capital. The charitable read is that he's still somehow nievely stuck on his campaign promises; the uncharitable read is he's a spineless wuss.
As for voting, well I'm a captive voter due to social reasons (I'm in a swing state too) but even if I weren't I think the GOP is off the rails at the moment and very badly needs some wilderness time to straighten themselves out. So Obama has my irritable vote.
I think your reasoning is badly flawed. Romney has zero credit with his base, no leeway, huge amounts of suspiscion and a party with a history of challenging their candidates from the right. A Romney Presidency would have to cater very closely to the desires and moods of his base if he wanted any shot at re-election. Assuming that he's blowing smoke with his hyper-neocon promises is one thing but assuming that he'd somehow reverse all of that and adhere to some kind of hidden principles after being elected strikes me as contradictory.
#2 i actually agree. I was pretty uncomfortable about the original post, thus my #3 comment.
#3 I agree but would add a caveat here that you have demolished a position that I do not believe anyone in the thread has taken. The closest has perhaps been me when I asserted that rudeness is self defeating and self destructive but certainly I would never say that a point delivered rudely is invalidated. Just that it's unlikely to be communicated effectively.
If they are BlaiseP then I'd say it could work and good on em. Also inasmuch as they don't really harm other gay organizations elsewhere or divert resources from them (I'd say currently they don't) then they're probably a good thing indeed. It's when, however, they start appealing to gay voters and saying "overlook what the GOP says and does to you and vote for ‘em anyhow" that I feel my hackles bristle. As an advocacy group from gays reaching out to the GOP I think I’m all for em. But as useful idiots reaching from the GOP out to try and bamboozle gay or gay sympathetic voters I really am wary. But hell, there’s little danger of the latter scenario for the most part (though it’s also why Log Cabiners and GOProuds are generally viewed like beaten wives by other organizations and people) so I’m willing to be an optimist and hope they do well.
On “Comment Deletion, Comment Policy, etc.”
I just want to jump in here and add that I'm crushed that I didn't make your list.
On “Anarchy, State, and Batman”
This is really a great article. I'd observe on one hand, though, that it's not gonna help our reputation of being a league of dorky gentlemen. On the other hand Batman has been very good to us.
On “Newt The Nullifier”
Because I'd do a hell of a lot more than that if it'd assure Newt the nomination. I would really enjoy seeing a Mondale redux this election with Newt playing the part of Mondale.
On “Critiquing Andrew Sullivan’s Critique of Critiques”
Well, technically, if we defined Koch Brothers as libertarians I am dubious they'd want much to do with the Tea Party.
On “On What Doesn’t Really Matter”
An alternative version I read once was that you see a train thundering down the track and you are standing at the switch. As currently set the train will careen into five people who have no hope of avoiding the train (indeed they're unaware of its approach). You could, if you chose, throw the switch sending the train careening down an alternative track into one individual (similarily oblivious and incapable of evading the train) instead or foul the switch and derail the train killing dozens. It is established that you are too distant to warn either of the people on the tracks nor can you halt the train. Your options are to do nothing, allowing the train to kill five people, throw the switch causing the train to kill one person or foul the switch causing the train to kill dozens.
On “Critiquing Andrew Sullivan’s Critique of Critiques”
If they've done everything on that list then Romney would probably be fine with his base. But you seem to suggest Romney would have room to govern as a moderate and it's quite beyond me where you think his base would give him that kind of slack. As I mentioned before they have sacked their own presidents before. They don't even need to mount a primary challenge, they can just be pissed and stay home or protest vote. Romney would be keenly aware of his bases options and I see no reason that a man as keenly intent on being president as he is would endanger that by governing moderately because of some sort of hidden scruples.
On “Why All Those Sites Are Dark Today”
Well Obama has promised to veto it if it gets through the Senate. I honestly can say that if he caved on this issue I'd very very seriously consider not voting for him in the election.
On “Critiquing Andrew Sullivan’s Critique of Critiques”
Likewise, but even as a fan I literally wince when he meeps.
"
Yes well your monster is both shaped like a heart and also equipped with horns and impressive tusks. Clearly a lover and a fighter and a quality monster beside, I don't blame you for wanting to retain it.
"
I like cliches, they're communication shorthand, and I'll even lawl at your joke.
"
Patrick , I think you are yourself underestimating Romney's desire to be re-elected but more saliently miscalculating what he'd need to do to be re-elected. An enormous amount of re-election (or election for that matter) is base turn out and for the GOP especially turning out the base is absolutely essential. A President Romney seeking to be re-elected would be utterly bound to pay close mind to the mood of his base. Bush II, by contrast, had deep cultural loyalty from his party's base so they essentially ignored his myriad apostasies simply because he was one of them and did the gee wiz Texan party fella shtick so well. Romney would enter office with none of this leeway, his party distrusts him and the conservative stalwarts strongly dislike him. He would get no breaks from them for deviations from their ideologies and especially not any breaks from them if he’s also going back on campaign promises. Remember, if you will, that this party had one of their sitting presidents in recent history defeated on almost exactly this kind of violation: Read my lips. Romney won’t have any room to maneuver. If he wants to be elected he would flat out have to adhere to his wing nut promises to keep his base from revolting and maintain a hope o re-election and thus, tadaa, we have an invasion of Iran.
"
Oh yes definitly, he was penny wise pound foolish and almost got his presidency sunk.
"
Yep, we're in agreement there.
"
Well done!
"
To most given political cliques their own comfortable bubble is "the real world" and everyone else is living in bubbles.
"
Fair enough Nob, I think that's a plenty valid interpretation but I lay a lot of that at Obama's feet for going at the very slow rate he did while he courted the GOP. Yes he defended his whole bipartican bona fides to the general public. That and a buck'll buy him a cuppa Joe; the GOP still accuses him of being partisan and the drawn out sideshow of the whole thing was a significant source of fuel for the TP.
"
My own impression of the HCR issue is that Obama was astonishingly miserly there. He set records for "leading from behind" there that he hasn't topped in any other avenue. Almost all of his effort went into courting Republicans (and letting them kick him in the balls repeatedly) while he left writing and pushing the damn bill entirely to Pelosi and Reid. Consider this: If Obama had not been in the equation much how different would the bill have been? I submit not very much. If Pelosi or Reid had been out of the equation, on the other hand, the whole thing would have died when Brown got elected.
"
For a conservative I can kindof grant that the assumptions that Romney is better on economics are semi defensible. I'm actually more boggled by the push on foreign policy myself.
"
My own read is that he has proven to be a remarkably conflict averse President and astonishingly miserly with his political capital. The charitable read is that he's still somehow nievely stuck on his campaign promises; the uncharitable read is he's a spineless wuss.
As for voting, well I'm a captive voter due to social reasons (I'm in a swing state too) but even if I weren't I think the GOP is off the rails at the moment and very badly needs some wilderness time to straighten themselves out. So Obama has my irritable vote.
"
I think your reasoning is badly flawed. Romney has zero credit with his base, no leeway, huge amounts of suspiscion and a party with a history of challenging their candidates from the right. A Romney Presidency would have to cater very closely to the desires and moods of his base if he wanted any shot at re-election. Assuming that he's blowing smoke with his hyper-neocon promises is one thing but assuming that he'd somehow reverse all of that and adhere to some kind of hidden principles after being elected strikes me as contradictory.
On “Stillwater’s Challenge”
Also even dictators die. Who takes over after Mr. Benevolent? What assures that the next dictator is also benevolent or that the transition is smooth?
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
Hmm #1 is fine, no arguement.
#2 i actually agree. I was pretty uncomfortable about the original post, thus my #3 comment.
#3 I agree but would add a caveat here that you have demolished a position that I do not believe anyone in the thread has taken. The closest has perhaps been me when I asserted that rudeness is self defeating and self destructive but certainly I would never say that a point delivered rudely is invalidated. Just that it's unlikely to be communicated effectively.
#4&5 is fine. No worries there.
Good job.
"
+2 to what Chris said.
On “Crocodile Tears for Gay Conservatives”
If they are BlaiseP then I'd say it could work and good on em. Also inasmuch as they don't really harm other gay organizations elsewhere or divert resources from them (I'd say currently they don't) then they're probably a good thing indeed. It's when, however, they start appealing to gay voters and saying "overlook what the GOP says and does to you and vote for ‘em anyhow" that I feel my hackles bristle. As an advocacy group from gays reaching out to the GOP I think I’m all for em. But as useful idiots reaching from the GOP out to try and bamboozle gay or gay sympathetic voters I really am wary. But hell, there’s little danger of the latter scenario for the most part (though it’s also why Log Cabiners and GOProuds are generally viewed like beaten wives by other organizations and people) so I’m willing to be an optimist and hope they do well.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
That's a laudible purpose to have in comments and I applaud you for it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.