Is The Romney-led GOP Beyond Redemption?

Now that Mitt Romney has doubled-down on his stupidity of Tuesday night, it simply won’t do to refer to his actions as kids’ stuff, as I did earlier.

What we have now is a man who will, through reckless, cynically opportunistic maneuvering,  do absolutely anything—including criticizing and thereby undermining attempts to keep our diplomats safe—to become president of the United States.

I am so disgusted by what has happened that it is difficult to write about it.

If there aren’t a multitude of relatively sober Republican leaders in Congress who will call this for what it is, then the Republican Party is truly beyond redemption.

Previous Post

37 Comments

  1. Mitt’s cowardice and avarice reveal his stupidity, immaturity, and complete lack of patriotism. He, however, is no more of a problem than the brothers Koch, Karl Rove, Fox Gnus, and the rest of hangers-on in the GOP. No, the GOP is gone, baby, gone. As even partially awake American voters leave that sinking ship, the hulk can be left to the Tea Party, the Pseudo-Libertarians, and the John Birchers —- as it slides and drifts towards the bottom of the swamp it created.

    Like

    • I don’t disagree with you that the GOP is sinking. But it hasn’t sunk yet. The American people will have to finally torpedo it in November. And that will only happen if Democrats and their sympathizers get out and vote, something I still fear may not happen to the degree necessary to get the message across. I hope I’m wrong.

      Sadly, there is about 45% of the country who, no matter what Romney says or does, will vote for him. And that scares me about my country.

      Duane

      Like

      • I think there is 45% of the potential electorate which would be unable to vote for President Obama in November. I have many Republican friends who fall into that 45%. But — many of those are repulsed by Mittens and have decided, already, to simply stay home and not vote at all. I think the trend will deliver Mr. Obama 60+% of the popular vote. You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

        Like

        • I, for one, wish you were not dreaming, but I must say you are. Our country is populated these days by at least 40% of folks who would vote for the most detestable candidate imaginable, if only he didn’t have a “D” by his name.

          And throw in the fact that the current “D” is also pigmented, that raises it up to at least, and I say “at least,” 45%. My guess is that if Romney loses, he will still get 48% of the vote, as sad as that is to admit.

          Duane

          Like

          • Seriously, Duane — on Election Day, Mr. Obama will capture 60% (at least) of the popular vote. If I’m wrong, I’ll make a trip to Joplin and buy you your favorite cheeseburger. If I’m right, you gotta come to Indianapolis and buy me mine. The sane remnant of the GOP is beginning to abandon ship. I’d put the insane portion at less than 25% of the electorate.

            Like

  2. RDG,

    I agree with Daniel Larison’s take: “Before yesterday, the idea that the Romney campaign was “desperate” would have struck me as
    myopic and overexcited. Now it seems unmistakably clear. The Romney campaign knows its losing.”

    What the world is seeing now is a fundamentally flawed man unable to abide by any ethical code of conduct. Mitt Romney has flunked the character test and is unfit for the job he mistakenly believes he deserves.

    http://prospect.org/article/mitt-romneys-character-problem

    Like

    • It is really breathtaking when one considers, as Steve Erickson does, what makes Romney so defective as not just a candidate, but as a public person. His complete policy transformation on every issue and his tax secrecy, and now his just-revealed crisis ineptness and unforgivable accusations against the Commander-in-Chief should make it impossible for him to be elected city councilman, let alone president.

      But there is still a large swath of Americans who see him as their not-so-great-but-good-enough White Hope.

      Duane

      Like

  3. The details of Romney’s ill-timed political attack continue to steam my brain. He accused President Obama of “apologizing for American values” and now I’m wishing some thoughtful reporter will pin him down on just what “values” he’s talking about. His words were said to be directed at the Cairo Embassy statement issued in the wake of protests over the anti-Islamic YouTube clip:

    “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”

    While I don’t see any apology in that, I’m still wondering what “American values” he thinks might be affronted by that statement? Is he referring obliquely to the notion that America is a Christian nation? And if he thinks that, what kind of Christian nation would that be?

    Baptist?
    Methodist?
    Catholic?
    Jehova’s Witnesses?
    Assyrian?
    Anglican?
    Adventist?
    Eastern Orthodox?
    Pentecostal?
    Lutheran?
    Presbyterian
    Unitarian?
    Jimmy Swaggart?
    Oral Roberts?
    Pat Robertson?
    Latter Day Saints?

    Nuts to Romney.

    Like

    • Jim,

      I agree with you that American values are often used to mean Christian values. I beleive they are quite different.

      In any case, I found a list of “Christian” values on Yahoo Answers – http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091112203324AAwaXQc

      Here they are without the references to scripture. Put an “R” by each “value” you think Republicans follow and a “D” for those you think are associated with the Democrats, then add ‘em up to see who has the most Christian Values.

      1. Worship only God

      2. Respect all people

      3. Be humble

      4. Be honest

      5. Live a moral life

      6. Be generous with time and money

      7. Practice what you preach; don’t be a hypocrite

      8. Don’t be self-righteous

      9. Don’t hold a grudge

      10. Forgive others

      This would make for interesting poll don’t you think?

      Herb

      Like

      • Agreed, Herb, an interesting list of Christian values. At first glance though I detect a glaring omission: Matthew 5:44

        But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

        This is one that always confounded me and which I was never able to accept, even while I searched for understanding. Ironic isn’t it, given the rhetoric now flying from the religious right?

        Like

      • Herb,

        Clearly, #1 is ridiculous. “Worship only God,” is like saying, “Drink only fluids.” What else would one drink, or worship? The issue is what god to worship?

        What these folks mean is “Worship only the God of ancient Israel,” which, of course, disqualifies this “value” from consideration as American, since we respect all religions.

        But Jim’s citation of Matthew 5:44 is interesting in today’s “Obama is an appeaser” meme being spread as we speak across the world. Jesus said to love, bless, do good and pray for those who curse, hate, and persecute us. Hmm. Maybe Obama is a Christian after all!

        Duane

        Like

  4. Saw a suggestion for a great bumber sticker the other day — “Voting is like driving: “R” is to go backward and “D” is to go forward.” Just saying . . .

    Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  September 14, 2012

    First of all, there is, in my view, a red herring in all of this. The administration is trying hard to spin the cause of all the turmoil in the Middle East today on a single video posted on Utube about six months ago (or so such is being reported).

    When it was posted is not the point however. What it said is also not my point either. The FACT that it was posted is a statement of a cherished American value, FREE SPEECH. There is nothing in the system of American values that says everyone must agree with the speech, even despicable speech. And our own laws make prosecution, government prevention (after the fact) of such speech very difficult to prove.

    How about the values of equal opportunity? Try being a woman in a Muslim country, or a Coptic Christian, or a homosexual and see how equal your opporunities might be today.

    How about the rule of law to prevent mob violence, invasion of embassies of other countries, etc., etc. in Muslim countries.

    The values reflected in the Arab Spring have now sprung right into our face. Anyone with much sense at all could have seen it coming with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood through democratic sentiments. The President of Egypt was democratically elected and holds dear the values of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Hitler, a Nazi, was democratically elected in Germany and held Nazi values dear as well.

    While there was not democratic election Stalin was certainly a very popular leader in the Soviet Union for years and WOULD have been democratically elected back then, just like Putin has now be so elected TWICE in today’s Russia.

    The current riots, mob violence and death of four Americans has not been caused first and foremost by a single film, a film published because we all freedom of speech and expression of religious sentiments.

    No way.

    The clash is a political and culture clash between Islam and American values, NOT just Christian values but AMERICAN values articulated by a man that was NOT a professed Christian, Thomas Jefferson.

    THERE is the clash, right on all of our TV screens right now and all over the Middle East right now.

    And while this huge clash in values is raging right now, OUR President is campaigning as if it was just another minor event with no implications for long term, middle term or short term American inteewara. THAT is a failure in LEADERSHIP.

    Anson

    Like

    • @ AB,

      You are correct to conclude that the issue in the Arab world this week is one of freedom of speech. The “movie” deriding Islam was a culture bomb. Its 14-minute excerpt on the Internet caused the entire Moslem world to explode in fury against the United States, never mind that here in the land of the free our government had nothing to do with the thing. How strange that here in the 21st Century the entire Islamic world can’t understand the concept of a government not controlling speech! But, that is the reality.

      However, your conclusion that the President doesn’t understand it and is failing in his leadership duties not to deal with it is dead wrong. The internet is available world-wide and American principles are on display for all to see and study, but nobody can force people to understand what they do not wish to understand. For you to denigrate the President for failing to forestall all this religious fury is unrealistic. Just how do you imagine Mr. Diplomacy Romney would lead the world out of this mess? Bomb the shit out of them? Just remember back a few months to when Republican John McCain was urging that we put boots on the ground in Libya to help the “rebels”. Had he been in charge then, America would look even worse now having supported this motley collection of warring tribes, not to mention the inevitable bloodshed.

      But anyway, just suppose that this piece of insulting crap movie was created with the intention of harming our reputation in the Arab world and further isolating Israel? Years of diplomacy down the drain in a single stroke. Paranoia is rife and reckless spending enabled. What if this is the new mode of terrorist attack? Only four have died so far, but its effects have only begun to be felt. We are indeed into the era of Culture Wars but to expect a President, any President, to undo the product of centuries of religious hatred is political demagoguery. I submit that Mr. Romney, with his spotty record so far of pissing off the British, undermining peace efforts in the Palestinian mess and declaring Russia to be our number one geopolitical enemy, would be a diplomatic disaster. He would be about as effective at diplomacy as George Patton.

      Like

    • Anson,

      Congratulations, you just confirmed Godwin’s Law — “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

      Herb

      Like

    • Jim,

      (1) You wrote,

      …nobody can force people to understand what they do not wish to understand.

      How appropriate, as you try to make Anson understand what he does not with to understand.

      (2) And you wrote,

      to expect a President, any President, to undo the product of centuries of religious hatred is political demagoguery.

      Of course it is. But ever since Obama stepped on the world stage, right-wingers have been trying to hang every Muslim evil deed around his neck, via his Cairo speech and other non-existent “apologies” they claim he has made. Anson is just one of the many gullible souls who have bought into this meme-making, mostly because of (1) above.

      Duane

      Like

  6. To anyone interested,

    Leadership in a president may not be the main attribute we should look for. In this dangerous world, What might count most is a good sense of responsibility. To that point here’s a pertinent article on how the American Taliban might rule if given the chance in November: . http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/michael-tomasky-on-mitt-romney-s-total-neocon-meltdown.html

    Herb

    Like

    • I saw Michael Tomasky on TV the other day and he makes so much sense he is scary, as in:

      This isn’t simply the end of the Republican Party’s decades-long political advantage on foreign policy that we’re observing. Rather, we are simultaneously able to see how the party is reacting to and dealing with the disappearance of that advantage…God, it’s fun to watch. But it’s also a reminder of the danger of handing power to this man and the people he would bring in with him.

      It’s that last line that scares the Romney out of me.

      And a better summation of the tumult in the Middle East that happened on the Bush-neocon watch, I haven’t read:

      But by January 2009, nearly everything was in tatters—Hamas was strengthened, Hezbollah was back in the saddle in Lebanon, Iran was emboldened, and more. The Freedom Agenda hadn’t made many people free. True, Iraqis no longer lived under a tyrant, and that’s no small thing. But we had to kill 100,000 of them and displace 2.2 million more to get the job done. That’s freedom for those who remain, I guess, but at a steep price. Across the rest of the region, the larger agenda, if anything, moved matters in reverse.

      Like

  7. ansonburlingame

     /  September 15, 2012

    Well, Thank you, Jim for acknowledging that we have a clash of values far beyond any single film between America and the Arab world.

    I HOPE you agree that the film itself was only used as a pretext for unleashing, again, hatred against American values, as well as when such outrage was, again, ignited, political elements, extreme political elements in the Arab world uleashed death and violence.

    Now WHY do Arabs in general, even the “reasonable” Arabs believe that such death, destruction and abject violence will be tolerated by America? Go back to the Obama Cairo speech in 2009, the values that bind all humans are greated than the forces that divide.

    Take that sentiment, the prevalance of binding human values and look at the TV screens today in the Arab world and tell me if such is working very well.

    Then we hear again the retort from Herb that raising the Nazi issue is ultimately to be expected from the right!!! But even Herb has enough sense to know that I am not calling Obama a Nazi sympathizer.

    Let me be clear on that point. Obama in no way sympathizes with the violence in the Arab world. The problem is that he has no idea how to contain or control it. HIs attempts for the last two years have been to support the Arab Spring and the “new governments” resulting from those revolutions.

    I wrote several months ago in my blog that supporting the Muslim Brotherhood was the wrong approach. BUT I did not call for “going to war” with the Muslim Brotherhood. I merely said that we should stay out of Egyptian politics and let Egyptians figure out how they want to govern their country and CONTAIN whatever government resulted if its values failed to measure up to American values and interests (again see our Bill of Rights as a basis, NOT our Bible).

    Obama is trying hard to promote harmony and understanding in the midst of a fundamental clash of real values that will NEVER be resolved. It is like the fundamental clash of economic and political values between democracy/capitalism and Soviet Communism and totalitarianism. In the end, after 40 years of that Cold War clash, one side won and one side lost. There was no “humanitarian” blending of such disseparate values to allow the two sides to reach a compromise.

    But YES, HERB, there IS a historical parallel in my view between attempts to peacefully “negotiate” with Nazis that resulted in a terrible war to resolve the matter. We avoided that during the Cold War but as well we ultimately won with “peace through strength” and standing tall, never to compromise in any way on such things as the values in our Bill of Rights (again not our Bible).

    I have NO objection to our Sec of State condemning a despicable film or statement. BUT I have great concern to NOT hear her say that protecting FREE SPEECH is MORE important than any crazy speech may incite anger much less violence and death to Americans. I have yet to hear a single word from the Obama administration supporting, strongly, freedom of speech in this current crisis. Yet Americans die every day in Afghanistan to uphold such AMERICAN values do they not????

    The Cold War was NEVER a battle of religion, Christianity vs. atheism. It was a brutal, expensive and long term battle of politcal values. The ONLY reason that battle during the Cold War did NOT go “hot” was nuclear weapons as well, in my view, the same weapons that Obama wants to eliminate from the face of the earth and won a Nobel Prize for saying so.

    I would also suggest that the ultimate weapon that won the Cold War was the weapon of freedom and capitalism combined. Well we still have nuclear weapons to hold a potential enemy at bay, militarily today, but are we not coming close to lossing our economic weapon to prevail today against emerging totalitarian regimes and violent forms of political action groups like the Muslim Brotherhood has been for 80 years with offshoots like Al Qaeda supporting that fundamental approach of jihad???

    No way can America impose our Bill of Rights on anyone. But we should oppose anyone that rejects those rights as a fundamental basis for governing their own people. OPPOSE does NOT, for crying out loud, mean going to war as well, just like we did not do against the Soviet Union and Mao for 50 years as well.

    Anson

    Like

    • @ Anson,

      You said,

      Obama in no way sympathizes with the violence in the Arab world. The problem is that he has no idea how to contain or control it.

      Thanks for acknowledging that Obama is no sympathizer. There are many on the right who strangely think he is. But to assert that Mr. Romney or any of his advisers know how to “contain or control it” is clearly false. This is a problem centuries old and the internet has simply made it worse. You need to realize that the new governments of countries like Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are not in full control of their countries and so any plan of bullying them into submission by threat of nuclear weapons, as you imply, would only make the situation worse.

      I wrote several months ago in my blog that supporting the Muslim Brotherhood was the wrong approach. BUT I did not call for “going to war” with the Muslim Brotherhood. I merely said that we should stay out of Egyptian politics and let Egyptians figure out how they want to govern their country . . .

      This is a straw man comment. The U.S. did not “support” the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact we did stay out of their politics and let a democratic process play out and that’s who won.

      Obama is trying hard to promote harmony and understanding in the midst of a fundamental clash of real values that will NEVER be resolved.

      And so you apparently advocate abandoning the promotion of harmony and understanding as foreign policy for the Middle East? That’s a strange foreign policy to me – just my opinion.

      BUT I have great concern to NOT hear her say that protecting FREE SPEECH is MORE important than any crazy speech may incite anger much less violence and death to Americans. I have yet to hear a single word from the Obama administration supporting, strongly, freedom of speech in this current crisis.

      This is simply untrue. The latest expression of freedom of expression as practiced in America is firmly embedded in Clinton’s speech. You can listen to it here – it’s about two-thirds along in it.

      The Cold War was NEVER a battle of religion, Christianity vs. atheism. It was a brutal, expensive and long term battle of politcal values. The ONLY reason that battle during the Cold War did NOT go “hot” was nuclear weapons as well, in my view, the same weapons that Obama wants to eliminate from the face of the earth and won a Nobel Prize for saying so.

      To bring up the Cold War here is either a strange straw man argument or an implication that the solution is to intimidate the Arab Spring with nuclear weapons, but either way this makes no sense to me. As for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the Earth, sounds like a good long-term goal to me. But you can sleep easy – that won’t happen in our lifetimes. Obama isn’t going to take your guns away either, by the way.

      Like

      • Nice job, Jim.

        It’s just too bad it falls on ears as deaf as quartz.

        The fact remains that Mitt Romney disgraced himself and his party by essentially accusing the President of the United States–before the goddamned crisis was over, for God’s sake–of siding with the perpetrators.

        And that is unforgivable. If the man should become president, he will never, and I repeat never, have my respect.

        Like

    • Anson,

      My comment about “Godwin’s Law” was not directed at you. It would have applied equally to Duane or Jim or anyone else on this discussion string who was the first to made a reference to Hitler or the Nazis. It just happened to be you. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Furthermore, Godwin’s Law has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with this discussion any more than Murphy’s Law does. You’re trying to read into it something that’s not there.

      Also, Godwin’s Law is nonpartisan. It makes no difference whether you lean right or left or upside down. So, before you shoot the messenger, please make sure you understand the message first.

      Herb

      Like

  8. ansonburlingame

     /  September 15, 2012

    Jim,

    I accept that we differ. But I again object that you call my points straw man arguments. The results of appeasement with Hitler are self evident history and I suggest rather strongly that the values of the Muslim Brotherhood as as aborherent as those of Nazi Germany, period. There is a direct parallel, in my view of abhorent values. Add in the vaules of Soviet Communism and the same can be said.

    NEVER did the U.S. attempt to appease the Soviet Union. In a bipartisan manner for over 50 years we stood tall and EVEN called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” at one point. Well any “empire” governed by the likes of the 80 year old Muslim Brotherhood is EVIL as well as far as I can see or hear!!!

    To me the fundamentals of Sharia Law, jihad, and other elements of the literature of a religion written in the 8th Century are abhorent. I could cherry pick our own Old Testment and say the say for it as well in part. Such sentiments in a government have no place in the modern civilized world.

    We effectively CONTAINED Soviet Communist for a long time. Why is such containment so repulsive to progressives today for the Arab Spring. Obama has EMBRACED the Arab Spring as promotion of democracy has he not? U.S. foreign policy since the enception of the Arab Spring has been supportive for “new governments” as well.

    WHY are we supportive is my question instead of saying, we don’t agree with your fundamental values but will not impose our military power to achieve our goals as long as you only exercise your values within your own borders and over your own people. I would as well suggest that we say you damn well better protect us when we try to do “business” government or private with you in your own country.

    You can start by using some of OUR money given to you to rebuild the destruction caused by your people and financial restitution for the families of dead Americans as well, a LOT of financial restitution!!!

    The film was despicable for sure. But look at the response. Now try to “grade” degrees of despicability in such matters!!! Romney sure did and look at your respones herein!!!

    Anson

    Like

  9. Anson,

    As usual, I’m not sure what point or points you’re trying to
    express. The Muslim Brotherhood is not the thankfully defunct Nazi Party. You complain that Jim unfairly accused you of making a straw man argument and then you…make another straw man argument. Implied is the Obama administration appeased a political/religious organization you believe is no different than Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It’s quite an existential leap to roll fascism, Bolshevism and an Islamic political institution together into one wicked ball. I’m not sure how “EVIL” members of the Muslim Brotherhood are, but it’s not a big surprise that a nation populated with Muslims elected candidates from the most prominent political entity opposing the unpopular Mubarak regime. It would have been surprising if members from Cairo’s Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod had garnered the most votes. You’re implying that President Obama made the same mistake as Neville Chamberlain by not forcefully interfering in Egypt’s election. Are you suggesting that Obama is a weak leader because he doesn’t use military force to determine who wins and who loses elections in Muslim countries? That’s just screwy.

    You write: “To me the fundamentals of Sharia Law, jihad and other elements of the literature of a religion written in the 8th century are abhorrent.” Okay, so what? Stay put in Jasper County and I’m sure your exposure to this abhorrence will be limited. But I’d be careful if you “cherry pick our own Old Testament” looking for similar horrors. The Christian Taliban might start sticking ominous-looking pamphlets in your door.

    If the purpose of these comments was an attempt to deflect attention away from Mitt Romney’s self-inflicted gaffe, you have my sympathy. It can’t be any fun for someone suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome to try and turn a lemon into lemonade. Hopefully, Mitt will revert back to sharing an appreciation for trees the same height and leave foreign policy issues to competent professionals.

    Like

  10. ansonburlingame

     /  September 16, 2012

    You implied that my position was one of “President Obama made the same mistake as Neville Chamberlain by not forcefully interfering in Egypt’s election.”

    That is such a gross exageration of my views it broaders on being despicable!!! NEVER have I suggested “forceful interference in ANY election” GOD DAMN IT!!!

    Even Chamberlain did not attempt such. All Chamberlain did was try to APPEASE THE WINNER of an election. HE, Chamberlain thought that Hitler could be “swayed” with arguments related to British values.

    If you and others in this blog site cannot see such attempts on Obama’s part now in the Arab Spring, well why argue such insanity and YES, terrible and ineffective political leadership in choosing such a path of appeasement!!

    Anson

    Like

  11. Anson,

    When popping off false analogies in another muddled attempt to frame President Obama as appeasing Middle Eastern terrorists
    you should expect a raspberry or two. It’s not true and only those with a disturbing, irrational animosity against the current President would lurch around in such smelly terrain.

    Simply put, you’re just another internet concern troll and I’m no longer playing along. But there is an even better reason to put the kibosh on fruitless exchanges. I was alerted to an anonymous comment made by one of your two regular blog visitors. I’m going to share it with readers of this blog.

    A Noony Moose: “When I want to see what my assh*ole is doing, I wipe. That’s my view of D. Graham and his sycophantic minions. If they hatred Satan I would become a Satanist, because if that jizzstain hates it then it must be good. Anson, you must stop giving that assclown credit for anything. He represents the idiot postal worker retirees in Joplin and their buttboys, and that is far as his influence stretches, no matter what he thinks. Yes, McKnight and Wheeler wipe bits o’ Graham off their chins every morning, but that is their chagrin and not ours. One cannot lose the influence of the anti-tax Tea Party on the opinion of a less than useless piece of excrement former postal worker.”

    I have yet to see where you labeled this garbage “despicable.”

    Like

    • I’m glad you shared A Nonny Moose’s comments with us, John. Otherwise I would not have known that he or she had descended, safely behind the armor of its anonymity, into scatological rhetoric, the last recourse of a failed dialectician. The raw hatred shines through, QED.

      Will others now follow suit?

      Like

      • Jim,

        At least the crackpot has enough sense to indulge in extreme juvenilia while wearing a ski mask. I really don’t know why Anson doesn’t flush this sick drivel into cyberspace. I’d be wondering what it was about my blog that attracted a poop-obsessed, mail carrier-loathing weirdo. Maybe A Noony Moose attends Tea Party events where Obama haters can not only share their interest in crafting misspelled signs, but receive free rectal examinations from a certified proctologist/gun dealer.

        A Noony Moose is a hard act to follow, so it’s difficult to determine if other anonymous spooks will join in. But should Anson’s blog become a repository for base scatological slurs against local residents, he could generate enough traffic to start selling ads aimed at the growing adult diaper demographic.

        Like

      • John and Jim,

        1. Anson won’t rebuke the only few dedicated fans he has.

        2. I thought Noony Moose’s comment was quite revealing, to wit:

        When I want to see what my assh*ole is doing, I wipe.

        A clearer admission that one has his head up his ass I have not seen.

        Duane

        Like

        • RDG,

          Sounds like A Poopy Moose made either a Freudian Slip or
          Freudian Swipe, depending on whether it has mastered motor skills found in the average potty trained toddler.

          Like

  12. ansonburlingame

     /  September 17, 2012

    Talk about “straw man” arguments. We were debating historical examples of appeasement and how they blew up in our faces as opposed to “peace through strength” and how it sustained American values around the world, eventually.

    But NO, you leave that debate and go to a commenter on my own blog!!!

    When was the last time you saw Graham retort back to Janes Reaction and some of her insane, in my view, retorts herein over the last several years. Now THERE is a nut case if ever there was one, at least in my view.

    You also may note that I in fact replied to Nonny and Geoff, both and such reply did not endorse or denigrate their views. Rather my reply was in fact another blog entitled “Overwhelmed” which you failed to note.

    I refuse to stoop to name calling with most of you herein. But I do persist in pointing out such obvious errors in your thought processes herein, day in and day out. And when I do that, express my firmly held beliefs, like “peace through strength” or “living within our means” well look at the results herein. Talk about name calling!!!

    Graham went to the extraordinary step of BANNING one commenter on his blog. A second one has provided his/her views as to why he/she will not even attempt to debate any of you herein out of simple disgust for your positions but more importantly the manner in which you demonize your detractors.

    Well I agree with Nonny on one key point. Most of you and particularly Graham write and act (herein) like simple THUGS, union thugs that will cherry pick until the cows come home and polemically support crazy positions that are RIGHT NOW driving America over a fiscal cliff and into a pit of violence in the Middle East that will take decades to overcome, or NOT overcome as the case may be.

    Is America in DECLINE? One of your spokesmen said NO.and even if we were he tells us that your way is the only way to IMPROVE our prosperity in the future. Well a looming fiscal cliff and violence in the world against valid American values is a helluva set of metrics to convince anyone that your way is the right way, politics aside.

    You want to make quotes about MY positions, fine, quote me all you like but TRY to keep them in context and NOT call everything I say a “straw man”, you “THUGS”, pure and simple!!!

    However at least until Nov 6th, 2012 there is no way you will keep me off the comments section of this blog unless you resort to banning. After that important date, I may or may not stick around herein. Whatever happens after Nov 6th will happen as the American voters decide and it will be at least another two years, probably two more years of abject stalemate as we all go over a fiscal cliff and try to keep insane Arab “values” out of our cities and countryside as well.

    Here is one you will all “like”. Hello DETROIT with some “support” to achieve that goal from the Muslim Brotherhood!!!

    Anson

    Like

  13. Jane Reaction

     /  September 17, 2012

    Jane enjoyed this series.
    Would somebody explain to Anson what a straw-man represents?

    Like

%d bloggers like this: