February 14th, 2016

Debate afterthoughts

A few random thoughts—

I refuse to predict what will happen in the polls as a result of last night’s debate. Trump’s supporters have so far been completely faithful to him, no matter what. So it’s very much a possibility that they will remain faithful. But if ever they should desert him, it should be after last night’s impersonation of a leftist demonstrator, channeling his inner Michael Moore.

Was this a Howard Dean moment for Trump? Darned if I know. On the debate thread at Ace’s, I noticed a commenter saying something like, “Coming next to a theater near you: Perot, Act II” (a reference to the fact that as the season wore on in 1992, Perot came to be seen by some as unbalanced). I did notice, however, that quite a few of Ace’s pro-Trump commenters were not pleased with Trump’s performance, although they were not about to reject him. Their criticism was just that he didn’t look good, wasn’t being smart, but that his anti-Bushisms should help him in the general.

I wonder why they think that a lot of Republican voters won’t desert him for those comments, though. And I wonder why they would continue to trust him after those comments. As another Ace commenter wrote, “I don’t recall any of the Democrats running for President in ’04 or ’08 blaming bush for the Twin Towers.” Trump placed himself to the left of a lot of Democrats last night, and it can only underline the criticism that he’s really a liberal, and can’t be trusted to not betray the right.

I think that the rest of the candidates looked good in comparison, even Kasich and Carson, who I’d love to see drop out. Jeb sprang to more life when defending his family, and seems to have figured out a way to fight Trump and not look completely silly. Cruz was Cruz: smartest guy in this room or any other, composed and organized, although not quite as “likable” as you’d want to see (I, for one, don’t mind, because I don’t need to get the warm fuzzies from a candidate, but I guess it matters to a lot of people). Rubio—who had by far the most pressure on him, after last week—did very very well, and in particular didn’t sound scripted or repetitious. He defended George Bush against Trump better than Jeb did, which was interesting to see.

Why did Trump look like he’d come off his meds tonight? Well, assuming he really didn’t come off his meds, I think there were two reasons. The first is that finally a moderator actually asked him a good question about the awful things he’d previously said about George Bush, and he had the choice of either agreeing with his former self or disagreeing. Trump being Trump and not really into saying he’s been wrong about anything, chose to double down in a most peculiar way.

The second reason was the size of the group. In a bigger group, it was easier to ignore Trump and harder for him to get up a really good head of steam, simply due to lack of air time. Last night he was given enough rope. In a much smaller group (say, one on one), it might look like Trump simply fighting with that particular opponent. But with five others, it became crystal clear that Trump has one repetitious defense, and that’s to attack (liar! liar!) and to say he shouldn’t be attacked. In line with yesterday’s content/process post of mine, Trump is almost pure process and very little content at all.

47 Responses to “Debate afterthoughts”

  1. KLSmith Says:

    Thought the same thing tonight – maybe somebody finally gave him enough rope. I think you are right about his supporters not abandoning him. But for anybody watching the debate who was on the fence – hopefully they got bitch slapped back to reality.

  2. Eric Says:

    If Republicans are smart about it, they’ll seize the opportunity generated by Trump to press forward to set the record straight on OIF and flip that switch throughout the political discourse.

  3. GRA Says:

    @Eric: I’ve read your articles on OIF, and I will say that they are illuminating. I am afraid that the narrative of OIF (unjust, Vietnam II, dig for oil, war is racket etc.) is set in stone. It’s one of those things that if you repeat it long enough it becomes truth.

  4. Ed (from Ypsilanti) Bonderenka Says:

    Neo: You described the debate as I would have, exactly.

  5. Yann Says:

    Well, what Trump said is indeed the truth:

    1. Iraq war was a big mistake that brought nothing but problems. A destabilized Middle East, Islamism fueled, and a huge increase in US debt.

    2. There never were WMD, and there never was any real evidence of them. So, even worst than a mistake, it was a lie.

    Maybe the truth hurts, but being in denial is not a wise decision. And being in denial is a big problem right now in US, mainly among Democrats, but among Republicans too.

  6. Eric Says:

    GRA,

    The demonstrably false narrative of the Iraq intervention is active premise in American affairs at home and abroad. Its successful implementation in the zeitgeist is cornerstone for the Left. To siphon its competitive value that’s been established by the Left, the Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right has picked it up, as demonstrated last night.

    “Set in stone” or not, it’s critical for mainstream conservatives of the Right and the GOP to turn the tables on the Iraq issue for their political sake and to cure American affairs.

    The false narrative of the Iraq intervention is not set in stone. The general will of We The People is a function of activism and the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist is always malleable.

    Now, if one side approaches Narrative as a constant matter of activist construction while the other side helplessly concedes Narrative as “set in stone” by opposing activists, guess which side is most likely to win social dominance in that lopsided contest.

    Mainstream conservatives of the Right and the GOP won’t be provided a better issue than the Iraq intervention in terms of fundamental significance and the fact record on which to set their feet and take back social ground. If the Right and GOP can’t even manage to flip the switch on a critical active cornerstone premise in American affairs via correction of a demonstrably false narrative with an easily accessed, straightforward set of law and policy and facts, then there is little hope that the Right and GOP can survive, let alone win, the evolutionary contest versus the combined pressure of Left activists and Left-mimicking alt-Right activists.

  7. Eric Says:

    Yann,

    See the answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?” and the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.

  8. Cornhead Says:

    Trump looked unhinged. Sets his ceiling at 40% or less in the primaries.

    His 9-11 loon theories is just a tip of the iceberg regarding why and how he can’t win a general election.

    And he continues to misrepresent the facts and law on eminent domain. The conservative position is the the power of the government should not be used for a personal gain. While the Keystone Pipeline would be owned by a corporation, it serves a public purpose long recognized in the law. Just like a railroad.

  9. expat Says:

    Trump’s rabid attack on W made me wonder how someone who is so ignorant of foreign affairs came to differ with “friends” like Hillary on OIF. I started to wonder if we should begin doing some oppo research on Trump’s business interests in the late 90s. Was he in touch with people scamming oil for food? I’m not a conspiracy type, but Trump only gets so worked up when he or his interests are threatened. I just can’t figure out why this got to him.
    OMT about Trump: he is more like Obama than anyone else in the race. His whole campaign is about drawing red lines in the sand. He throws out threat after threat and then retreats, We’ve all seen how much trust and respect this has won for us abroad. Somewhere in all the muddle that presidents have to work through, there has to be enough character to maintain a steady course. As the Trump bankruptcies show, when the sh*t hits the fan, he takes his money and runs.

  10. physicsguy Says:

    OMG…Trump was painful to watch! Most of us here recognize that, but does the rest of the public? How much more evidence is needed before they realize he is totally unhinged?

    Rhetorical questions as we know that same public elected BHO twice, so there’s really no hope anymore is there?

  11. Ed (from Ypsilanti) Bonderenka Says:

    Expat; You are correct sir.
    Beyond that, I am constantly reminded of Mussolini. The vows to “get things done”, the braggadocio, especially on sexual conquests, the appeal to the desire for the “strong man”.
    “make America/Italy great again!”
    I agree with Cornhead about the positions Trump took on W.
    The booing was so loud for so long for so many things that Trump spewed that I can’t see him doing well in SC.
    Hopefully this is what dooms his campaign.

  12. expat Says:

    Ed,
    Thanks. However, I’m a not a sir, just an old woman who lives in Germany.

  13. Yann Says:

    @Eric

    With regard to the first link, I don’t see there anything that saves Bush from lying. Since there were not WMD, you can not accuse Iraq of not fulfilling the obligation to destroy WMD according to UN687 when those WMD didn’t exist in first place. And the rest I have read there is about minor breachings that (even if they were not fabricated) it’s not what Bush sold as the Casus Belli.

    With regard to the second link, well, it’s obvious that it was a strategic victory. If US could not win a war even in a bloody desert where there’s no place to hide that would be quite a serious issue. But that doesn’t the whole thing less of a big (and very expensive) mistake.

  14. Nick Says:

    I just realized something sad. I wanted to go find more details about the debate, so I went to click on…huh. I couldn’t think of a single source I trusted to be neutral about it. My favorite conservative sites have gone, to a man, anti-Trump. I can’t go to the mainstream sites, or to the Politico-types, because they’re driven by their own agendas. I’m stumped. I trust no one except for those who agree with me completely, and I know that only fools can say that. What a year.

  15. Cornhead Says:

    Nick

    Look at transcript; the source document.

  16. SteveH Says:

    Maybe some conservatives aren’t sure that description fits them any more. Its almost become synonymous with rollover and take it up the ***.

    And don’t under estimate how many GWB supporters couldn’t stand him by time he left office for exactly that reason. The man had the bully pulpit and wouldn’t fight back.

    And this is where Trump gets his support. Hes a fighter. I personally think hes weird and probably not a good choice to be President. But hes tapped into the rage of people who have sat and watched a majority of so called conservatives cave on nearly every issue for a decade now.

  17. sdferr Says:

    How peculiar that TrumpTheChameleon chose last night to show us TrumpTheSprayTanner and TrumpTheCodePinker in one go?

    TrumpTheManO’Mystery?

    Nah, TrumpTheEmptyBrandVessel is more like. Or perhaps, TrumpTheEmptyNoggin or TrumpTheEmptyBluster may fit even better, to the extent that substance simply isn’t his forte.

    What is dependable about him? Threatening law suits. Oh, and lying without remorse.

  18. BD Says:

    Yann: Trump’s rant against W included several unreasonable and really outrageous claims. The first is that Bush lied about WMD. The fact is the intelligence was bad. But it doesn’t follow that Bush knew that there were no WMD. There were post-invasion investigations on this that cleared the administration of the claim of deliberate deception.

    Related to this, Trump refused to back down on his prior statement that Bush should have been impeached over Iraq. Putting aside the fact that impeachment would have rested on the same flimsy argument that Bush lied about WMD, what does it say about Trump’s political philosophy that he would resort to impeachment over a policy dispute unrelated to any criminal misconduct?

    Finally, Trump took the position that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because it occurred on his watch. This is a most despicable exercise in sophistry. It’s akin to claiming that Benjamin Harrison was responsible for the Johnstown Flood because it happened during his presidency. Or that Reagan was responsible for the Challenger disaster.

    To say that Trump’s performance was unbefitting a president would be a gross understatement. I wouldn’t share a sidewalk with someone who was saying the things Trump said last night.

  19. rickl Says:

    I saw a comment this morning at Ace of Spades that I liked:

    378 Keep in mind, we live in an insane world. I don’t think Bush lied, but that’s me. Trump signalling that Bush lied will go a long way toward bringing other voters to him. Aren’t we always talking about “expanding the tent”? Well, Trump’s doing it with a method “we” don’t like very much.
    Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 14, 2016 09:42 AM (zBwYh)

    To which I replied:

    Good point! I didn’t watch the debate and I don’t believe Bush lied us into the war, but many people do, and Trump could very well appeal to them. I still think Trump has a better chance of peeling off traditional Democrat voters than anyone else.

  20. expat Says:

    SteveH,
    Bush was concentrating on keeping cooperation with foreign governments that he needed. A bombastic fight at home would have only fed his opponents abroad. I don’t know whether you recall it, but when Bush sent carriers and planes to Indonesia to help after the tsunami, he was criticized for only seeing military solutions to problems. I watched German news intensively at that time, and I only saw one news person admit that Bush had been right with the kind of aid he sent. That was at about 10PM about a month after the carrier left. Everyone else patted themselves on the back for sending last year’s ski sweaters to the tropics. Sometimes you just have to ignore ignorant critics and concentrate on doing what needs to be done. Do you remember that Dem congressmen attended the premiere of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11? You can’t get through to people who like Michael Moore.

  21. SteveH Says:

    Trump will be mercilessly slaughtered in a general election. Madison avenue types will get very creative at using his myriad of statements and positions to make total mince meat out of him.

  22. A fan Says:

    To me it seemed during last night’s debate Trump was not fighting for the GOP nomination, but to win the general election. What he did makes perfect sense if he thinks he has the nomination wrapped up already. He’s showing to independents and to Democrats that he shares a lot of their views (dislike of the Bush family; doubts about the Iraq war, and so on). He’s broadening his appeal beyond the GOP.

    To put this in context, I, too, used to think that Trump was unhinged, as many seem to think in this thread. Now I think it’s all an act. Why? Evidence shows the man is actually very disciplined. 1) He does not drink 2) He became a billionaire 3) He knows how to get what he wants from the media (see his success with The Apprentice) 4) All of his children are very successful and decent people; none of them are failed cokeheads or anything like that.

    There’s also circumstantial evidence. He’s from a rather impressive, disciplined family. His father was a self-made millionaire. His uncle (his father’s brother) was a professor at MIT for decades, winning science awards from Eisenhower and Reagan. His sister became one of the first female senior federal judges. And the women in his life evidently respect him; so do his business partners.

    Last summer I thought Trump was a clown. Now I think he’s most likely the next president.

  23. Yann Says:

    @BD

    >”Trump’s rant against W included several unreasonable and really outrageous claims. The first is that Bush lied about WMD. The fact is the intelligence was bad.”

    No. There was no bad intelligence. There was just no intelligence. At the end of the day, there was no evidence of whatever WMD Iraq was supposed to have.

    The lie was not saying that Iraq had WMD. The lie was saying that they had evidence when they hadn’t. If you tell me “trust me, I can’t release it now, but I have evidence” and you haven’t, then you’re lying.

    > “Finally, Trump took the position that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because it occurred on his watch. This is a most despicable exercise in sophistry. ”

    And that’s another lie. And that’s the problem with that: too many lies.

    Trump didn’t say Bush was responsible. He just remarked 9/11 happened under Bush when Jeb Bush was describing his brother as the man who was building safety for America.

    If you’re a security guard and a girl is raped on your watch, you’re not to blame for it. But if you describe yourself like the guy who is making women secure, it’s wise to say “hey, mate, the girl was raped on YOUR watch”. And that’s not blaming, it’s just telling somebody “fewer wolves, riding hood”.

  24. rickl Says:

    I found this link to a WSJ article by Charles Murray explaining Trump’s appeal to the white working class:

    https://www.aei.org/publication/trumps-america/

    I like Charles Murray, and it’s a good article for the most part. But ironically, I found it in a Diana West blog post where she harshly criticizes it:

    Charles Murray Despises Donald Trump — and His Supporters?

    (I have read her book “American Betrayal” and I wholeheartedly recommend it.)

  25. Jim Kearney Says:

    Just goes to show you, Trump’s Narcissistic wound is much closer to the surface. Any slight to his YUGE EGO and it slams him right back into a frustrated 12 year old boy and into his Limbic brain. It’s so easy to push his buttons and bring out his Lonesome Rhodes. If I were Cruz, I’d go for more mockery in ads and speeches. It’s a good thing Trump doesn’t drink, because he’d be a flailing drunk screaming “YOU LOOKING AT ME???!!!??” and getting his arse handed to him. “The Divil hateth to be mocked!” Putin, the Chinese and Iranians have his number and are already planning how to push his buttons. As far as Narcissistic EGO, Trump might even surpass the Narcissist In Chief we have now.

  26. rickl Says:

    Jim Kearney Says:
    February 14th, 2016 at 11:53 am

    Putin, the Chinese and Iranians have his number and are already planning how to push his buttons. As far as Narcissistic EGO, Trump might even surpass the Narcissist In Chief we have now.

    Seriously? While he’s not as good as Reagan, Trump would be a much better negotiator than Obama. That much I am confident about.

    For one thing, he doesn’t seem to hate America. That counts for a lot.

  27. chuck Says:

    @Jim Kearney

    Well said, my thoughts also.

  28. sdferr Says:

    Trump’s failure to consider America — apart from what American can do for him — counts for even more.

  29. geokstr Says:

    A lot of sites and Trumpers are Trumpetting Drudge’s online poll where 55% say Trump won the debate over Cruz at 21%.

    I just voted 6 times for Cruz on three browsers. That poll is a joke, like voting for Pro All-Star teams, where the most fanatical and motivated vote early and often, another trick the Trumpers learned from the Marxists.

  30. Rufus T. Firefly Says:

    I know you disagree, Neo, but if Trump can get through the Republican primary it won’t hurt him that he’s a Democrat; he’ll get a lot of Democrats voting for him, especially if Hillary is his opponent. I think he would get more cross-over vote than any other GOP candidate running (except, maybe, Rubio or Carson). The question would be, will he get enough GOP votes? I think a lot of GOP voters would stay home, or write in someone else.

    It’s a disaster. For many years now we have been getting the candidates we deserve.

  31. neo-neocon Says:

    a fan:

    I’ve seen that theory around the blogosphere, pushed by Trump fans. “No, it wasn’t a meltdown, it was a strategic decision to appeal to the middle.”

    Only problem is—well, there are several problems with that theory. The first is that he still has to win South Carolina—this debate was held there, prior to their primary—and in South Carolina that is a highly unpopular point of view. Although he has been leading in the polls there (just like he was in Iowa) he knows, from Iowa, that a debate performance can help or hurt. This is no time to pivot to the middle. There’s plenty of time for that, once he would tie up the nomination. Plus, 9/11 blamed on Bush is not a middle or moderate position. In addition, a person won’t vote on him based on that alone, even if they agree with that particular position of his. Most voters who believe that also don’t believe in the rest of Trump’s platform.

    In addition, Trump said it (and many other things last night) in a way that looked unhinged. So there were two messages—content and process, as it were. The content was pretty far out, especially for a GOP primary in SC, and the process was very far out (his emotion and tone and way of interacting with others).

    Lastly—and this may be most important of all—this was not something Trump came up with for last night or for this election. He has been stating these beliefs since 2007 or 2008 at least. He has been very very consistent about this point of view, and I’m surprised more people don’t know it. I’ve been writing about it for many months. Here are just two examples: this and this (that latter post is one of the earliest I wrote about Trump). This is not new for Trump; it’s very very old. It is a deeply entrenched part of his belief system, and I’m glad it’s finally coming out.

  32. rickl Says:

    [i]Rufus T. Firefly Says:
    February 14th, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    The question would be, will he get enough GOP votes? I think a lot of GOP voters would stay home, or write in someone else.

    Those would be the same people who have been telling us for years that we have to eat whatever shit sandwich the GOP dishes out, yes?

    I am thoroughly enjoying the shoe being on the other foot this time. Thoroughly enjoying it.

  33. neo-neocon Says:

    rickl:

    I don’t recall anyone ever telling you you had to vote for someone with the sort of extreme leftist conspiracy views against a previous GOP president that Trump expressed last night.

    I don’t recall anyone ever telling you you had to vote for someone with no political or governmental experience at all.

    I don’t recall anyone ever telling you you had to vote for someone whose behavior you would not tolerate in your ten-year old child.

    Just don’t recall it, but maybe I’m forgetting something.

    You know, some shit sandwiches are a lot shittier than others, to use your elegant phraseology.

    Glad you’re enjoying it. That’s big of you, and shows the sort of emotion driving this Trump movement.

    By the way, I also don’t recall anyone (here, anyway) telling anyone they had to vote for anyone. I try to persuade. You’re perfectly free to vote for anyone you please.

  34. Rufus T. Firefly Says:

    Eric, no offense, you are obviously highly intelligent, but you can’t be naive enough to believe the truth has anything to do with which narratives prevail.

    “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
    “The science is settled.”
    “Blood for oil.”
    “White privilege.”
    “77 cents on the dollar.”
    “War on women.”

  35. rickl Says:

    Neo:

    Maybe not the specific examples you mentioned, but I clearly recall many, many people telling me that not voting for the Republican nominee is exactly the same as casting a vote for the Democrat.

  36. Rufus T. Firefly Says:

    physicsguy, unfortunately, you are correct. It’s not what the candidate is saying; it’s how he or she looks and how strong he or she appears.

    “Trump’s a tough negotiator.”
    “Trump gets things done.”
    “Trump will stand up to Putin.”
    “Trump will fight for our jobs.”
    “Trump will build a fence.”

    No matter the merits of their arguments, if you didn’t speak English and just head the force of their words last night, and watched their mannerisms, who would you believe can build a fence to keep out foreigners taking American jobs?

    That’s the key to predicting winners in U.S. Presidential elections. View everything from the perspective of a low information voter.

  37. rickl Says:

    Rufus T. Firefly:

    “Truth” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with elections, unfortunately.

  38. Rufus T. Firefly Says:

    A fan, Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoons, agrees with you and is writing some of the most comprehensive stuff on Trump’s genius. You may like his blog. I don’t agree with him, but he makes a convincing case.

  39. neo-neocon Says:

    rickl:

    And they were correct. How is that forcing you to vote for anyone?

    For example, if Trump were nominated and I don’t vote for him, and he runs against Hillary, that is the same as casting a vote (or half a vote, depending how you look at it) for Hillary. Why would you argue with that, or see it as forcing you into anything? It is a mere statement of fact. Can you not face the truth and own up to your own actions?

    If Trump were to be nominated, I would have a great deal of trouble voting for him. I might not vote for him. But if I couldn’t stomach it, and didn’t vote for him, I would have to acknowledge the effects of my action or inaction.

    You have an odd definition of telling you you HAVE to vote for someone. Very odd.

  40. Rufus T. Firefly Says:

    rickl, to paraphrase Mencken, “Nobody ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

  41. rickl Says:

    Rufus T. Firefly Says:
    February 14th, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    That’s the key to predicting winners in U.S. Presidential elections. View everything from the perspective of a low information voter.

    I agree completely. Both Trump and Rubio will do well with LIVs, for different reasons. Cruz, not so much. He’s too smart for his own good. Stupid people bitterly resent smart people and wish to punish them.

    That’s been the case from time immemorial. Robert Heinlein called it “bad luck”.

  42. Rufus T. Firefly Says:

    Neo, it appears you’re active right now. (I’m waiting for it to stop snowing so I can get out and shovel.) You wrote an earlier post (yesterday?) about the amount you’ve been writing lately, and the desire you’ve had to write long posts.

    Thank you for your efforts. I think all your readers would agree that we really appreciate you sharing your thoughts as you try to make sense of what you see around you. I went through a period of trying to figure out politics. Like you, and most folks here, I’m a seeker of wisdom and truth. When presented with a puzzle, or a system, I find it nearly impossible to not dive in and figure out the inner mechanisms and know how it works. For five years, or so, I wrote hundreds of thousands of words on my own blog, iteratively peeling away layer upon layer of the political onion. It got to a point where it was almost a mania with me.

    I finally gave up. I concluded, unfortunately, it’s human nature and we humans can be mighty disappointing some times. It’s a depressing solution to a vexing puzzle; but the success of folks like Obama and Trump and Hillary and the Kardashians and hundreds of others is simply a mirror reflecting the percentage of our neighbors who have no interest in devoting their lives to learning ultimate truths.

    But I’ll keep coming here and reading your words in hopes you uncover something different. I hope you do! You’re smarter than me and I would love to know there is a more noble answer than what I was able to conclude.

  43. Jim Kearney Says:

    Riki — That’s an interesting point on Cruz, how people will resent his intellect. BUT, I disagree with you on Trump’s ability to negotiate because it is reliant on his being poised and in command of his emotions. It’s his achilles heel. His EGO. He’s a very sick man. There are many ways that Trump will use it to humilate as he does when he tries to push Jeb’s face in his weakness, and in turn, can be driven wild with rage when challenged and feels embarrassed. Ted Cruz knows how to drive him nuts, and so does Jeb, now. If you don’t think our enemies are taking note of the personalities and characters of our candidates, you’re very mistaken.

  44. Bellarion the Fortunate Says:

    There’s a scene in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy where George Smiley is explaining why a double agent has been able to pawn off worthless intelligence on the Circus for so long. He asks ‘have you ever bought a fake painting? The more you’ve paid for it, the less inclined you are to admit that it’s a fake.” This may not make as much difference as you think. Trump’s supporters are deeply invested in him at this point.

  45. Beverly Says:

    Rubio the Slick has joined in with Trump’s tactic of slandering Cruz as “a liar.” The Leftists are licking their chops.

    Aaaand, the Senate is in recess. Lickspittle McConnell has done NOTHING to block Hussein from making a recess appointment to the Supreme Court, and you know he will.

    If they don’t stop Hussein now, when it’s so damn easy to do (just one simple parliamentary maneuver!!!), they’re sure as hell not going to fight to dislodge anyone Hussein does install in the Court.

    Buy your guns and butter now. Both will be outlawed in the near future — for your own good. And you Will Love Big Brother!

  46. Richard Saunders Says:

    Yann — If you’re too ignorant to know about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 or what the Authorization for the Use of Military Force said, if you’re too lazy to have read the Senate Select Committee or the Robb-Silverman Commission Reports, if you’re too forgetful to remember Hans Blix saying there were WMDs in Iraq (but give me the 6 months I need to find them) or the looted CBR weapon storage facilities at Al Qa’qaa and elsewhere, or if you’re too uninterested to know that thousands of Iraq War veterans are displaying symptoms of exposure to chemical and biological agents, then this blog is not the place for you.

    I suggest you’d find Salon, the Huffington Post, or MSNBC more to your liking.

  47. Rufus Firefly Says:

    Spot on, Bellarion. They will double down.

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