Quotes of the day
posted at 10:40 pm on September 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
“Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
The idea that ‘the people’ will take on and destroy ‘the establishment’ is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.”
*
“Populism rests on two great insights. First, it understands that the people (taken as a whole) are often wiser and more prudent than the elites. Average people are almost always respectful of tradition, while elites tend to act like an angry mob trying to tear down the old idols. Second, populism understands that it’s not enough to actually have the right policy ideas, you have to have the will to take on the elites who will try to prevent those ideas from going into place. In order to get anything accomplished, the GOP is going to have to use public opinion to override the objections of liberals, including liberals in the media.
Does Sarah Palin have the political skills to successfully govern this country from a populist perspective? It’s far too early to say. She is certainly the most promising such figure to come along since the elites were denouncing Ronald Reagan. And therefore we should all wish her well. It is silly to criticize her at this early stage until we know a lot more about her abilities as a leader. I am glad to say that her instincts appear to be sound.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I used to respect David Brooks as a “token conservative” at the NYT, but that respect is gone. He is a tool, in the original sense of the word.
Buford Gooch on September 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM
No, unseen, unprecedented. It would put the establishment on final notice and energize the country. McCain wants to shake things up, that would do it like no other. It would also free them both from having to campaign, having to kiss anyone’s ass and cover their own. Free to purge the engorged snake that congress has become.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Huh?
The only intent is owned by the electorate.
Saltysam on September 17, 2008 at 12:18 AM
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Duude!!
Have you been paying attention?
The election cycle would start on Jan 21, 2009!
I’m beginning to wonder about you…
Saltysam on September 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM
They do not have to campiagn for the second term. They can direct all their resources at fighting the corruption. Let the people decide if they did a good job. Giving a pullout date to your enemies is a very stupid move. all they need to do is wait you out. Bush and McCain understood that. Obama didn’t. If Obama wants change he should declare a one term president cycle. McCain/Palin will need the threat of 16 years in office to clean out Washington. Your enemies find it hard to hide for 16 years. As long as they do what they say they will be reelected for the entire 2 terms of each person. Bush become a lame duck 2 years ago and look at the respect the dem congress shows him. They are not even working on spending bills this year so that they can start “fresh” next year. That is what lame duck status does to a president. If McCain said he would only be in for one term Congress would simply wait him out. They would only need to get thru one election cycle 2 years and then it would be party time for them again. It is the threat that he and Palin will be around for 16 years that would motivate government to change. If you can’t beat them join them. Again see Iraq. the anbar awakening would never had happen if the Sunnis believed that America was going to leave in a year’s time. they would simply have join the terroists. since they could not beat the US nor drive us out they decided to join us in victory. Congress is no different.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 12:21 AM
I think both you and I wish it were so simple, and it would be if not for, oh, 527′s, a biased media, the corrupting need to raise a half-billion dollars to run a campaign, the sorrowfully low turnout percentages, lobbyists and other influence seekers and peddlers.
Washington is a den of druggies clamoring for the next fix. I don’t think anyone can hold their breath for more than four years without becoming a junkie.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I fear it does now, Salty; but bear with me, think if both the Prez and the Veep could get down to work without having to ever pay attention to polls, to the media distractionators, to party hacks.
Don’t worry, I don’t live on Fanatsy Island, I’m just thinking outloud.
But I do believe the shock and awe of stating publicly that you are there to work for the people and not for re-election, and back it up by refusing to run again…well, I can dream, can’t I?
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:29 AM
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:24 AM
What is the threat of a one term Presidency to the establishment?
You really need to think this one through.
Do you know what would happen in the GOP establishment as soon as McCain-Palin were sworn in? They would already be preparing for the primaries, and backstabbing/undermining the administration from day one.
You either wield power, or you bend over the proverbial sink.
Saltysam on September 17, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Leno to Biden’s son:
“well your dad is truly an honorable man and a decent man”
(paraphrasing, but damn close)
*PUKE*
I know Leno has to be nice. But imagine McCain or Palin’s kid on that show.
Ugly on September 17, 2008 at 12:32 AM
And of course Leno booked a rap group
Ugly on September 17, 2008 at 12:34 AM
The beauty of that statement is that congress cannot wait them out. Representatives have to run every two years, and half the senate will have to run again during a single presidential term.
Bush has become a lame duck early on because of his failures. Reagan didn’t until much later in his second term.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Personally, I want the President to worry about his/her support. McCain picked Palin because of that.
Yeah…think.
Saltysam on September 17, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Here is a quote of the day:
I’m filling up my gas tanks tomorrow because I should. That’s the internal memo from my company to the employees we received this evening. My company is a petroleum carrier in TX, LA, OK, ARK, NM, CO, AZ, NV, MS, MO and a couple of odd states here and there that services close to 500 stations.
Ike bites again. The question is will he bite Barry or Johnny? I’m hoping like hell the memo is some sad twisted joke from a drunk CEO.
Limerick on September 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM
I think where I’m going here is that with such a powerful beginning, McPalin could *the operative word is could* energize the electorate to support real, actual reform. Four years is not enough to complete the job, but it might start something worthwhile. Like create expectations within the electorate that things can and will change. It might be revolutionary. I believe we are dispirited because despite the rhetoric from both sides, we all know deep down little will change.
Real change will take a real revolution. You cannot dislodge entrenched power otherwise. And I certainly would prefer the revolution to be only virtually bloody.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Representatives have to run every two years, and half the senate will have to run again during a single presidential term.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:34 AM
I believe it’s one third of the Senate, and you’d better hope it’s the “right” one third.
After two years, career politicians that survived the mid terms would be already holding their fingers to the wind of the next presidential election.
But, aside from all that.
You want change? The SCOTUS is the big part of the change game, and four years is not enough time to make a historical imprint on the character of judicial review.
Saltysam on September 17, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Aww Salty, crush my dreams….I was almost starting to get excited about politics again.
Yes, but the Supremes are always a wild card, with turnover dependent on either voluntary retirement or death. Not much else happens in between.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Limerick on September 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM
All I can say that in central NC we are running out of gas. since this weekend I have seen more gasstations with “no gas” then I have every seen in my life. Could be caused by panic but something is not right and yet our leaders are saying nothing. what is going on? Maybe They do not know, do not think it is a problem or are they keeping something that might cause a massive panic?
Oh yeah and gas is again selling for $3.99/gal when you can find it. That’s a .50c a gal increase since last week. something is up.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM
I wonder if the threat of a 3rd Bush term would have change the politics of Congress this year. I would say it would have. I’m sure spending bills would have been worked on, drilling would have been handled, energy bills at least would have been debated. As it is the Congress shut down last year. that is what a one term president would do.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 12:55 AM
We have 475 tractors/trailers. Three-quarters are now sidelined due to supply. All our stations have received instructions on ‘out-of-gas’ proceedures.
It’s temporary, for sure, but until south Texas gets patched up the well is running dry.
Limerick on September 17, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Crap! I just paid $3.66 to fill up on Friday, and it is still dropping here in the mountainwest. I hear we get all our oil locally or from Canada and refine it here.
I feel your pain…but I hope it dont spread.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:57 AM
With the current political climate I think a Bush third would just tee him up for impeachment.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I replied to Laura’s e-mail that Brooks shouldn’t be relpied to–so now consider that expresssion cross-posted.
But I am not thrilled with Laura’s idea of populism, either. Regardless of Brooks idiotic elitism or Laura’s, perhaps occasionally admirable, populism, there many wrong answers and very few right answers. I don’t care to lean on elitism or populism to arrive at those rarified answers, but rather jugdment and resolve.
Populism may help you get something done, but that applies to bad ideas, as well. And elitism can go off on a tangent and miss the boat entirely.
urbancenturion on September 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Everytime someone knocks Sarah for her lack of experience–they refuse to acknowledge Obama’s glaring lack of experience.
Obama is both inexperienced and self-righteously elite. What a wonderful combination that is. The combination least likely to produce good government!
Give me a common sense woman. That is much better than a man who thinks he knows things he can’t possibily know.
He simply has not lived as an average American, ever. He cannot know us. Maybe with time and exposure, but in his current position he barely knows any real Americans let alone what we want or need.
Obama knows exteremes. The poorest. The richest. The most powerful. The most crooked. The most violent. The most radical. The most worshipful of him. Probably the most hateful of him. The most well travelled. The least travelled. But he doesn’t know anyone like me I am none of those things.
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:02 AM
urbancenturion on September 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM
and thus you have the consitution the way it was orginally intended. the house was suppose to channel populism, the senate elitism. the two was suppose to work out the differences between the two. what has happened is that the House has become elite also. so the voice of the people are no longer heard. This is very bad and will lead to a revolution sooner or later. Increase the size of the house so once again it becomes the voice of the people and the good ideas will be phased in. They will once again become a foil for the elites.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Amen.
While elitism is almost always a bad thing, blind populism can lead us into some pretty scary places as well.
Dagnar on September 17, 2008 at 1:06 AM
“Pundit elites” like David Brooks are noticing cracks forming in their ivory towers and his insecurity is forcing him to compensate for he
r‘s lack ofexperienceself-assurance with brashness and excessive derision.Speakup on September 17, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Limerick on September 17, 2008 at 12:55 AM
with Rita some refiners were down for 6 months. how tempory is this going to be? I have been filling up everytime I drive when I can find a station with gas. Sunday 4 of 5 stations I stopped at was out of gas. The 5th only had premium. Maybe its better now. have not been driving for the last couple of days.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Company ‘best guess’ (i.e. rumor factory) was six weeks. All I know is that some stations in North and West Texas will have to start bagging pumps starting tomorrow. A typical drop at a station is 8,500 gallons. Our #1 station customer was down to 3k gals this evening when I got off work. 3k gals is only 150 20 gallon tanks.
Besides the economic impact I am wondering about the political impact. Will it be the drillers or non-drillers who take the heat?
Limerick on September 17, 2008 at 1:13 AM
The House of Commons and the House of Lords. Now they are the House of Lower Lords and House of Lordy Lords.
trailboss on September 17, 2008 at 1:13 AM
LOL statement of the day:
Of biggest concern to Biden, and the focus on the debate, are domestic policy issues, in-depth foreign policy details that will highlight what the Democrats believe are Palin’s weaknesses on international issues, and what an Obama adviser called Biden’s “penchant for smarminess.”
Biden is notorious in the Senate for his long-winded questions and his inability to limit his comments to questions during interviews and floor debate, and Republicans and the McCain campaign have been banking that Biden’s ego and frustration over the lack of attention focused on him will drive him to overcompensate during the debate.
But we’re not going to let that happen,” says the Obama adviser. “When Joe wants to get in a zone, he can get in the zone and stay there. He really wants to be in the zone for this debate and he is working hard. I saw him work hard to prep on the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings. He’s working twice as hard on this, because the stakes and the rewards are so much higher.”
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13897
Let’s refresh for a moment.
This leads to the cautionary tale of Joe Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, who won U.S. News & World Report’s “most talkative” award and was first runner-up in Washingtonian magazine’s “biggest windbag” category. Biden’s lungs are legendary. When it was rumored that John Kerry might tap Biden as his secretary of state, journalists joked that Foggy Bottom would no longer need to schedule daily briefings: Biden’s daily briefing would merely end when the next day’s briefing was ready to begin. Biden used so many words that he briefly ran out and had to use somebody else’s; he quit the 1988 presidential race after it was discovered that he had plagiarized remarks by British politician Neil Kinnock.
As a fixture on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees, Biden was known for his rambling, self-referential questioning of witnesses. During the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, Biden warned the nominee to give “short answers” and then proceeded to talk for twelve of his allotted twenty minutes. After Biden fired off a series of questions without allowing Roberts to answer, the nominee finally replied, “Well, I was about to lay it out. You said you didn’t want to hear about it.” Everybody laughed except Biden. Biden reacted to Roberts’s answers so theatrically—with pouts, glares, and face in hands—that colleague Lindsey Graham rolled his eyes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/books/20maslinfirstchapter.html?pagewanted=8&ref=firstchapters
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Limerick on September 17, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Well it depends if the fake drilling bill is exposed by McCain/Palin for what it is. If it is then the dems will be hurt.
As far as bagging. Most stations here already are.
I worry about getting to work this weekend.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 1:21 AM
It doesn’t matter if it is Olaf. (With whom I would often disagree but) That was an offensive way to use the Lord’s name. Please be respectful. There are other ways to express anger. For some of us that is almost physically painful.
Kudos–CynicalOptimist
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Muslims feel the very same way when someone insults their Prophet!
Aleph on September 17, 2008 at 1:28 AM
I didn’t threaten you. I just asked for some respect. Of course no one should expect to force another to agree. And if you insist what could I do? No Sharia Law here. Peace.
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:33 AM
If you’ll read the whole article by David Brooks you’ll see that it is clear, concise, logically consistent, and makes a fair point.
It just happens to start from false premises, ignore contrary evidence, be inconsistent with facts outside his argument, and take the conventional wisdom as unquestioned truth.
False premise: Bush represents the opposite of elitism, the common man, the outsider, unable to deal effectively with the job because of a lack of background.
Contrary evidence: As Ingraham points out so well, Bush was the son of a president, and saw the presidency and its politics from the inside. He was a governor of a large state, and most of his staff had been part of previous Republican administrations. It’s hard to imagine a better qualified person by Brooks’ own elitist standard. He just doesn’t fit the profile of the barbarian outsider.
Inconsistent with known “facts”: As many times as we’ve been told that Bush is an elitist, whose daddy pulled strings to get him special favors, who coasted on his name, we’re suddenly hearing instead that he is the opposite of the elitist. Apparently if “facts” have to be changed to fit the narrative, then change them.
Conventional wisdom as final truth: Apparently, Bush’s low approval rating proves he’s a horrible president. We’re dealing with kindergarten logic here, but no logic is needed to prove a point when the people you’re speaking to — liberal elitists — already believe your point anyway. But this kind of article is classic, in its way. It’s the kind of article that’s written to confirm exactly what you already believe, not make you question or learn what you believe.
That is, Brooks writes to explain why Bush is such a bad president, not to weigh Bush’s strengths or weaknesses. If you’re already suffering from BDS, the whole article just gives you another reason why your delusion is beyond question. He may be writing from a conservative viewpoint, but liberals will like it because it ends up where they want it to.
I think Brooks demonstrates perfectly why elitists so often get it all wrong. Just as in his article, he’s too in love with the picture he’s painting to see its flaws, such as the fact that … it’s a false picture.
As Reagan said, it’s now what you don’t know, it’s what you do know, that just ain’t so!
theregoestheneighborhood on September 17, 2008 at 1:34 AM
God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.
Tav on September 17, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Let’s hope they are serious that Biden is actually planning to be that stupid in the debate. He was truly the biggest blowhard, knownothing on the planet. It would be terrific if all of America tuned in for that fiasco.
It must be a bluff. They surely have PR people who will point that out.
And yeah, I won’t call you Shirley…Roger Roger.
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:39 AM
What an interesting point of view.
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:41 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html
Good interview. todd Palin is a force to be feared by the dems.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 1:44 AM
It’s 1:44 am.
I’m going to bed.
Semper fi Hot Air warriors.
winemkr on September 17, 2008 at 1:45 AM
Carnac the Magnificent holds envelope up to his head……..
No debates. Some brouhaha has everyone pointing fingers.
Limerick on September 17, 2008 at 1:46 AM
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:39 AM
The funny thing from the article is the people training biden on the debate thought he did good with all his practice for Alito and roberts. Biden boned up for this hearing. He is studying twice as hard now so maybe it will go better for him but If he studied that hard for Roberts and Alito and still blew the hearing you have to wonder. Maybe its a trick low expectations and all. I don’t know but it will be fun to watch..
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Having more members just means that an individual congressman will be even less significant, and will have to depend on a party organization to get anything done.
I have long advocated a rule very similar to one the Articles of Confederation imposed on the original Congress. No person could serve more than three years out of six in Congress. I’d like an amendment that says members of congress can’t be elected to consecutive terms.
I’d allow someone filling out a vacancy to be elected, provided they took office with less than a year remaining on the term. Same rule for President, so that all two-term Presidents will be non-consecutive like Grover Cleveland.
Look at how sensible George McGovern has gotten since he left the Senate, and started running a business. He has spoken out opposing some laws that he sponsored when he was in office.
And while we’re at it, do away with direct election of Senators; restore their role representing the state legislatures, and you’ll see power start to devolve away from the central government.
The Monster on September 17, 2008 at 1:48 AM
That was funny!
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:50 AM
and he is the champion, yes it will be fun to watch.
allrsn on September 17, 2008 at 1:51 AM
I hope they are practising the face in hands, glaring, looking incredulous, stuff… That would go over really well with women. And anyone who likes women.
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 1:53 AM
I’m with you on the need to expand the House. Capping it at the current size just leads to gerrymandering as Congress redraws voting districts to make sure everyone in the House now has a good shot at staying in it. Representatives wind up many times with safer seats than Senators, who at least have to be elected statewide.
An expanded house would open the doors for more to get involved in national politics, but make it harder for individuals to advance unless they truly stand out from their peers. It would also put a stop to the current zero-sum system of representation, where a fast-growing state can’t add a representative unless another state gives one up. And term limits immediately become less significant, because a Representative for a dozen years in a House of, say, 972 people has amassed a lot less power than one of 435 people.
I originally thought term limits were a bad idea, but I’ve come around on that subject. It’s true, they have their down side. Probably the worst downside of term limits is the President, who winds up hampered during a second term because everyone sees him as a “lame duck.”
But for Congress term limits make a lot more sense. The nature of power is different for a Representative or Senator, and lame duck status is not nearly as crippling. Besides, incumbent self-protection seems to be the first rule of Congress. It might be good for Congress Critters to know that no matter how they slice it, they’re ineligible to run again after a certain point.
For Congress, I would favor fairly generous term limits of 18 years in the Senate, and 12 in the House. I just don’t see what a Robert Byrd or Teddy Kennedy contributes after all those years.
theregoestheneighborhood on September 17, 2008 at 1:58 AM
In order to be honorable politicos Republicans must swear not to use or keep power…..luckily donks just need to exist and win eh TB?
sven10077 on September 17, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Why wasn’t that story bigger news? Palin’s real answers were so much better!!!
ABC cut her off at that Russia is close enough to see in Alaska. She really said that that was important because it shows how small the world is and how important it is to maintain good relations with them if it is at all possible!!!!
I knew something was up with that editing. ABC basically showed a parody. It was like Jay Leno editing to make her look stupid! Charlie Gibson is anti-American.
I can’t even begin to understand why anyone would think Obama has anything at all to offer! And to sell their souls for him. It’s just unbelievable.
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 2:08 AM
We need new refineries.
Time to brook to task on trumping the sierra clubbers.
sven10077 on September 17, 2008 at 2:08 AM
The Monster on September 17, 2008 at 1:48 AM
I agree on the Senate. I disagree with the thought that increasing the size will bring more party play. With a decrease in the size of their district, House members will be able to directly campiagn instead of having to raise millions for reelection. they will hear the peoples voice more and will be less likely to go agains their wishes.
I have no problem with spliting terms up.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 2:09 AM
Here’s a radical thought:
Everyone is preaching (both Left and Right) about how the ordinary folks should get more involved in service to their country. As the House of Representatives is supposed to represent the “will of the people”, why not have a lottery draft of all people of voting age to serve 1 year terms in the House. They’d get an exemption from work (like folks in the military get) and would be paid as representatives. And as it would be a pure “luck of the draw” lottery, you’d have less chance of having supporters of a particular party having a majority all the time. The Senate would stay the same with career politicians.
Dagnar on September 17, 2008 at 2:09 AM
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Yes a war with Russia would directly impact Alsaka. the North Slop would be a prime target so would the pipeline. As well as the military bases. the fact that russia is next door to alsaka gives a clear reason why Gov Palin would think twice about going to war. Her people would be directly impacted most.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 2:13 AM
Dagnar on September 17, 2008 at 2:09 AM
It couldn’t be that much worse then what we have.
I always thought we should pay house members 10 million per year. It would get rid of the bribery (i.e influence peddeling) but it would also give a major incentive for every Tom, Dick, and Jane to run for office. It would be like your idea a lottery for the winner.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 2:16 AM
I’d probably opt for leaving the pay the same to make it less attractive for people to want to be there. Keep it like an extended jury duty; nobody really wants to be there and they all want to get back to their regular lives. So they put in their time and do the job for a year.
Dagnar on September 17, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Hey, all you being lead around the nose by the media, try to remember one thing……………
I think it is time to take this country back from the Government Political Class, the MSM, and the Democratic Leftist……………. what say you?
………….. or the MSM, because they just “said” so.
Seven Percent Solution on September 17, 2008 at 2:57 AM
I have what I think is a better solution to this problem:
Let members of Congress have as many terms as they can get from the voters, but make all Congressmen telecommute so that they are forced to spend most of each year in their home states!!!
This would divide the influence of Washington lobbyists by 50 (since they wouldn’t be able to walk over and touch our Congressmen most of the year), and multiply the influence of Congressmens’ actual home-state constituents by 50!!
The states could enforce this by classifying anybody who did not spend most of the year actually in the state as ineligible to be a Senator or Representative.
landlines on September 17, 2008 at 2:59 AM
You know… that’s a damn good idea. The savings on travel costs, DC residences, duplicate staff and all the other nonsense would likely be enough to pay off the national debt within 1 term. Run the whole shebang on GoToMeeting.
The side perk is that they’ll no longer have the excuse of “I was working in my district” when they don’t show up 70% of the time.
Damiano on September 17, 2008 at 6:09 AM
Thanks for the self-contradictory postmodernist babble.
Claiming exhaustive knowledge about God in order to deny His existence is a nice debater’s trick.
Right_of_Attila on September 17, 2008 at 6:18 AM
I remember most conservative writers, bloggers, and posters were on the side of David Brooks back when Harriet Myers was nominated for SCOTUS. I remember it being said that we needed “an elite” for the job. Makes me wonder, what happened to the conservative movement in so short a time?
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on September 17, 2008 at 7:01 AM
I’m starting to think they’ll use any reason to keep the pump prices up. Crude Oil just went down to under $93 a barrel this morning, a drop of almost 40% from its peak, I believe. That price drop hasn’t even come CLOSE to trickling back into consumer’s pockets. Can someone tell me what gives there?
52Ranger on September 17, 2008 at 9:06 AM
FALSE.
House districts are drawn by state legislatures.
The Monster on September 17, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Happily, McCain and virtually the entire right half of the GOP realized that he was not going to get elected with a David Brooks-style-countryclub-RINO as his VP running mate, and he made a stunning, highly nuanced, and somewhat risky choice in Palin.
She is not running for President, and I am pleased about that. Neither of the candidates on the Dem ticket are qualified to run the country in any way; both are mentally unstable; Obama isn’t fit for elected office of any kind.
So, for Brooks to sit in his token Republican chair in the NY Times, surrounded by treasonous scum, and dryly observe the principles of governance that might be rent by a Vice President Palin is being priceless. It’s just stupid.
Implicit in his position is the assumption that the other ticket does not rend these inviolable principles, and in this he is profoundly incorrect.
Jaibones on September 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I was thought that it’s for whatever things the people consider big. Term limits would seem to qualify.
flenser on September 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
You seem unaware of who it is that passes an amendment. The people are certainly not out of the equation. I suppose you would call the first constitutional convention a “government solution to a government problem”. Libertarian claptrap.
By that definition, the entire Constitution is a way for the citizens to “shirk their responsibility”. We should just scrap that silly First Amendment and let the people hold the government accountable if they violate free speech or freedom of religion instead of hiding behind the Constitution.
flenser on September 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM
If Palin wants to win the foreign-policy portion of the VP debate, all she has to do is mention Biden’s plan for dividing Iraq into three countries, each of which would be weaker than the current unified Iraq, ripe for takeover by Iran and Syria. Compare that to McCain’s troop surge, which gave the Iraqi government the time to come together, and Maliki the courage to take on both Al-Qaeda and the Iran-friendly Al-Sadr forces.
Steve Z on September 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I love this! The elitist New Yorkers, fiscal conservatives, socially Libertarians, comparing Palin to teh Fred! persona coupled with the hick status akin to Bush in the cowboy hat so-called Republican types versus the populist Republican types.
I stand with Laura Ingraham. Boy, I miss Brian!
The FACT is that McCain’s already picked Palin and would be death to the campaign to change at this point. And who with kind of acceptable qualifications Brooks talks about would pump up the base and come out for McCain: Mitt? Pawlenty?
What’s the point in going in this direction? If you want to point this stuff out about Palin ad infinitum without a juxtaposition with Obama/Biden then this is basically irrelevant. Is the point here that we should skewer McCain/Palin ticket as lacking in experience so that people won’t vote for them? The alternative has more experience and strength? Is this what we’re saying? Which combination has the more experience to lead our nation? The fact simply is one or the other is going to lead. Or is this just sour grapes because you didn’t get the ticket you wanted? Either way it shows for as much intellect the elite of the right have, it doesn’t count for one ounce of common sense.
Go ahead you guys, die on that intellectual sword. I imagine your faces all squished up with puckered mouths and the large doses of laxatives needed to reverse your anal retentiveness. But please spare me your laundry list of complaints of ineptness when you elect Carter/Mondale Redux and the economy tanks.
If you think the way to win this is by saying we need someone who can talk more intellectually and come across like Mr. Wm. Buckley instead of down home like Ronald Reagan I would say you’re off your rocker. As much as I loved Wm. Buckley he wasn’t the Independents ‘go-to-guy’ and as much as the media and others said Reagan was stupid and should stick with Bonzo the monkey he was one of the most beloved with Independents. Keep it up. It shows that your intellect has your head where the sun doesn’t shine.
Sultry Beauty on September 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Who is *THEY*, comrade? The fat cats in the smoky boardroom that control the price and fill their pockets?
What gives, is that the US has a “weak” refinement infrastructure and a good portion of it resides in the Texas & Louisiana area. Due to Ike, crude oil shipments have been disrupted, refineries have been shutdown and oil production in the gulf has gone offline. In short, oil is cheaper, but we have lost some of the ability to transport it in, refine it and transport it to the pump.
I’m no expert and I bet Limerick might be able to explain it better. My wife worked for a local gas distributor and schooled me once on how the system really works. It’s actually kinda scary how fragile the entire system is.
A neat little piece by George Will. It might be related.
Kai on September 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
BTW, I’m sorry if my post sounded really snarky. I didn’t mean it to be.
:(
Kai on September 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Seems like just last week that Brooks was asserting policy wonks make better executives than……executives.
JM Hanes on September 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Kai-thanks for the link to George Will’s article. It drives home the obvious point that everything we depend upon depends upon everybody else.
As ranchers, my family does not get the && the packers get for their steaks. We’re at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to $$. But without us, there is no product.
Oil works the same way. I have intimate knowledge on how oil $$ is made. It’s made by those who cater to exploration & drilling. The oil companies really don’t make that much. Right now they are bcs India & China finally want some!
Why doesn’t anybody get supply & demand?! Economics needs to be mandatory in school!
Badger40 on September 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Yeah…I could have done without the “comrade” bit.
52Ranger on September 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
A succinct summary of the silliness.
In contrast to David Brooks, William F. Buckley always seemed to appreciate those who were less intellectual than he was, which included most of the people in the country.
tom on September 18, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2