Quotes of the day

posted at 9:30 pm on November 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

“The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist — a suicide pact, really — of alleged Republican positions. Anyone hoping to play on Team GOP would have to sign off on eight of the 10 — through their voting records, public statements or a questionnaire. The test will be put up for consideration before the Republican National Committee when it meets early next year in Hawaii…

“Each of Bopp’s bullets is so overly broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse it in good conscience. Some are so simplistic as to be meaningless. As just one example: ‘We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.’ What does that mean? Do we support all troop surges no matter what other considerations might be taken into account? Do we take nothing else into account? Does disagreement mean one doesn’t support victory?

“Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply.”

***
“The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama’s unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa…

“In an era of ideological purity within the party, Cheney is among the purest; no one can question his conservative credentials on national security, and his record in the House and as vice president places him beyond reproach from the base. He was, it is true, second in command in years of great deficit spending, but his image as an implacable foe of terrorism and a hardliner on the projection of American power would go a long way toward securing his position within the party as a warrior of the old school offering himself once more to a nation he has served in four different decades…

“Far from fading away, Cheney has been the voice of the opposition since the inauguration. Wouldn’t it be more productive and even illuminating if he took his arguments out of the realm of punditry and into the arena of electoral politics?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 5

Eight out of 10,or Purge!!!(I kid).

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 9:33 PM

I love Dick Cheney! I’d vote for him in a milisecond if he was on the ballot.

I keep hearing noises about his heart but the damn thing looks like it is working just fine to me.

How about slick willies? No one harped about his and he needed a bypass after getting out of office.

gdonovan on November 28, 2009 at 9:36 PM

If Barack Obama had a mandate, socialized health care would be a done deal, as would cap and trade and maybe amnesty too.

greggriffith on November 28, 2009 at 9:37 PM

I was almost sure the first quote was gonna be David Brooks… but no, Kathleen Parker just as swell and ‘doesn’t get it’. Not sure how having a set of agreed upon common principles, even in broad-strokes constitutes ‘A suicide pact’. More like a plan of action to me.

Sharr on November 28, 2009 at 9:39 PM

I’d vote third party first.

DavidAllen on November 28, 2009 at 9:41 PM

From the article:

“It’s too bad that “elite” and “nuance” have become bad words in the Republican lexicon. Elites are viewed in Republican circles as “those people” who are out of touch with “real Americans.” And “nuance,” the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding (as opposed to “Because I said so, case closed”) has come to be viewed as a Frenchified word Republicans successfully hung on presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004.”

..they have become bad words in the conservative lexicon because they have been used to describe the people and putrid rotting philosophies that have made a travesty of our country since the spoled brats of the 60s failed to realize come to grips with reality after their temper tantrums ceased.

VoyskaPVO on November 28, 2009 at 9:42 PM

One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.

Uh, hello, anyone home? You ever hear of checks and balances?

boomer on November 28, 2009 at 9:43 PM

The “purity test” should go in the party platform… but the party platform was made worthless when they can’t even get a rape/incest exception for abortion in there…

And the idiots who didn’t put the rape/incest exception in the South Dakota initiative when that was first put up to a vote set back the pro-life movement back for maybe forever…

ninjapirate on November 28, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Yeah, uh simply being elected does not give an office holder the right to run roughshod over opposition and for said opposition to “sit down and shut up”.

Did these people demand that of the Democrats while out of power? As I recall even a hint or misspoke word that inferred the like causes loud uproars of “tyranny”.

Sharr on November 28, 2009 at 9:46 PM

oh kathleen parker….you’re so enlightened. show us the way kathleen.

what a f-cking ignorant cow she is.

Ghoul aid on November 28, 2009 at 9:47 PM

The GOP’s suicide pact
=======================
By Kathleen Parker
Sunday, November 29, 2009

Some people can’t stand prosperity, my father used to say. Today, he might be talking about Republicans, who, in the midst of declining support for President Obama’s hope-and-change agenda, are considering a “purity” pledge to weed out undesirables from their ever-shrinking party.
===========================================================

If there`s any weeding out that needs to be done,or the Great Purge,it is to kick out the wanne be`s,RINO`s,the
moderate ‘Fence Sitters` ,and Double Agents(Spies)that
have inflitrated the Republican Party,and vote Liberal
when a vote comes up,case in point,

Sssssssscooooooozzzzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaafffffffffaaaaaaaavvvvvvaaaaaa…!”*

*(ripped from Seven Percent Solution`s trademarked Scozza
fava phrase):)

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 9:49 PM

And the idiots who didn’t put the rape/incest exception in the South Dakota initiative when that was first put up to a vote set back the pro-life movement back for maybe forever…

ninjapirate on November 28, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Purity. I didn’t think they had the balls to do it, but they did,..and got what they deserved.

a capella on November 28, 2009 at 9:49 PM

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

So the RNC is OK with someone who opposes #1 and #5 ?

macncheez on November 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM

here’s what you do;

allow anyone who wants to run – run.

hold a primary.

the one with the most votes gets the nomination.

reliapundit on November 28, 2009 at 9:54 PM

macncheez on November 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM

This is another RINO cloak. They can say they support or oppose all kinds of things, but when it comes to doing something about it…

Sounds like a great platform for Bush III.

Feedie on November 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Just when a near-perfect storm of unpopular Democratic ideas — from massive health-care reform to terrorist show trials, not to mention global-warming hype — is coagulating over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
-Kathleen Parker
============================================================
At least Kathleen can see the Sh*t Hurricane forming over the White House,ready to dump a sh*tload of sh*t!!

This Administration is gonna leave a Stench!!

And its gonna smell worse than Bills stink,that he left
in the Oval Office!!

Just think,Team Hopey will outdo even Team Sexual Predator
Bubba,who knew!!

Obamas gonna leave his mark,ahem!!

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Ahhhh, I clicked on a Kathleen Parker link. She should never be on QOTD because she should never be quoted.
And she has negative credibility approaching anything like conservatism.

Speaking of outing Parker’s deceit.

There comes a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are. At that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted. At that point, we must show that beyond our resolutions is actual resolve.
Dick Cheney

Speakup on November 28, 2009 at 10:01 PM

A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions

Ok. Run Cheney. When you lose, do us all a favor and quit blaming your losses on the fact that you didn’t run a “real conservative”. If you do, you’ll lose miserably. Of course you know this, which is why nearly every guy you run is somewhat moderate.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:01 PM

So Newsweek is urging Republicans to nominate Cheney for President in ’12, eh?
They’re heartfelt concern for the future of the conservative movement is truly touching.

billy on November 28, 2009 at 10:04 PM

Get rid of the federal government education dept. and turn it over to the states. Get rid of the DOE set up 8-04-77 to get us off foreign oil with a budget of 24.2 billion a year and forbidding us to drill. 16,000 employees and 100,000 contract employees and look at the job they did. Congress, are you blind? WTF is going on here? You want smaller government just cut the dead wood would be a wonderful start.

mixplix on November 28, 2009 at 10:04 PM

Dick Cheney is done. He’s not running for anything higher than a sweet fishing spot. The 2012 election will be Mitt Romney vs. The One, and The One will crush him. Sorry folks.

Hannibal Smith on November 28, 2009 at 10:04 PM

Sounds like a great platform for Bush III.

Feedie on November 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM

And nowhere in this ‘chastity’test is the word NATIONAL SECURITY or TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF USA mentioned
Not anywhere
Not once

macncheez on November 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

So the only strategy we agree with for the military are “troop surges”? Seems rather restrictive. This ten point plan needs some serous work. It is too short term oriented.

Dasher on November 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM

By all means…

Let the ‘media’ tell us who to vote for, how to vote, and why we shouldn’t vote.

… Works every time.

Seven Percent Solution on November 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Ok. Run Cheney. When you lose, do us all a favor and quit blaming your losses on the fact that you didn’t run a “real conservative”. If you do, you’ll lose miserably. Of course you know this, which is why nearly every guy you run is somewhat moderate.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Huh? I thought Dubya was somewhere to the right of General Franco. At least that’s what you lovely moonbats were saying for 8 years.

Anyway, we haven’t had a “real conservative” run since 1984. That didn’t turn out so well for the libs. You know this, which is why the moonbats you put on the national ticket have to run like pro-choice Republicans.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM

When you lose, do us all a favor and quit blaming your losses on the fact that you didn’t run a “real conservative”. If you do, you’ll lose miserably.

Ronald Reagan, ’nuff said.

gdonovan on November 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM

The 2012 election will be Mitt Romney vs. The One, and The One will crush him. Sorry folks.

Hannibal Smith on November 28, 2009 at 10:04 PM

I tend to agree.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Cheney’s one of those guys who’s way less smart than he thinks he is. Check his record…it’s really not that impressive.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Anyway, we haven’t had a “real conservative” run since 1984. That didn’t turn out so well for the libs. You know this, which is why the moonbats you put on the national ticket have to run like pro-choice Republicans.

Most of the jackasses who post around here would classify Reagan as a RINO if he were on the scene today.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Ronald Reagan, ’nuff said.

gdonovan on November 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM

That amnesty-supporting RINO?

Huh? I thought Dubya was somewhere to the right of General Franco. At least that’s what you lovely moonbats were saying for 8 years.

Right, and according to you morons Obama is to the left of Marx. Yet he won.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Cheney’s one of those guys who’s way less smart than he thinks he is. Check his record…it’s really not that impressive.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Goshdarnit
Cheney is just like Obama !

macncheez on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

If Mr. Cheney could have run, he’d have run in 2008. He will never run because of his heart condition/s. Period.

Jon Meachum knows this – why did he even write this article?

All this aside, I’d give anything to see the debates, crr6, without any teleprompters. Now, for that I’d pay big money.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Right, and according to you morons Obama is to the left of Marx. Yet he won.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

On tax cuts and winning in Afghanistan. Downright Republican of him. The Obama of October 08 was quite different from the Obama of October 07. Of course he’s a leftist fringe-dweller. He couldn’t run and win as such, though. Which you know very well.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:11 PM

Right, and according to you morons Obama is to the left of Marx. Yet he won.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Only because he didn’t show his true colors ahead of Nov. 04, 2008. He can’t fool so many for a 2nd time. If he does, they deserve him even more than now.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:12 PM

If only the Dems would administer a liberal purity test, instead of the communist one they seem to have enforced since the 60s. Checks and balances between classical liberalism and liberal conservatism, now that’s a healthy America.

Sharke on November 28, 2009 at 10:12 PM

This is my QotD:

McCalop said she kept running between the kitchen and her daughter in labor because she didn’t want the turkey to burn while helping her child deliver the baby.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577558,00.html

salmonczar on November 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Newsweak wants Dick Cheney to run because they\’re afraid Liz Cheney will.

Rational Thought on November 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM

One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.

Going to hit this quote as well. The purpose of the Chief Executive is not to put into place policies he campaigned upon. It is to oversee the execution of the functions of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. These functions are determined by Congress.

Now, human nature being human nature, the position of the Presidency is a powerful bully pulpit to harangue the people to “take the country in a given direction.” But…at the same time that the President was selected the entire House of Representatives was also selected as well as one-third of the Senate. It is the job of the Legislature, not the Executive Branch, to truly decide the “direction of the country”–or, at least, the direction of the Federal Government.

(For as an aside, it would seem that if “the direction of the country” is changeable at each election, then the government is too powerful. It is the spirit of the people, as enacted in their daily lives, that should determine “the direction of the country,” not 536 politicians. But I digress.)

Taking the term “direction of the country” at face value, once again, it is the Legislative Branch which is supposed to be the preeminent branch in the American system–which is why it is the subject of the first Article in the Constitution. But, once again, human nature is what it is, and people find it easier to focus on, get behind, or oppose one man than a “caucus.” So the Presidency is a powerful bully pulpit. But it is not a Kingship. Election to office is not a “mandate” for any President to do anything except to have the people’s blessing to use that bully pulpit to convince the true keepers of the national direction, the Congress, to do as he campaigned upon. That is it. Moral force only–and a moral force caveated by the fact that if the people were truly serious about doing as the Presidential candidate said should be done, they would send him some enough friends come election day to ensure his programs. For Congress is the ultimate arbiter of policy, via law and purse. Thus, a President only has a mandate in so far as he has a sufficient number of allies in Congress.

For it seems to me that if one could truly claim that a President had a “mandate” then that mandate would be logically considered to be indicative of a certain spirit on the part of the people–and that this same spirit would also equally have played out in the elections for Representatives and Senators as they apparently did in that for the President, and thus if the President finds he does not have the political strength to do as he desires to “take the country in a given direction” then it should then be obvious that despite the sign of approval given by the people (by dint of his being elected), he was not given a “mandate” because he was not given, by the people, enough allies in the Legislature to make that mandate happen. QED.

In summary, in America, nothing the people truly want can be long denied–no more than four years, at which point they can replace the entire House, the President, and two-thirds of the Senate. Thus, if a President truly has a mandate he will have his programs, for he will have the political strength in the legislature to get his proposals passed–which is where the mandate is truly applied, not the Presidency–as the Presidency can only prevent things from being passed, not pass them.

And if the President and his party do not have a true mandate, he and they will not be able to do anything without the acquiescence of the opposition (whether found in his own party or that of the other), for he and they do not have the political strength–per the determination of the people, who could have given him that strength if they had chosen to do so. So, thus, “mandates” are one of those things that those that have them exercise, and don’t talk about (being too busy passing bills), and those that don’t have talk about and don’t do.

In short, if you have to remind people you have a mandate you don’t have one.

Horatius on November 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM

The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.

I thought the GOP started with Lincoln, based on the ideological principles of preserving the Union and liberty for the enslaved?

Try again, KP.

cs89 on November 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Newsweak wants Dick Cheney to run because they\’re afraid Liz Cheney will.

Rational Thought on November 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Actually, I think the state media is going to be in increasingly “Anyone but Palin!!!” mode as time goes on.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM

The Obama of October 08 was quite different from the Obama of October 07. Of course he’s a leftist fringe-dweller. He couldn’t run and win as such, though.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:11 PM

The 2012 election will be Mitt Romney vs. The One, and The One will crush him. Sorry folks.

Hannibal Smith on November 28, 2009 at 10:04 PM

I tend to agree.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM

LOL. So now he’s shown himself as a true Marxist, and he can’t win once he’s revealed himself as a true Marxist. Yet you think he’ll crush Romney in ’12.
I’ll let you finish debating yourself before I step in.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM

O/T,

Looks like Woods was having an affair,

so it appears,Tiger got his tail stuck in sumpin!!

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 10:16 PM

LOL. So now he’s shown himself as a true Marxist, and he can’t win once he’s revealed himself as a true Marxist. Yet you think he’ll crush Romney in ‘12.
I’ll let you finish debating yourself before I step in.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM

I didn’t say a “true Marxist”, I said a leftist fringe-dweller, like you.

And no, I don’t think Romney could beat Obama, for pretty much the same reasons Dole couldn’t beat Clinton. It’s not that hard to understand.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:17 PM

Strangely, Dick Cheney would not score especially well on the RNC’s ideological checklist for someone supposedly representing such “purity”. He’s in favor of gay marriage, supported stem cell research I Believe, said “deficits don’t matter”, and I don’t know how much his views on immigration differ from those of Bush. So if Cheney did run, based on this checklist, the RNC wouldn’t support him.

DarkKnight3565 on November 28, 2009 at 10:17 PM

Actually, I think the state media is going to be in increasingly “Anyone but Palin!!!” mode as time goes on.

Which tells me, “She’s the one”…
Whenever your enemy tells you who they’d prefer be your champion pick the one they DON”T LIKE!

Sharr on November 28, 2009 at 10:18 PM

Keep your day job canopfor. Not only are you not funny, you’re really sort of a buffoon.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:18 PM

I didn’t say a “true Marxist”, I said a leftist fringe-dweller

Oh, well all right then.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:18 PM

In short, if you have to remind people you have a mandate you don’t have one.

Horatius on November 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Thid kindergarten, from the president to the Congress, don’t need “mandates”. All they care about are unprecedents.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Heavan forbid the GOP actually attempts to stick to something resembling a party platform.

When the Democrats have their various “purity” tests and purges, not much is mentioned, but when the Republicans do it, it must mean something of a myriad of asinine reasons such as the Religious Right has too much sway and the like.

If the GOP wants to be Democrat-lite, then forget about my vote, which has been solid GOP for well over 10 years!

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM

I didn’t say a “true Marxist”, I said a leftist fringe-dweller

Oh, well all right then.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:18 PM

Yeah, there’s a difference. I could tell that it might be tough for someone who considers Obama a “moderate”, though.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM

Yeah, there’s a difference.

Please go on, this is great.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM

Anyone who has the balls to ridicule Obama, can beat him.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM

And nowhere in this ‘chastity’test is the word NATIONAL SECURITY or TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF USA mentioned
macncheez on November 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Great point! The mendacity of Bush II on open borders is what should’ve been investigated, but the MSM agreed with him. Illegals’ crimes against citizens are on his head.

It’s lefty wishful thinking for Cheney to run. Nothing to keep him from giving advice, though.

People don’t trust the establishment anymore — WITH GOOD REASON. That’s why so many are looking to Palin and Main Street.

Feedie on November 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Yeah, there’s a difference.

Please go on, this is great.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM

Are you saying those on the left are always automatically “true Marxists”?

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM

crr6, enumerate what Obama initiatives are not somewhere btw. socialism and Marxism.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Anyone who has the balls to ridicule Obama, can beat him.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM

Well, anyone who has the balls to draw sharp ideological differences with Obama can beat him.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Dick Cheney is done. He’s not running for anything higher than a sweet fishing spot. The 2012 election will be Mitt Romney vs. The One, and The One will crush him. Sorry folks.

Hannibal Smith on November 28, 2009 at 10:04 PM

This is so frustrating. Does America want two Democrat parties?

Here in Australia we have very few true conservatives left. We have Labor and Labor-lite.

I am sad to see America follow the same path.

Crux Australis on November 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Well the ‘moderates’ really got us a lot didn’t they? I’m sure Barry thanks the ‘moderates’ every day. Snowe, Collins and Specter come immediately to mind.

GarandFan on November 28, 2009 at 10:23 PM

crr6, enumerate what Obama initiatives are not somewhere btw. socialism and Marxism.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM

By the way, while you’re at it crr6, tell us which parts of Obama’s agenda enjoy widespread popular support. Come on. This ought to be good.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Would Cheney pass a purity test? He’s for gay marriage…I believe.

BTW I hate purity tests.

terryannonline on November 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM

He’s so cute. He gets lost and he tries to turn the question around.

I’m just asking you to explain yourself dear. So now we have “leftist-fringe dweller’s” (like myself!), “true marxists” and “those on the left”. Please continue.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM

I’m just asking you to explain yourself dear. So now we have “leftist-fringe dweller’s” (like myself!), “true marxists” and “those on the left”. Please continue.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM

“True Marxists” was your term, dear.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Most of the jackasses who post around here would classify Reagan as a RINO if he were on the scene today.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

How nice. Input from a jackass and a doper.

Patrick S on November 28, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Yeah! You would have been ok with the “in short” instead of all that other stuff you wrote.

Vince on November 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Right, and according to you morons Obama is to the left of Marx. Yet he won.

crr6 on November 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM

crr6:Were you sleeping during the election,or free-basing
KOOL-Aid Chystals,or drowning yourself in KOOL-Aid,
before you voted for,campaigning in the middle Hopey/
Changey,who turned into Political Dr.Hyde and Mr.Jeckel
Extreme-Far Left Marxist Socialist!!

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM

In short, if you have to remind people you have a mandate you don’t have one.

Horatius on November 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM
See above!

Vince on November 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Would Cheney pass a purity test? He’s for gay marriage…I believe.

BTW I hate purity tests.

terryannonline on November 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Got any proof of that statement?

BTW, I hate trolls.

Knucklehead on November 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Anyone who has the balls to ridicule Obama, can beat him.

yes. when mccain was asked during the debate if americans should fear an obama presidency, and mccain said no, i was jumping out of my seat cursing mccain for destroying any chance of winning.

Chiasmos on November 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Leftism, historically from the French Revolution, is about egalitarainism.

Marxism is completely about egalitarianism.

Is a leftist a Marxist and/or vice versa?

Both a generally the same in my view.

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

cursing mccain for destroying any chance of winning.

Chiasmos on November 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Indeed. As bad as the selection of McCain was in the primaries, he still lost the election. Obama didn’t win it. Unfortunately this will be McCain’s legacy. Also, the fact that he’ll lose AZ in the senatorial run.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM

Cheney needs to STFU.

Grow Fins on November 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Got any proof of that statement?

BTW, I hate trolls.

Knucklehead on November 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Link

terryannonline on November 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

5 draft deferment DICK Cheney.

Spathi on November 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Actually, I think the state media is going to be in increasingly “Anyone but Palin!!!” mode as time goes on.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Along with anyone of even average intelligence and foresight.

voxpopuli on November 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Cheney needs to STFU.

Grow Fins on November 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Ahhhhh, that’s better.

Speakup on November 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Keep your day job canopfor. Not only are you not funny, you’re really sort of a buffoon.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:18 PM

dakine:I’m perplexed! Which one is it!

1,2,or 3 or all of the above!!
===========================================================

Buffoon:

clown; a jester: a court buffoon. 2. A person given to clowning and joking. 3. A ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool.
===========================================================

And,since your Team is almost approaching Utopian Narvana,
and going your way,

WHY SO SERIOUS!!!!!!

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Wow, great post Patrick S. You must be some kind of genius.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Cheney didn’t say he was for gay marriage.

Nope, not one bit.

What he did say is that the federal government shouldnt’ be involved in such things and it should be left up to the states to decide.

That isn’t an endorsement of gay marriage, but an endorsement of state’s rights.

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Did you serve Spathi?

Vince on November 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Along with anyone of even average intelligence and foresight.

voxpopuli on November 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Yeah, those “smart” GOPers are chomping at the bit to give us another McCain or Dole. So true.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Leftism, historically from the French Revolution, is about egalitarainism.

Marxism is completely about egalitarianism.

Is a leftist a Marxist and/or vice versa?

Both a generally the same in my view.

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

The nitpicking about terminology being absurd, as we all know what Obama is, from the left to the right…falacies, falacies:

Leftism is never about “egalitarianism”. They are the biggest hypocrits on Earth. Otherwise Gore wouldn’t be a billionaire, and the Kennedys wouldn’t have their trusts in the Caymens, and Obama’s brother would live in a cardbox, and myriad of other examples. See Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Steisand, and etc. Leftism is taking the taxes from the producers and giving stuff to the sheep, so that said sheep will vote for you. Leftism is also for elitism – see perfect exemplar in crr6.

Marxism is completely about egalitarianism.

Then, you clearly have no clue what Marxism is all about. There is nothing “egalitarian” in Marxism, except the misery it causes the masses.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Number 3 canopfor. As if you didn’t know.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM

By the way, while you’re at it crr6, tell us which parts of Obama’s agenda enjoy widespread popular support. Come on. This ought to be good.

ddrintn on November 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM

…crr6 must be working hard…waiting…waiting…ah, had to go to stufy law…no time for rubes on the HA blog…

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Wow, great post Patrick S. You must be some kind of genius.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Thanks, bong boy. I was trying to keep it at the level that you started out at.

Patrick S on November 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Regarding Palin …

She made the McCain campaign. McCain was Bob Dole all over again, but when he selected Palin, she brought in a vigor and life that gave the GOP hope.

That should be undisputed, but people like vox will deny her even that.

Why?

What is this great fear about a strong, conservative, opinionated, conservative woman?

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

The only “mandade” Barack Obama has is to be the first African-American POTUS. That’s why he was elected, plain and simple.

The reset is just “details”

*sigh*

bluelightbrigade on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Well, given the fact that at least two of his White House staff have openly expressed admiration for Mao. Also given his 2003 interview in which he spoke of “the fundamental flaw of the Constitution” and that the “Warren court was not that radical” because re-distribution (remember that term — “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”) was not addressed by either. Given his former associations with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn — both communists. Recalling his membership in a liberation theology church with Rev Wright for 20 years. Further, given his massive thrust to take over both automakers and 1/6 of the US economy through government control of the health care system, I would say that to call him marxist is not at all off the mark. As a matter of fact, I would say that it would behoove those supporting him to prove that he is *not* a marxist when all of the evidence points to him being such.

AZfederalist on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Remedial grammar Patrick S. Remedial grammar. Never end a sentence with a preposition you illiterate clown.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

bluelightbrigade on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Uggh…

“reset” shoulda been “rest”

bluelightbrigade on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be advised,that there are illiterate idiots who have boarded
the U.S.S. Hot Air,and are spewing non-talking lefty points!

YOU ILLILTERATE TROLL IDIOTS KNOW EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE!!!

Be on the lookout,for said idiots,toss em’ over da side
when you see them!

That is all,back to commenting!!

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Cheney needs to STFU.

Grow Fins on November 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

And yours argue that Marxism is not here. Since when does any citizen of the U.S. have to STFU?

And you call yourself “liberal” and “progressive”?

You are anything but. The terms have been hijacked by simpletons and hypocrits like you.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Regarding Palin …

She made the McCain campaign. McCain was Bob Dole all over again, but when he selected Palin, she brought in a vigor and life that gave the GOP hope.

That should be undisputed, but people like vox will deny her even that.

Why?

What is this great fear about a strong, conservative, opinionated, conservative woman?

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

I have said this about a billion times and will repeat it again: Ideologically, SP is pretty good. What you can get out of her — she’s not one for digging into the details, I think it’s fair to say.

And I think it is obvious she has a significant role to play in conservative politics. She could be one hell of a leader. (Or she could be one hell of an irritation, I suppose.)

But as a candidate? Hell. No. She’s a loser for about umpteen million reasons, not the least of them being the whole Quitter Thing.

So I hope she can help us all PICK the right candidate, but brother, she will never BE the right candidate and that is that. All her Kool-aid drinkers need to wise the hell up.

voxpopuli on November 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Remedial grammar Patrick S. Remedial grammar. Never end a sentence with a preposition you illiterate clown.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

dakine: Who are you talking to.

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Leftism in practice is not about egalitarianism, just as Marxism isn’t.

The ideology behind both, though, oooze with making everything, everyone, equal.

To be left of the Crown of France and his supporters meant that you were about making everyone equal.

To be Marxist meant that the vile capitalist pigs would be thrown out for the equal ownership by all.

Yes, it is simplistic, but the essence of both are very similar.

Just because the reality of implementation is much different doesn’t negate this.

For what it’s worth, I am not arguing that egalitarianism is a good that all.

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Along with anyone of even average intelligence and foresight.

voxpopuli on November 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

I’m of above average intelligence and have keen foresight and I love Sarah Palin for 2012.
I’m also of enough intellectual perspicacity to know that Kathleen Parker is an idiot and has no idea what she’s talking about, except that Palin hatred is at the bottom of it.

Jenfidel on November 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Number 3 canopfor. As if you didn’t know.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM

dakine: Okay you nailed,AND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on November 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM

canopfor, while you are most definitely not funny and are clearly a raging buffoon, you are least self-aware. Think about it.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM

The only “mandade” Barack Obama has is to be the first African-American POTUS. That’s why he was elected, plain and simple

Yep, our first affirmative action president.

AZfederalist on November 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I’m of above average intelligence and have keen foresight and I love Sarah Palin for 2012

You’ve also made clear you’re a proponent of the Nobel Quitter vision, predicated on the Scary Lawsuits theory. Pardon me if I express my reservations that any Americans of average intelligence are going to buy that whole line.

It’s been a couple days, have you come up with anything new yet?

voxpopuli on November 28, 2009 at 10:51 PM

Remedial grammar Patrick S. Remedial grammar. Never end a sentence with a preposition you illiterate clown.

dakine on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Patrick S. and canopfor, bow to the elitist and erudite dakine, now. S/he is obviously superior to both of you, is extremely polite, feeling and considerate, a true exemplar of a perfect leftie.

dakine, you perfect person. I’m in awe.

Schadenfreude on November 28, 2009 at 10:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5