August 28th, 2015

Another stroll down memory lane

From an October 2012 post of mine:

One thing I believe is that, if Romney loses this election, the right will start tearing itself apart in anger. That’s another thing the left banks on, and—if indeed some of the polls are being rigged to favor Obama at present—it would also be one of the goals of such deception: to demoralize the right and cause the usual circular firing squad to begin. I already see some evidence of it in articles and comments from the right that accuse Romney of not wanting to win, of not going on the attack enough (as though that would elude the negative media spin), of not doing whatever it might be that the brilliant armchair strategists would be doing if they were running for president, an election they of course would win by dint of their brilliant strategy. If Romney loses, the RINO theme will rise again undiminished, and the hatred of the “Republican establishment.”

My opinion of what’s going on is quite different: if the American people re-elect Obama despite his failures, lies, betrayals, immaturity, gaffes, arrogance, destructive foreign policy, demonstrated leftism, small-mindedness, lack of leadership, executive power-grabs, fiscal irresponsibility, and a host of other negatives I may have forgotten to list but which have been operating for the last four years, then it will prove that the American people have fundamentally changed in the direction they want this country to take, and it will require some major upheaval to reverse that trend. We can’t wait around for the perfect candidate; a good-enough candidate like Romney should be good-enough to beat Obama, and if that’s not possible it says more about the country than the candidate.

Sigh.

The other day I also came across this post from January, 2012, a year prior to the start of Obama’s second term. I’ve shortened it a bit, but this is essentially what was published back then.

I start with a mention of a quote from commenter “foxmarks,” who wrote:

“Barry’s [Obama’s] rhetoric is a -100, but as the Progs fairly argue, he has governed as a moderate Republican. His laziness has led me to no longer fear a 2nd term. Obamacare will either lead to my desired systemic correction or be overturned by the Supremes. I have zero faith that Congress will repeal and replace with anything that honors individual liberty and market-based pricing. I don’t want mere repeal, I want a catastrophic defeat at the hands of economic reality or legal principle.”

Here’s my response to “foxmarks” in that January 2012 post on the question of whether Obama would govern as a moderate in his second term, and on whether there was reason to fear:

Obama is a politician, and although he’s no genius he’s a smart man, smart enough to have been at least somewhat strategic in his decisions during his first term. Unless you think he really is a moderate Republican in his secret heart, there is no reason to suppose he will govern moderately in his second term, when he will no longer have any need to appeal to independents in order to be re-elected.

It is logical to assume that he will see his second term as an opportunity—perhaps his last—to accomplish what he could not in his first. That can be done not only by legislative means but by executive fiat. His power to veto the legislation passed by a most-likely-Republican Congress that will almost certainly not have the numbers to override him will remain intact, and he will exercise it. He will be setting foreign policy and appointing Cabinet members and czars, and they will be setting domestic policy as well.

And, of course, he will most likely be appointing one or several liberal Supreme Court justices, who will remain in office for life.

It makes no sense to assume that Obama will be too lazy to exercise these prerogatives in a second term when the opportunity presents itself. I have little doubt that he still adheres to a left-wing ideology, and has merely been thwarted in achieving most of what he desired in his first term (although Obamacare was a fine start). A second term will present a golden opportunity.

So far there have been no new SCOTUS justices in Obama’s second term, although it may be that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign before he’s through if she thinks a Republican has a good chance of winning in 2016. As for the rest—well, unfortunately, it has turned out that way, hasn’t it?

Double sigh.

39 Responses to “Another stroll down memory lane”

  1. George Pal Says:

    ”If Romney loses, the RINO theme will rise again undiminished, and the hatred of the “Republican establishment… (list of sundry Obama malfeasance and malevonvce)… then it will prove that the American people have fundamentally changed in the direction they want this country to take”

    True enough, but the direction of the people’s proclivities are, as most everything at the moment, fluid.

    What was it that moved the electorate from eight years of G Dubya Bush to eight years of B Hussein Obama? I believe it more likely that President BHO was NOT the result of a sea change in the proclivities of the electorate. Nor do I believe anyone can hang Obama on Romney and RINOism. Tsunami, as metaphor, may be all there is behind Obama’s victories. Political plate tectonics, currents, temperature, may have all come together to create the perfect storm. Will it happen for Hillary. No. I’m not predicting she will lose – “play ball” still echoes in the ball park and there’s a game still to be played, but the Hillary moment and the Obama moment are nothing alike. And the electorate is not so primed as it was then; it is back to fickle and will not be so beguiled by another first.

  2. AesopFan Says:

    Excellent.
    Wish more pundits would listen to you.
    The GOP voters didn’t want a decent, intelligent, competent man as president (ignoring for the moment the Democrats’ fraud and collusion in putting Obama over the top), and we are reaping the results of that insanity.

  3. miklos000rosza Says:

    When going back to look at the outcome with Romney we shouldn’t forget the enormous dislike of Mormons which is out there. This factor seems to be downplayed of late.

  4. miklos000rosza Says:

    Meanwhile with Trump getting all the attention I’m following things less and less closely. I was for Scott Walker and will try to be patient await Iowa’s result, which often reflects the “groundgame” more than polls. If we end up with Trump as the nominee I shall tune out.

  5. Cornhead Says:

    If RBG resigns and the GOP doesn’t block the nomination, the base will go nuts.

    But Ruthie won’t step down. Too vain.

  6. George Pal Says:

    What’s one to make of all the fear and loathing of Donald Trump by GOP/Cons? So far as I can make any sense of it, it broils down, it seems, to be being burned that a Republican “establishment” candidate will be denied an opportunity to carry on the establishmentarian agenda. And more’s the vexation in that – it is claimed – the GOP had never had such a bountiful cornucopia of anti-establishment establishmentarians contending for the Republican Party’s disestablishmentarian candidate for the 2016 national election.

    An aside on establishmentarianism: At the core of our political parties are – lets call them, money-men, or one-percenters, or Masters of the Universe. They are the establishment. Had this establishment a motto it would be “business as usual”; had they a mission statement it might be “We must prosper that America might prosper”. Establishmentarians are not Party men – they are establishment men. They have no stake in either Party for they care nothing of Party differences. The Establishment is not represented by Party but by establishment candidates of the parties. Presently heading that list would be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

    Now, as far as the profusion of wonderful GOP candidates of which we had never before been so blessed, a bit of assessment at the edges reveals they’re not all that marvelous, at least not so much more as to distinguish themselves greatly from Trump. Remove from the cornucopia the non-entities, remove, by all means, the repugnant Mr Bush, and what have you?

    Ms Fiorina believes there was a golden age of Islam. You know the one. It’s in all the World History books. It’s been written about by numerous travellers in their accounts of the Mahometopia they’d encountered in their travels to the Mid East. Carly is not just obtuse, she is dense – lead dense.

    Scott Walker, whom I’d admired for his taking the fight to the Democrats, just recently was caught talking through both sides of his mouth, Spliced together it doesn’t inspire confidence or trust. One of the commenters here at NEO-NECON just a last week commented that the alien invasion issue was one of existential magnitude. He was right (and my apologies for forgetting his name). Mr Walker apparently thinks not, or does, or does but then not. I expect if you wish to know what Mr Walker thinks about illegal immigration and anchor babies on Monday, you had better ask him Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

    Marco Rubio! Perhaps the only difference between Marco and Jeb is the oligarchic (or is it plutocratic, or is it an amalgam of the two?) nature of the latter. Marco is a self-promoter who would sooner jump on a bandwagon than defend anything that would slow his rise. He is warm and yeasty… but so is candida.
    Marco Rubio is to ‘self-promoting political hack’ as Obama is to ‘loathsome’.

    That leaves Cruz. One – so far… maybe…wait and see…

    The wait over already?

    And then there were none (disestablishmentarian Republicans). Oh, wait! Cue the trump… errr Trump.

  7. snopercod Says:

    I used to be demoralized. Now I’m just amused.

  8. miklos000rosza Says:

    If Ted Cruz survives that also would be fine. I just see Trump as Arnold Schwarzenegger II and if anything good comes of that, swell.

  9. Ann Says:

    I think a big difference between voting for Obama in 2008 and Hillary in 2016 will be that whereas in 2008 a lot of the vote was for Obama, in 2016 folks will be voting almost solely against Republicans. And this whole Trump thing is preparing the groundwork for that beautifully.

  10. blert Says:

    neo…

    Ginsburg has to realize that if it’s obvious that the GOP is on a roll, the Senate will be locked in a filibuster over ANY 0bama nominee.

    She also has to fear that 0bama will screw up and end up slotting someone even further to the right than she is.

    That’s a bigger prospect than you might imagine — as she’s about as Left as it gets on that bench. She has every reason to fear that 0bama can’t REPLACE HER PEN.

    Beyond that, Ginsburg may not be in ill health.

    From where I sit, she looks good for another ten-years.

    The Court is already balanced to the Left — and even the Republicans in the wings — are very likely to appoint Liberals — like Roberts — ANYWAY ( Donald, Jeb )

    %%%\

    Have you noticed how Jeb is using his GOPe contacts to freeze Fiorina out?

    Carly is already TROUNCING Jeb in New Hampshire — and bleeding him in Iowa.

    Jeb may not last through December. Outside of Florida his rep is lousy.

  11. Oldflyer Says:

    George Pal, I for one fear, but don’t loath, Donald Trump because I think he would be a disaster for the country. Although I don’t loath him, I do dislike him rather intensely because I think he, and his gargantuan ego, may turn this election into a fiasco like Perot did. Thanks to the media he is already sucking the O2 away from worthy candidates, even though he is only polling in the 20s.

    Only the Democrats will benefit.

    Trump shouts about problems that reasonable politicians have been talking about for some time. His ego leads him to believe that he has discovered them; and too many people seem to believe him. He throws out “shoot from the hip” solutions that appeal to people who are only interested in easy answers to complex problems.

    I fervently hope that Trump’s attention span will fade, and that he will tire of the hard work of actually campaigning, and/or the fad will run its course with the media and public in time for the serious Republican candidates to have real debates, and conduct real campaigns.

    I am baffled if thinking people are actually gravitating to Trump as the answer when there are so many quality candidates from which to choose.

  12. Tonawanda Says:

    1) Watching Trump kick out the hectoring leftist was extremely pleasurable, have to admit.

    2) Watching Jeb! diminish in the polls is extremely pleasurable.

    3) Reading this Breitbart article which meticulously and critically analyzed Megan Kelly’s recent performances was oddly extremely pleasurable. I held Kelly in very high esteem. Now I don’t. The article actually made me cheer for the Trump side of things (though the article concerns more than Trump).
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/11/the-arrogance-of-power-megyn-kellys-good-journalism/

    4) It is extremely pleasurable that BO has been denied a SCOTUS appointment in his second term, and it may very well stay that way.

    4a) There is an extremely pleasurable not inconsiderable chance that the next president will nominate a Miguel Estrada level person to replace Ginsburg.

    5) It is extremely pleasurable to watch Hillary! being widely regarded for the vile creature she is, and personally I cannot get enough sexy Huma photos on Drudge.

    6) It is extremely pleasurable to see how Mark Steyn is kicking Mann’s posterior all over the place.

    7) It is extremely pleasurable to read all the stuff from Fernandez and Greenfield, Ace and American Digest, and others who are exactly the sort of high information stuff we need, the slow and steady stuff, done with wit and erudition, and unmatched by the left.

    8) It is extremely pleasurable to have Cruz invite Trump to the Iran protest thing, and the Iran protest thing is very pleasurable.

    9) I need to get my lottery ticket numbers from neo, who has that maddeningly enviable knack of accurate prediction.

  13. George Pal Says:

    Oldflyer,

    Re:
    “Trump shouts about problems that reasonable politicians have been talking about for some time.”

    Reasonable politicians have been talking for some time about the nation’s problems and in the meantime, the deficit bloats every second every year, the alien invasion continues apace, and Islam infiltrates deeper into the chambers of government every day. Perhaps Trump shouts to distinguish himself from reasonable politicians talking reasonably who had not accomplished anything.

  14. junior Says:

    The difference between Trump and others is that the media can’t shut Trump out. Someone like Fiorina talks about her plans to deal with illegal immigration, and the media classifies it as a “local story”.

    They can’t do that to Trump.

    As for Obama getting a second term Supreme Court pick – barring a sudden and unexpected death or disability, it’s not going to happen. Even Republican inevitability won’t do the trick. If Obama were to nominate someone in the second half of next year, then the Republicans would be able to tie the nomination up in the Judiciary commitee and full Senate hearings until after Obama’s replacement is sworn in… at which point a Republican would withdraw the nomination.

  15. Ann Says:

    George Pal:

    Just how would a President Trump magically fix all those problems — by executive diktat?

  16. blert Says:

    Ann…

    To a shocking degree the ‘problems’ are SOLELY one of presidential degeneracy // neglect.

    Just bringing reality back to the statutes would be quite stunning.

    Neither GWB, Bill Clinton, GHWB, nor ever Reagan ever even S L O W E D the alien INVASION.

    Yet the laws are already on the books. The dominant reason why they are not enforced is due to the shaming by the Leftist media…. like that dingbat from Mexico City.

    The Mexican government// elites// press haven’t a leg to stand on and absolute do NOT tolerate ANY influx into their nation — least of all Anglos.

    It’s straight to prison for Anglos.

  17. George Pal Says:

    Ann Says:

    Just how would a President Trump magically fix all those problems — by executive diktat?

    Ann,

    I don’t know that he would. I do know that recognizing an existential problem as such is the first step to, if not fixing the problem, attempting to. How would you assess the chances of any of the other GOP/Cons in the field fixing or even ameliorating those problems when they cannot even assess the problems in any but mealy mouthed platitudes.

    I believe
    1. The hostility of the GOP Party, most all of its members, candidates, consultants, and bundlers.
    2. The acrimony of the proponents of amnesty.
    3. The animus of liberals
    4. The vitriol of the Democratic Party
    4. The animosity of the MSM

    is about as sterling a recommendation for anyone on the Right as can be had. The greatest vitriol is always reserved for the greatest threat. All the denunciations of Mr Trump are not because he is beyond the pale, but because he is within feasibility.

    Finally, Mr Trump’s presence in the arena may make possible a renascence of the Right, a dissident Right, and a nationalism very much in short supply in this country. I’m not here suggesting a Gott und Blut nationalism but a new nationalism that responds to the new world order unequivocally. A nationalism that evokes pride in the country, pride in its heritage, pride in its past, pride in its invention, and pride in all that western civilization had made possible and the freedoms it had first engendered, then nurtured, and then had come to the defense of – repeatedly.

    If Mr Trump is not the one to do that directly he may very well be the essential catalyst for it being obliquely.

  18. George Pal Says:

    being done obliquely

  19. Oldflyer Says:

    Of course the media can shut Trump down.
    Right now they do not choose to; and that is for various reasons. Trump fills air time with controversy; a media bonanza. Trump has the potential to throw the Republican nomination into disarray; a Liberal media double dip bonanza.

    Just wait and see what happens if Trump actually should win the nomination. Or even if having poisoned the GOP well sufficiently, he turns the full force of his venom on whoever is the favored Democrat candidate. Watch the jackals turn on him then.

  20. parker Says:

    Trump reminds me of a carnival barker. He has latched onto the anger and frustration over the border crash and decades of the refusal of the feds, under dem & rino regimes alike, to enforce laws already on the books. Its all a sham, the donald does not give a sh$t about the border crash. Its merely his ticket to ride. Besides, who cleans the rooms at his hotels, sweeps the floors at his casinos, and clean the toilets and takes out the garbage at the donald tower?

    Trump is as far from being a conservative as my shadow on a sunny afternoon is from the dark side of the moon. The donald is on a mission, that mission is to throw 2016 to the dems.

  21. Eric Says:

    George Pal:
    “Finally, Mr Trump’s presence in the arena may make possible a renascence of the Right, a dissident Right, and a nationalism very much in short supply in this country. I’m not here suggesting a Gott und Blut nationalism but a new nationalism that responds to the new world order unequivocally. A nationalism that evokes pride in the country, pride in its heritage, pride in its past, pride in its invention, and pride in all that western civilization had made possible and the freedoms it had first engendered, then nurtured, and then had come to the defense of – repeatedly.”

    Why does it depend on Trump’s campaign to “make possible a renascence of the Right”?

    Why does it depend on the GOP at all to “make possible a renascence of the Right”?

    Why does it depend on electoral politics at all to “make possible a renascence of the Right”?

  22. neo-neocon Says:

    George Pal:

    I see you are determined to nitpick all the other candidates and ignore the huge inconsistencies and downright liberal statements Trump has offered.

    No doubt you can find problems with each candidate; none are perfect. For example, oh my goodness, Carly said something nice about Islam 15 years ago right after 9/11, when everyone and his brother was saying the same thing. I’m supposed to get upset about that, when she’s been firm and strong on the subject of terrorism and a host of other things?

    At the same time you ignore the fact (just to take one example) that in 2000 Trump was loving him some single payer health care.

    And then there’s your assumption that every single candidate other than Trump (and perhaps Cruz) is by definition some sort of establishment GOP puppet. There is no evidence for that at all and there’s no reason to lump them all together. I point to Fiorina and Carson as examples of other non-establishment candidates. I actually think that Rand Paul is as well, although I really don’t support him. I could also make an argument for Walker as a non-establishment candidate.

    Bush, of course, is the establishment candidate par excellence.

  23. Eric Says:

    Oldflyer,

    You’re sliding off of George Pal’s explanation of his support of Trump.

    Your chief objection to Trump’s campaign is “Only the Democrats will benefit” from the destructive effects on the GOP of Trump’s campaign.

    But George Pal is not (or no longer) on the side of the GOP because he does not believe the GOP is on the side of the Right. Nor is he on the side of the Democrats. His point is he sees no space between the “establishment” GOP and the Democrats. George Pal explained that both groups serve the interests of the same plutocrats (or oligarchs), not the interests of We The People.

    If anything, he considers “establishment” GOP to be worse than the Democrats because the GOP cons conservatives (like you and Neo) into believing they (Cruz, Fiorina, Walker, etc) champion your interests when their bottom-line observable effect is to uphold the same “establishment” interests also served by Democrats, a la the GK Chesterton criticism of conservatives. Thereby, the GOP is a compliant false Right that occupies the political space for the Right like a cuckoo and prevents a true “dissident” Right.

    Therefore, George Pal considers the Trump-catalyst destruction of the “establishment” GOP to be a necessary step to evict the cuckoo and replace it with a true “dissident” Right. In his view, the “establishment” GOP already is partner with the Democrats so your concern that “the Democrats will benefit” is a negligible harm.

    … In my view, George Pal is correct about the need for a real competitive Right-activist social movement. However, the flaw in George Pal’s support for Trump is it’s not altogether true that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. He may be your enemy, too. And if you empower him against your mutual enemy, he may use the power you’ve given him to neutralize you once you no longer serve his interests.

    George Pal is risking the same mistake with Trump that (relative) moderates make when they outsource their political power to more-dynamic radicals with their own agenda, eg, the revolution that brought Islamists to power in Iran.

    People like George Pal need to become activist themselves and do their own Marxist-method social activist movement, instead of outsourcing their political power to the likes of Trump who may have a disparate agenda.

    I also believe that, to begin with, the GOP should not be identified as the leader of the Right, false or true. If the GOP is considered by George Pal and others to be preventing a true “dissident” Right, that’s only because they wrongly outsourced their political power to the GOP.

    George Pal is correct that elected officials, GOP and Democrat, respond to incentives other than the interests of their constituents.

    The correct solution is to control the social nodes that hold those incentives, which would position elected GOP officials correctly as the agent with the people as the principal. Seizing social nodes would also empower GOP officials to act effectively as your agents.

    Seizing social nodes requires winning the activist game.

    Outsourcing your political power to Trump in replacement of outsourcing your political power to the GOP is not a shortcut to winning the activist game. Conservatives need to hold onto their political power by doing the work of activism and competing for themselves.

  24. Eric Says:

    Add: As parker alluded to, likely as not, Trump wants your political power to garner those incentives for himself.

  25. The Other Chuck Says:

    The give away that Trump is nothing more than a spoiler is confirmed with Michael Savage’s endorsement.

  26. George Pal Says:

    Eric says:
    Why does it depend on Trump’s campaign to “make possible a renascence of the Right”?

    Why does it depend on the GOP at all to “make possible a renascence of the Right”?

    Why does it depend on electoral politics at all to “make possible a renascence of the Right”?

    Eric,

    It doesn’t depend on any of those but each would facilitate the renascence.

    Trump is here, now. His appearance is an opportunity, not an prerequisite.

    Note that in Europe there are Rightist Parties within multi-party systems that are nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim. There’s no such Party here – in a two party system – and I think it would be much easier to appropriate the GOP than go third party all of which seem to have the life expectancy of a mayfly.

    Why electoral politics? What other way would you propose? The Right hasn’t a soapbox let alone a ‘conservative’ niche in the MSM through which it might get its message across. And even if it did who would there be to receive it except those who’d looked for it for having had their fill of the likes of National Review et al. Electoral politics offers the soapbox and an audience. The likes of Trump cannot be ignored by the MSM in a national election, only attacked. And their lies the opportunity – to distinguish yourself from the routine slates that are served up to conservative voters of of mealy, doughy, yeasty candidates. The MSM giving a Right candidate a soapbox and an audience looks too delicious not to try.

    And thank you for explaining what I had got right – couldn’t have said it better myself.

  27. George Pal Says:

    Neo-neocon,

    Carly said something nice about Islam 15 years ago right after 9/11, when everyone and his brother was saying the same thing.

    This was more than echoing the old chestnut “religion of peace”. It is on par with believing that human life on earth had been the doing of space aliens. And it wasn’t everyone and his brother saying it, and further, why am I obliged to think that those who’d acted the lemming have gotten gotten over it? Prove it.

    At the same time you ignore the fact (just to take one example) that in 2000 Trump was loving him some single payer health care.

    I ignore no such thing. I am fully aware that Trump’s past inconsistencies trump the GOP/Cons field’s inconsistencies. The point I’d thought I’d made apparent was that there are existential perils (abortion, immigration, Islam) that we face that beg for priority over nationalized healthcare, taxes, bloating government etc. Mr Trump has spoken to one of these perils, forcefully, unequivocally. It is something I had not heard since… who knows? – perhaps Reagan calling the Soviet Union an evil empire?

    And then there’s your assumption that every single candidate other than Trump (and perhaps Cruz) is by definition some sort of establishment GOP puppet

    Not so much a puppet as a marionette – they seem all to have something to which strings strings may be attached. I’m just guessing here but I’m guessing all of them would be comfortable with a former exec of Goldman Sachs being our next Secretary of the Treasury – in league with the Federal Reserve.

  28. G6loq Says:

    The this and the that and the what is and the what’s what and the blah blah blah, fact is: Trump is being very useful.
    Poking at the belly of the Hildabeast …

  29. neo-neocon Says:

    George Pal:

    You go back and look at what everyone was saying about Islam at that point. The Golden Age of Islam, etc., was standard and practically everywhere at that time, both in academia and elsewhere. I was taught about it in school, for example.

    And unless, a decade and a half ago, Fiorina or anyone else was going to become some sort of expert on the subject and make it a basis for something, it’s not the sort of notion that was anything more than a way to make a point in a passing speech at the time. In fact, it also has some basis in fact, although it leaves out a lot that’s negative. It is not even remotely akin to belief in space aliens. A long long time ago, Islamic society did achieve, or at least allow and foster, some achievements and culture at the same time that many other parts of the globe were pretty primitive in nature. So what? It’s not the basis for her policy today, nor does it indicate anything other than the fact that she relied on certain authorities to make a passing point in a speech to a bunch of business people back in 2001.

  30. SteveH Says:

    “I used to be demoralized. Now I’m just amused.”
    snopercod

    Exactly. Now we get to wait with bated breath to see if a republican can get elected. So we can recall how they suck worse on offense than they do on defense.

  31. Rufus Firefly Says:

    George Pal’s complaint about Fiorina’s statements is a joke, and him concluding she has a weak intellect based on that one speech sounds like the rantings of an insecure man grasping for a reason to believe he is superior to an incredibly intelligent and accomplished woman. Like all of us, Carly Fiorina has flaws, but a feeble intellect is not one of them.

    Like neo-neocon I have always taken references to that one speech to mean what she (neoneocon) theorized. Although I think too much credit is given to Islam advancing science and culture during the “Dark Ages” it is true there were Islamic rulers encouraging reverence and understanding of Ancient Greek and Roman science, mathematics and engineering during a time when Christiandom was not (or, at least not so enthusiastically).

  32. Rufus Firefly Says:

    I agree with your post, neo-neocon . Your opinion in the second paragraph of the first mirrors mine at the time of Romney’s defeat. We are no longer a majority country of individuals seeking liberty, freedom and personal responsibility. We want our betters to save us from ourselves and to take from others for our benefitt. Trump is exploiting our cowardly and greedy impulses to increase his popularity in the polls.

    De Tocqueville was right. We have tipped.

  33. G6loq Says:

    Rufus Firefly Says:
    August 29th, 2015 at 4:53 pm
    Please!

    néo-neocon Says:
    August 29th, 2015 at 2:51 pm
    And unless, a decade and a half ago, Fiorina or anyone else was going to become some sort of expert on the subject and make it a basis for something Whøt?
    I read the speech. She absolutely didn’t not need to go there! Specially since she studied medieval history at Stanford. Ouch!
    Always annoying when womyn are not utterly enraged by IslaaaAM!
    I think she’s dense whatever other “achievement” notwithstanding. An idiot savant of sort, at best.

    Fact is that her loss to the Boxer creature was rather pitiful. Didn’t show much conservative fiber then.
    She was a Flawed Candidate.

    Speaks highly of Hiltlery. Likes her a lot!
    Would have voted to confirm the Sotomayor creature.
    Then there is the annoying interview with la Couric: ” if you ♩ ♪ don’t have a room full of “diversity” when making an important decision,♫ ♬ you will not get the decision right.”
    Geez!

  34. neo-neocon Says:

    G6loq:

    No one said she needed to go there. I said that just about everyone (including scholars on the subject) were “going there” at that point in time.

    Not just women, either. Not at all.

  35. G6loq Says:

    Allright then! Use another word:
    she had no reasons to go there in the context of the speech of that day.
    Specially as a womyn …
    Geez!

  36. Rufus Firefly Says:

    G6loq ,

    So no one should ever speak well of Christendom in a speech because of the Inquisition and persecution of scholars like Galileo? Got it.

    I don’t always agree with what she says, but having seen Ms. Fiorina speak, unscripted, it is obvious she has a quick mind and a well-developed intellect. Her vocabulary, grammar and quick deployment of accurate statistics and facts are markers of a strong ingelligence. She has taken professional interviewers like Matthews and Couric apart when the two had prepared in advance to attempt to make her look foolish.

    I can understand someone disagreeing with her politics, but the evidence indicates she is quite smart and capable.

  37. Rufus Firefly Says:

    This is a reasonable and logical critique of the specs that has convinced G6loq of the blackness of Fiorina’s soul,http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/30351-let-s-address-carly-fiorina-s-comments-about-islam-right-after-9-11

  38. Ymarsakar Says:

    Although I think too much credit is given to Islam advancing science and culture during the “Dark Ages” it is true there were Islamic rulers encouraging reverence and understanding of Ancient Greek and Roman science, mathematics and engineering during a time when Christiandom was not (or, at least not so enthusiastically).

    Of course there were. They were against the religious fundamentalists, but they didn’t win out in the power struggle after a few centuries. After all, look what happened to the last Shah of Iran in the supposedly advanced 20th century.

    Islam doesn’t allow free thinkers. They have a very very short time period in which to flourish.

  39. Ymarsakar Says:

    This was more than echoing the old chestnut “religion of peace”. It is on par with believing that human life on earth had been the doing of space aliens.

    I think a lot of people would say the same thing about Pal’s belief concerning Bush II, Iraq, and 9/11, wouldn’t you say.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge