January 21, 2009
I Thought We Were Better Than This
Is this going to be our default response for the next four years?
You did it to us. Now we're going to do it to you?
Hey, is this mean? Here's my response to that: Go f*** yourself sideways with a hot brick from a pizza oven.
First Lady Bush -- and her daughters -- were savaged, as was Sarah Palin.
Michelle Obama is not a good-looking woman, unless you like them "fierce" in the literal, rather than gay-fashion-lingo, sense. Last time I saw a mouth like that
it had a hook in itwas in Predator.
I don't want to be bitchy, but Michelle Obama looks like she just got a full-body bukake from 30 horny couches.
She looks like she just got raped by the cast of Joseph and the Amazing Monocolor Dreamcoat.
I'm not saying she's bulky, but is she wearing a coat, or is that the jibsail from a gay pirate ship?
I don't want to say she looks immense in that gold circus-costume, but Auric Goldfinger just had a stroke-inducing orgasm.
Oops, he had another one. And another one. Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; the third time it's a fashion nightmare.
Chewbacca just called. He wants his wife's housecoat back.
Conservatives complained when liberals went after Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter, the Bush twins and the former First Lady. We rightly noted the families of politicians are not proper targets for vicious personal attacks.
I didn't condone that kind of behavior when it came from my political opponents and I have even less tolerance for it when it comes from conservatives. It represents a betrayal of everything I personally believe in and everything I thought conservatives stood for. We have said these things are wrong.
We have said that we believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. We have pointed out the hypocrisy in condemning actions in your opponents but condoning those same acts when they benefit your side.
Have we abandoned these principles? Do we even have any principles anymore?
And most importantly, do we possess the courage to stand up for the values we profess to believe in, even if it makes us unpopular or isn't expedient? I wonder.
If you have any doubts whatsoever about this, all you need do is imagine the look on one of the Obama girls' faces as they are confronted with the term 'bukake' or 'raped' in conjunction with their mother. They don't even need to read it themselves. Children are cruel - someone might easily tell them about it just as someone told me about this post.
Was this really necessary? Standards. They are supposed to apply to both sides.
If we've lost our integrity, we really have lost it all.
Posted by Cassandra at January 21, 2009 08:11 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Pretty much what I said all over my place yesterday.
The Left wants a classless society - doesn't mean we have to embrace their lack of class.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at January 21, 2009 12:19 PM
We should not stoop to their level, I agree. He should be given the chance to prove himself.
However, seeing Obama's website bash Bush, shows that this will be a trend for the next four years. Obama's failures will still be Bush's fault.
If he wins re-election I will lose all integrity and resort to pelting eggs at his presidential limo.
Posted by: Mrs G at January 21, 2009 12:20 PM
Some toddlers don't learn to stop biting until someone bites them back. Obama's youngster voters have no idea...
[Editor's note: Joan kindly alerted me to this correction to her comment:
My orignial comment before I edited it into vile nonsense was Obama's youngster VOTERS. I was opining that many of the young voters have not experienced the pain they've inflicted with their vile attacks.
Having often been thankful I have the ability here at VC to edit my own comments, I was more than happy to do the same for Joan :) I try not to delete things unless absolutely necessary but am happy to correct the record.]
Posted by: Joan of Arggh! (no relation!) at January 21, 2009 12:32 PM
Did Obama's daughters bite someone?
I must have missed that.
Posted by: Know Thine Enemy at January 21, 2009 12:50 PM
Yes, we should be better than this. But like all people and communities who have standards, we sometimes struggle to live up to them.
But when we do falter, the community must live up to it's obligation to offer correction.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 21, 2009 01:11 PM
Someone's aesthetic appearance has little relationship to their political philosophy or their intellect (that Hawking guy is always in a wheelchair and looks like a slop, but I hear he's purty smart!).
This is just the equivalent of trash talk on the football field, and just about as worthless.
The wife and children of the President (or any politician, for that matter) should be pretty much off limits to this sort of thing, unless they constantly project themselves into the fray Little kids into the fray? Not likely.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at January 21, 2009 01:24 PM
OMG!! I did NOT mean it that way. I mean, it doesn't even make sense. I plead... terminal brain fart?
Help my idiocy and delete it. My orignial comment before I edited it into vile nonsense was Obama's youngster VOTERS. I was opining that many of the young voters have not experienced the pain they've inflicted with their vile attacks.
Please delete and I'll slink away in derision for being such an editing idiot.
If you read my comments or blog around the internet, you'd know I still haven't forgiven Rush for hurting Chelsea Clinton.
I swear to you, I am an idiot, if you haven't been able to deduce that from my prior comment.
Ack! I am mortified beyond repair.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at January 21, 2009 02:21 PM
I have to admit I read that whole thread and the comments yesterday, and could understand the need to have a safe place to vent. I did not contribute, however, because I want to be better than them.
I never liked it when people made fun of Hillary's ankles and bottom-heaviness, because IMHO it's not her figure, but her lack of character and dangerous ideas are what makes her an undesirable actor on our national stage.
And I would not criticize Michelle Obama's figure or facial structure for the same reason. It's her ideas and what comes out of her mouth that is poisonous.
But Michelle Obama is not just the "little lady" at home that us mean Conservatives started picking on. No - she was a major player on the campaign trail, and again IMHO, is fair game for what she said back then. If she becomes a bland feature on the landscape, I'll leave her alone.
And though I want to get on with the next four years and see them in the rear-view mirror as soon as possible, the nastiness of the comments on the HopeyChangey website, talking about Bush breaking his promises to New Orleans, was just about enough to make me start posting at Ace.
Instead, I emailed Pres Obama from his HopeyChangey website, congratulated him even though I didn't vote for him, and told him that it was just unseemly to post such things about President Bush on his website. I said that Democrats are very poor losers, but why must they be poor winners too? I told him that real life was on it's way into his path and he'd do well to be gracious, especially on his first day.
The following is in a thought bubble hanging over my head, which I can see when I look in the mirror: (*I have had black helicopters flying low over my house twice today...I wonder?? Nah. Vivid imagination.*)
Posted by: MathMom at January 21, 2009 02:22 PM
Good luck getting a reply MathMom. If by chance you do, please share.
Posted by: Tater at January 21, 2009 03:01 PM
Sirrush Three Four, Outcast Six on Uniform. Egress NAI "MathMom" immediately -- I say again, egress NAI "MathMom" immediately -- via alternate Charlie. Do not acknowledge transmission, Six Out.
Posted by: BillT at January 21, 2009 03:04 PM
That is the right response.
You don't have a hope in hell of influencing or convincing people who don't think like you do if you validate their worst fears or prejudices.
You may not convince them anyway, even if you take the high road, but at least you have a better chance that they'll listen. In more than 2 decades of customer service, I've found that even the angriest customer will calm down and listen if you appeal to their better side and more importantly, their own good opinion of themselves.
No one wants to think THEY are a jerk. And in truth most of us aren't jerks. Sometimes, we fail to live up to our own standards, and the answer then is to realize one shortfall doesn't make us failures.
It makes us human.
Character is shown by what happens next. Sometimes you have to have faith in people: faith that they will allow their own good nature to come to the fore.
Posted by: Cass at January 21, 2009 03:16 PM
Mr Ace really got out of bed on the wrong side that morning.
He's in my "Penalty Box" until further notice. I'm sure there will be much to complain about in the days to come, but making oneself a Chief Ankle-Biter is not something to crow about. Maybe when he thinks about it a little, he'll be eating crow.
I give long-time poster Joan of Arggh a pass (that name must be great on "Talk Like a Pirate Day"). Sometimes we hit Return (or "Enter" for those under 30) before the brain has finished processing the thought.
Post in haste, repent at leisure.
Posted by: ZZMike at January 21, 2009 03:16 PM
Editing comments has tripped me up more than once in the past :p
Posted by: Cass at January 21, 2009 03:32 PM
I don't like the nastiness about anyone's looks. Period.
What I feel torn about is that complete lack of lesson in manners that so many on the left internalize. I get frustrated myself because I do try to behave, show some class, put my napkin in my lap when I eat and all that, not call the First Lady a cow... You know, normal stuff.
But those who sent absolutely vile pictures of Laura Bush around the internet, those who acted like complete asses when President Bush left the White House the last time - they never learn and they never learn from example.
I don't want to say those things, I don't want to hear those things about Michelle Obama. But where I find myself torn is the smug superiority of those who treated Sarah Palin worse than Micheal Vick treated his dogs and yet feel "their own" are off limits.
It's a conundrum to me.
Posted by: airforcewife at January 21, 2009 05:02 PM
That is part of why I think it is so important to object when someone on our side goes over the line.
Too often people excuse behavior because "they did it first". That is a slippery slope that leads nowhere good. If you genuinely want things to be better (as opposed to playing endless games of 'gotcha'), you have to give the decent people on the other side something to work with.
It also helps to remove the excuses for bad behavior.
Often in my work I've encountered people who were initially completely nasty and unreasonable. In nearly three decades I've never found a single one I couldn't turn around with a simple tactic: being calm and decent and respectful while pointing out that (a) those tactics aren't going to be rewarded/turn me into the nasty person they're trying to convince themselves I already am, and (b) more importantly, their incivility demeans them, not me.
People have a strong sense of their own dignity.
Sometimes, they need to be reminded of it. That's a sad comment on today's culture. But it's an important one that I think we as conservatives are uniquely qualified to reinforce.
Posted by: Cass at January 21, 2009 05:15 PM
FWIW, I like Ace. You all know that.
I think he's smart. Not sure what happened there, but generally there's an explanation.
I just don't like to see us forget ourselves simply because we lost an election. Innocent fun is one thing. Heck, I've said "I don't like that dress on her. ", or "What the heck was so-and-so thinking" a time or two.
But this crossed a line, in my opinion. It wasn't political disagreement.
It wasn't about ideas.
And really, it strayed from even being about fashion sense and got way too personal. For whatever it may be worth I have to say I rather liked the yellow outfit.
So shoot me :p
I don't dress up often, but generally when I do I generally get lots of compliments on my outfits. So I'd like to think I have some aesthetic sensibilities, mostly from my mother (who has impeccable taste).
Posted by: Cass at January 21, 2009 05:23 PM
I also was not comfortable with what I was reading on a couple of sites. Things were said that weren't just statements about Mrs. Obama's clothes - it was personal. I really don't approve of that from anyone but particularly conservatives.
That being said, Mrs. Obama did open the door to that when she made some comments during the campaign.
Again, I'm not excusing horrible things that were said about her but . . . well . . . she just isn't Laura Bush when it comes to tact.
Posted by: Deana at January 21, 2009 05:56 PM
Cass - I mostly agree. But being a born and bred Californian and having passed the Iraq invasion being stationed 15 miles from Berkeley... Some people NEVER learn.
Perhaps it's group think from living so close to so many nut jobs, I don't know. But they never learn that their behavior is terrible. Never. And they continue to do it, and they never suffer any repercussions for it.
I absolutely do not like the stuff said about Michelle Obama. I don't like her, but I would NEVER stoop to such things. Nor would I be anything less than respectful to her. Period.
But I feel so helpless when confronted by people who are so nasty so often and never have to pay a price for it. I understand why Ace's frustration spilled into saying those things. I do not condone it and I do not like it, but I understand what led to it.
Posted by: airforcewife at January 21, 2009 05:57 PM
I know. And I sympathize.
I felt angry over the holidays many times when I heard people saying things that were just ugly and unnecessarily in your face. It was difficult for me to keep a civil tongue in my head at times.
But I also think there's a general climate in society that is made up of individual actions, and people do note the level of hostility and venom out there and also disapprove of it on some level. There is a wonderful video I'm going to see if I can find that speaks to this.
Posted by: Cassandra at January 21, 2009 06:14 PM
Okay, now I'm confused. I thought when we right-wing conservatives insisted upon integrity and sticking to our principles, we were "divisive" according to the "big tent" moderate Republicans. I thought we were supposed to look the other way and surrender our values and moral principles in order to better sell ourselves to those who didn't agree with us, n'est-ce pas? Using this logic, shouldn't we also become coarse in manner and custom to better appeal to the Left and younger voters who already act that way? After all, it IS all about the marketing, isn't it?
Posted by: a former european at January 21, 2009 06:28 PM
How do gratuitous and vicious insults aimed at the family members of politicians, serve to convince people who already think you're an intolerant jerk they want to be on your side?
As opposed to, say, addressing your opponent's political arguments with well reasoned rebuttals?
Posted by: Cassandra at January 21, 2009 06:34 PM
And by the way, I don't think I argued that you had to surrender your integrity.
That is a misstatement of my argument that is both unfair and inaccurate. When you figure out how to win an election when there aren't enough people who believe exactly the same things you do in a democracy, by inflexibly insisting on having EVERYTHING your way, let me know.
To me, you see, the math doesn't add up. And I was always quite good at math.
Posted by: Cassandra at January 21, 2009 06:37 PM
Perhaps, another way of putting it is "Sticking to your guns doesn't mean shooting everyone".
For a more concrete example, many libertarian types disagree with the drug war on principle grounds (since when did the constitution authorize the fed.gov to regulate the ownership of property). The fact of the matter is that it's a dead issue. No matter how much you argue the point Heroin will not be made legal this year. So we have an option. We can either start shooting everyone and get outgunned. Or we can ally with those who don't believe everything we do and maybe get the drinking age lowered. And then next work on getting Weed legalized for prescription use. And then next get it moved to liquor stores. And then next...
Have we given up our principle of ending modern Prohibition? The absolutists would say 'Yes', but by not insisting on ideological purity, the incrementalists got more of our principles enacted.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 21, 2009 07:18 PM
Dammitall, this is the reason Ace went off on that thread. Biden is the fargin' VICE PRESIDENT, for crap's sake. That should be enough to make him feel good about himself (of course, feeling good about himself always came easily for him). But he can't just let the flub (started by the Messiah, Himself) drop. He has to ridicule a person who is not there to defend himself, and who has already graciously taken the blame. @$$#ole.
Roberts' action in taking the blame reminds me of the story of an elderly Duchess at a state banquet attended by an American. She was seated between two British men. During dinner, she belched rather loudly, and the Brit to her left stood up and said, "Excuse me" to the assembled guests. The American looked on in puzzlement. Not long after, another burp. The Brit on her right stood up, and said, "Excuse me". The American elbowed the Brit who had just stood up and asked what was going on. He whispered, "It is unseemly to allow a lady to be embarrassed!" The light came on over the American's head, and when the Duchess again burped, he stood up and said, "Don't worry, Duchess. This one's on me!"
Posted by: MathMom at January 21, 2009 07:26 PM
If those comments from the racist site ACE were so bad, why provide a link to it, and then repeat the comments on your site? It surely defeats any purpose of pretense towards integrity. I'm sure the guy at ACE is loving you. Even the responses hear are professing integrity as they take little nasty rabbit punches.
Posted by: Miguel at January 21, 2009 11:16 PM
Please grow up and stop playing the troll. If you knew anything about blogging, you'd know the best way to give someone max traffic (if that is your goal) is to provide a link with no excerpt.
That way, they HAVE to click on the link out of curiosity.
If you don't provide any link or any excerpt, how can you possibly discuss something your readers can't evaluate for themselves?
And excerpt parting of the post with no link gives your readers no way to know whether you quoted something out of context or altered the quote, since they can't check for themselves.
I'm sure the guy at ACE is loving you.
Ace gets so much traffic it is highly doubtful he even knows I've linked to him. Again, get a life.
If you have some serious point, please make it. Otherwise, do us all a favor and forego the insults, OK? Once again you prove that you are more interested in causing hate and discontent than serious exchange of ideas.
Posted by: Cassandra at January 21, 2009 11:26 PM
I agree that what Michelle Obama says is worthy of discussion and that her body type or physical features should be and are off-limits.
But what about taste? The inaugural ball "gown" was incredibly horrible in every imaginable way and would not have looked good or 'worked' on any body type. It was just plain ugly. Even Barbie couldn't carry it off?
I have to ask... did Michelle lose a bet? Or what?
Posted by: Donna B. at January 22, 2009 12:37 AM
Sure, sure, I've heard all the incrementalist arguments before; sounds like the ole go along to git along. I did that with Bush and regret it. Try as I have to like the guy, I just can't. For every good thing he has done, (Iraq, tax cuts) he has done something profoundly wrong (lax on immigration, spent like a drunken sailor). Its like a quarterback that, for every touchdown pass thrown, throws an interception that the other team returns for a touchdown. In the pros, that's a recipe for mediocrity at best.
So, having compromised my principles and supported a somewhat conservative Bush, I am now left with a Republican Party in shambles, less conservative than ever, and with a stronger Left than ever. I am tired of the endless compromises, and sacrifice of principle for expediency. If a true conservative emerges again, then he or she will have my support. Otherwise, forget it. The "democrat-lite" world of the John McCains or other "big tent" Republicans has no room for people like me. Go hangout with other like-minded, middle-of-the-road folks. If that is what being Republican is all about, then I'm no Republican.
As for the argument about civility and decorum, I was being facetious. I firmly believe in such things but, it is equally clear, the Left does not. It is like standing in the middle of a street fight and shouting that everyone observe the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Given the behavior of our politicians lately, of both political parties, it is perhaps more akin to seeking decorum in a brothel.
Posted by: a former european at January 22, 2009 01:20 AM
If a true conservative emerges again, then he or she will have my support. Otherwise, forget it.
afe, when I was a little girl and I said or did something wrong, my Mother used to say to me, "Cass, what if everyone did as you just did? How would you like living in that kind of world?"
When I became a mother, I asked that same question of my small sons because it's a good question. More than once, it has forced me to stop and think through the logical consequences of my acts.
This is, of course, a free country. If you and everyone who thinks like you wish to abdicate America to the Democrats you can certainly do so. But the logical consequence of your stance, if we all behaved as you propose, is that the RNC will never win another national election.
If I and moderate conservatives like me stay home every time the candidate of choice doesn't perfectly match my ideological dance card (and there has never been one who did - George Bush certainly didn't, but he was a damned sight better than Al Gore or John Kerry and those were both extremely close elections), your ideal conservative doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that both parties get to participate in the political process in a democracy, but that's the way the system is designed. Sometimes, you just have to share the ball. Blaming others for this strikes me as counterproductive.
Politics isn't about ideals.
It's about compromise, cooperation and consensus. There's a reason for that old saw, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." People work together, each giving up something they want because alone, they can't get ANY of what they want.
As I commented earlier, I'm still waiting for you to show me the math that makes your 'strategy' anything other than political suicide. So long as the Republican base continues to indulge in destructive nonsense like talking about purging the insufficiently faithful from the party or ideological litmus tests (welcome to Soviet Russia - is this *really* a party I want to belong to?) we can forget about building any kind of workable consensus or coalition.
There's a difference between emphasizing what you have in common to build an electable majority and casting people out because you think there aren't 'real conservatives' according to your narrow definition of same, and if you're offended by simply being asked to remember there are folks who don't agree with you and that you need their votes to win (and this is no less than the literal truth) try being a moderate and constantly being reviled by the "base" and listening to said "base" yammer on about how much better the party will be when the Unbelievers are all purged from its ranks.
Christ. No wonder we lost. We can't even add.
Posted by: Cassandra at January 22, 2009 06:47 AM
But what about taste? The inaugural ball "gown" was incredibly horrible in every imaginable way and would not have looked good or 'worked' on any body type.
Let me be brutally frank here (and this isn't aimed at you, Donna). In other discussions on this topic elsewhere, I've been amazed at how some folks seem able to gloss over what was said about the First Lady of this nation.
I don't think it's off limits to say "I hated her dress", or "Yikes! it looked like it was made of sofa material". Criticizing a dress is one thing.
Personally, I wouldn't even go there because I don't see the point but I wouldn't bother to criticize anyone who did. I don't care.
What bothered me was seeing a prominent conservative blogger say the following things:
1. Her dress looked like 30 horny sofas ejaculated on her [face] (that is the precise meaning of the term that was used).
Wow. Nice use of p0rn imagery. And people like to say p0rn doesn't coarsen the culture?
2. She looked like she was raped by Joseph and the Amazing Monocolor dreamcoat.
Sorry. I find this disturbing too. On a number of levels.
What I find even more disturbing was the lack of censure, but I'm rapidly becoming convinced conservatives have no real ideals or standards any more.
3. The First Lady of this country has a mouth like a fish.
Classy. Very classy.
When I read political rebuttals like this, I'm convinced victory in 2012 is a sure thing.
Taste, I've found, is a highly subjective thing.
As I said before, I liked the yellow dress.
Personally I didn't even think the ball gown was awful. I would have preferred her in something else but I think she may have been seeking to counter the image left by the black and red dress. I'm amazed people can't see that.
Finally, Michelle Obama is not an ugly woman. Not by any means.
She *is* a black woman. Her features are unashamedly black.
I don't think she's at all unattractive. I don't understand the impulse to compare every woman from politician's wives to political figures like Hillary with p0rn stars and 19 year old supermodels.
Do we do that to men? No.
Social standards are what *we* say they are. If we accept this kind of trash, if we allow it to go unchallenged, it becomes the norm. That is not the kind of world I wish to live in. Others are free to oppose my ideas with their arguments if they find them faulty but I will never apologize for saying what I think is right.
We conservatives have decried the death of outrage, of shame. But we sure tend to employ it selectively, sometimes in defiance of our own stated values. Maybe I'm a gadfly but I think standards are meant to be applied evenly, without favor, across the board. The reason the Marine Corps is respected is that they police their own more vigorously than the rest of society, not that they excuse wrongdoing.
Personally, I think that's a fine example.
Posted by: Cassandra at January 22, 2009 07:05 AM
You know, Ann Coulter said something about Michelle Obama's resemblance to Jacqueline Kennedy with regard to the flipped hair and her thinness and clothing. The left went into a tizzy over that, and it wasn't even close to being insulting. I would be very flattered if someone compared me to someone as beautiful as Jacqueline Kennedy.
In my case, the comparison to the late Mrs. Onassis would be a HUGE stretch, but I would prefer that to a fish.
The Obamas are a handsome couple. I suppose the eye candy is the spoonful of sugar necessary to make their agenda go down easier.
Posted by: Cricket at January 22, 2009 07:51 AM
I agree with your premise, but I'm sorry ma'am. I hated the green/gold/whatever dress.
Posted by: MikeD at January 22, 2009 08:59 AM
Hey - I didn't say I loved it :p
I said I liked it... mostly in comparison to other outfits I've seen on her. And you're entitled to your opinion!
Posted by: Cassandra at January 22, 2009 09:09 AM
I agree with Donna B. that wardrobe choices are fair game. I thought the ball gown was a train wreck.
Re: Cricket's comment about when they were dressing Michelle Obama in the same style outfits as Mrs. Onassis - Although I thought those efforts were a very heavy-handed effort to make us believe the Obamas were the reincarnation of "Camelot", I think Michelle Obama would have done much better for herself if she had let someone else choose her ball gown, perhaps one more in the style of one Onassis might have worn. The gown she chose needed to be either strapless, or if she wanted to do a one-shoulder thing, do it. The strap on the dress appeared to be a safety-pinned afterthought - it did not even appear to be completely attached, it was too wide to be a strap, too narrow to be a shoulder covering, and the points where it was attached were too near the center. It reminded me of a messenger bag, without the bag.
I think Michelle Obama can photograph well or poorly. At the beginning of the campaign, she made much of the fact that she doesn't wear makeup and would not start. That is not reasonable if you expect to represent the United States as First Lady, and someone thankfully disabused her of that notion. She looks much better made up. She would also have been a knockout if she had chosen bright jewel tones, which she wears well. But the mustard-color swearing-in outfit with the olive-colored gloves, topped by the yellow fuzzy ball-gown thing? Aaaack! I do not think every dress at the Oscars will be a knock-off of that one. It's possible that both outfits look dynamite in person but don't translate well to TV. Recall Nancy Reagan wearing red so much of the time? The TV cameras made her dresses smear all over the screen. They were beautiful, but didn't work on TV. That said, I think these two outfits were better than the Black Widow look on election night. I see progress.
Remember when Hillary Clinton dolled herself up for her Senate run, (started wearing a nice haircut and makeup) then showed up to work in the first week looking like a drowned rat? People felt like they'd been the victim of bait-and-switch. She had to go back to looking put-together. After she finished her Presidential campaign, she did it again. Let her hair grow to a frumpy length and stopped the Botox and the professionally-done makeup. In the same way, Michelle Obama needs to continue to put herself together well. She is First Lady, after all.
Posted by: MathMom at January 22, 2009 09:26 AM
How's that strategy worked out for the Libertarian Party?
Perhaps if they worked with the Republican Party on Eminent Domain abuse, fiscal restraint and a whole host of other things they agree on we could get some $h1t done.
Too bad they care more about their weed.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 22, 2009 09:52 AM
"Social standards are what *we* say they are. If we accept this kind of trash, if we allow it to go unchallenged, it becomes the norm. That is not the kind of world I wish to live in. Others are free to oppose my ideas with their arguments if they find them faulty but I will never apologize for saying what I think is right."In a nutshell... Harumph!
"Perhaps if they [Libertarians] worked with the Republican Party on Eminent Domain abuse, fiscal restraint and a whole host of other things they agree on we could get some $h1t done.Yet another chock-full-o-sense nutshell. Yes siree.
And in a perfect world conservatives would pay attention to the actions of the gub'ment year round. And each and every informed conservative would communicate with their elected reprehensibles, as needed, to offer support for conservative positions. While on the other hand slathering them with civil yet vocal disagreement based on the merits, not their perceived if not apparent ancestral lineage, as the situation warrants.
Forty to fifty million folk periodically tossing a figurative pebble up side the windows of the Congress might keep em a bit more honest, energetic and on their toes, if nothing else.
Oh yeah, one more little item (a vector Victor?) since I'm wackin' away at the keyboard. Allow only registered GOP widgets to vote in the GOP primaries... But that's just my Bitter-n-Clingy®, Half-bubble-off-plumb, This-ain't-no-disco, Neanderthals-Я-Us opinion.
Posted by: bt_of-the-pinched-nose-voting-block_hun at January 22, 2009 12:09 PM
And you're entitled to your opinion!
Nuh UH! You take that back! :P
Posted by: MikeD at January 22, 2009 02:03 PM
Personally what I've found distressing is the number of conservatives who criticized the left for their immature behavior and who are now behaving exactly the same way. Disappointment, concern, even a certain level of depression I can understand, but the number of hissy fits (for lack of a better description) I've seen both in print and in person have been amazing.
Posted by: Pogue at January 22, 2009 03:50 PM
This is why, in many ways, I think it's healthy to have a transfer of power every now and then. It keeps our Congressional overlords on their toes and reminds the 'winners' what it feels like to be out of power.
I don't like this one bit. People seem to have gotten the idea that because I counsel restraint that I'm not upset we lost. I wouldn't have wasted countless hours blogging if I didn't care.
But it's over. We lost. And now the question is, how do we pick up the pieces and move *forward* in a way that serves us and the country well?
Posted by: Cassandra at January 22, 2009 04:12 PM
We need to behave better than our opponents. We need to support candidates at all levels that support those policies that will get this country back on track: strong national security, secure borders, low taxes to encourage business investment that will create jobs. Stop supporting legislation that is outside the purview of the Constitution (like bailing out private business entities). Go after Michelle on the things she says or does, not on her appearance. That should be beneath us, regardless of how the Left has treated women of the Right.
Posted by: MIss Ladybug at January 23, 2009 02:04 AM
One evening, an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "Child, the battle is between two wolves inside us all.
"One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
"The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked, "Which wolf wins?"
"The one you feed."
Posted by: BillT at January 23, 2009 07:12 AM
"This is why, in many ways, I think it's healthy to have a transfer of power every now and then. It keeps our Congressional overlords on their toes and reminds the 'winners' what it feels like to be out of power."I like it! So much so that I've been yammering on -even in polite company such as that found here- about term limits at every opportunity. Two terms and then the elected would have to get a real job... Like maybe on radio.
Outstanding parable BillT.
Posted by: bt_of-the-pinched-nose-voting-block_hun at January 23, 2009 01:59 PM
Thanks, bthun. Wish I could claim authorship, but I got it from one of my guttersnipe helicopter pilot buds who decided to become a *real* Sky Pilot after the SouthEast Asian Unpleasantness.
Posted by: BillT at January 23, 2009 04:30 PM
Just a note on how "we" discuss male and female fashion...
For male politicians, it's limited to the tie and if the blue/black/grey suit fits them well. Oh, and hair, if they have any.
But women are given much more freedom of choice in the way they dress and the way they wear their hair. It's not so much that women are treated poorly in that their choices are discussed more, but that they have more to begin with.
Michelle Obama is fortunate that she has the height, figure, and skin tone to pull off most anything with style. Note, I said anything with style. Even fashion model types can't make something lacking basic style look good.
I'm looking forward to a young and stylish (even if I don't like the style!) first lady. I liked the gold dress a lot, though I thought the shoes were a mistake.
Where fashion is concerned Michelle Obama has actually "put herself out there". She is a celebrity in that sense more than any other first lady since Jacqueline Kennedy.
Posted by: Donna B. at January 24, 2009 01:25 AM
I like that parable so much I am going to Copy It.
MathMom, those poor pics were scary, esp. the one of Ayers doing his Manson thing. I really got the feeling he was/is a rabid dog.
Posted by: Cricket at January 26, 2009 02:12 AM
I like that parable so much I am going to Copy It.
Heh. That's the reason Cassie lets me hang around, Lady Cricket.
Ummmmm -- okay, *one* of the reasons. The other one is that I make hats look *good*.
Posted by: BillT at January 26, 2009 05:12 AM
I agree completely. It is entirely inappropriate for us to not take the high ground EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Posted by: SP at January 27, 2009 10:39 PM