Saturday, March 17, 2012

Another Open Thread...


I've gone fishin' today, but that should not stop anyone from sayin' their peace (or is that "piece")? I will join in when I can...

89 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, What do you fish for in Texas? Cattle or oil?

DUQ said...

True, you never hear about fishing in Texas! Something's "fishy" here!

Doc Whoa said...

I hate saying this, but I think I'm going to give up on Big Hollywood. It's become Big Tabloid and there is nothing there I want to read anymore, especially as they repeat everything a thousand times now.

DUQ said...

Doc, I gave up some time ago. I went to check the place out after the change, but nothing made me want to stay.

Joel Farnham said...

I do go back, but I don't like the new format because I can't see what is new today. It seems like some of the articles are days old, yet were published a few minutes ago and some that look brand new, I read a while back.

Individualist said...

Andrew

Send out a line in Texas and I beleive the only think you have a chance of bringing back is either sage brush or tumbleweeds.

Doc Whoa said...

Joel, I have that SAME feeling, like I keep seeing old articles published as brand new! I keep seeing articles which I swear were published already appearing as new. And a lot of time, the articles at the top are actually 1-2 days old. I'm not sure why they are doing that.

I've also notice their content has changed a lot. They never did offer much variety, but at least they had some. Now it's more like they are going from scandal to scandal without anything else.

I've been going back every day once or twice to see what they have, but I think I'm done with that.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, DUQ and Joel, There's not much I can add, except to say I think I've made 3-4 comments since the change over and all but one of those was on the first day.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That was my thinking too -- tumbleweeds. So Bev must be fishing for tumble... or is it weed? ;)

Doc Whoa said...

While we're on the topic, has anyone actually seen Game Change? Thoughts?

ScottDS said...

Andrew, Doc, DUQ, and Joel -

Ditto. I've made two comments and one of them simply consisted of "Ni!" for Toto's review of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail Blu-Ray release.

It's sad when the film articles get only half a dozen comments. Then again, the film articles always got less comments than the bomb-throwing stuff on the old site, but it's even worse now that many of the regulars appear to have jumped ship.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I haven't seen it. I thought about watching it, but really just can't.


Scott, I've noticed that too that a lot of the regular commenters are missing. I think that's party because when you make a change, people tend to use that as a chance to leave. But I think it also reflect the difficult of getting a disqus account to work right and the chance in content. I haven't seen much over there that interested me in the last couple weeks.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. If you get the chance, check out this homework assignment written by a 12 year old... from Threedonia: Fake donuts.

ScottDS said...

Nearly nothing has interested me, however today they posted a new article... by Robert Avrech... about movies! It's a St. Patrick's Day miracle! :-)

As for Game Change, in a way, I feel like I've seen it already. However, given that I'm not exactly Palin's #1 fan, I have no interest in revisiting that election. What offends me is how BH compares Game Change to The Undefeated. Surely the truth lies somewhere in between...?

And the BH writer who compared Tom Hanks with Larry Flynt needs to breath deeply for 5 minutes before he types his next article. Or whatever will help him get some perspective.

But I agree with the critics on this note: it should've been a miniseries with additional parts covering Obama/Clinton and L'affaire de John Edwards.

Ed said...

I have no seen Game Change and I won't bother. It sounds like propaganda. Plus, it's not really topical or interesting to me. It's like all the films they keep releasing about Nixon... I don't care.

I checked out BH the other day and literally all I saw was articles about Game Change, so I left.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, It would have made more sense as a mini-series because of the amount of information it covers.

I read the book for the now-defunct "Commentarama Book Club" and thought it was a poor read, but with some interesting information. All in all, it was actually surprisingly fair to McCain/Palin. The person with the biggest complaint was Hillary, who really took a beating in the book -- the book whitewashed (and all but ignored) Obama.

From what I've seen about the film, however, it's just an anti-Palin slander. That seems a little (LOT) obsessive if you ask me. She's not even running and I doubt she could ever be our nominee, so why keep punching her?

I suspect the idea is to excite the liberal base because they have nothing they can get excited about with regard to Romney, so they want to use Palin to try to anger the left and get them to turn out.

ScottDS said...

I'm sorry to hear the book club is defunct. I felt bad for joining the conversation last time considering I hadn't read the book (but I was interested in seeing what everyone else said).

Maybe one day in the future... :-)

AndrewPrice said...

The problem with the book club was getting people to read the books. Also, it took a bit of effort to sort how to hand a roundtable discussion on a blog. I think we finally got the hang of it, but it wasn't easy.

The bigger problem though was (1) trying to get people to read the books and (2) trying to get the timing right to give people enough time to read and yet not wait so long that people forgot what they read.

Ed said...

I like the idea of the book club, but I don't read enough books and not quickly enough to participate.

Kit said...

That is why I prefer Book Lists.

They give suggestions but without the pressure.

Kit said...

BigHollywood has been beating the dead horse named Game Change for quite a while now.

It is old.

Interestingly some of the best stuff written in a long while was written over the death of Breitbart.

Tam said...

A BAGEL! A BAGEL! Ha ha ha! That's funny. I hope my kid will write things like that which make me snort.

CrisD said...

I watched Game Change ON MUTE in a hotel room last weekend. I did turn up the sound when i got curious a few times but Moore did a second rate "impression" of Palin and so it was better off muted. :)

Tam said...

I made my husband change the channel when he clicked on Game Change. (We were house/dog sitting...we don't have HBO) I don't want "them" to think that we actually watched it! It was nice to see it got half the ratings or viewers or whatever as "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Ha.

Tennessee Jed said...

I have Crohn's Disease and it has been acting up the past few days, so my participation has been even less than what it normally is. I tried once to sign up at Breitbart's new page and had problems. They only get one try, even though I truly want to support them. Lord knows we need as many non-liberal biased media venues as possible, and if objective isn't available, sure I'll take "lean right."

Happy St. Patty's Day to everyone. I will be returning to the Emerald Isle this summer.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I saw that and I LOVED it! What an insightful kid! A BAGEL!! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, I agree, it's very old, especially when you open the article and it's two paragraphs long and says nothing more than "Tom Hanks doesn't like Palin." Gee, thanks for sharing.


Yeah, the book list. We tried about a year ago to do a book club. We asked people to read a couple books and then did a live blog to let people discuss it. But it was hard to get people to read the book and the commenting was difficult once you had more than a couple people participating.

CrisD said...

Andrew, like Tam...love the "Fake Donuts" Tx.

AndrewPrice said...

Cris, The clips I've seen are really poor. She has the look, but completely misses the part about Palin which made her compelling -- there's no charm. I guess that's what happens when you hate the person you are playing.


Tam, I laughed at that too that it did so poorly ratings-wise. I get HBO, but I've had zero desire to watch Game Change. I thought about it but just couldn't get myself to change the channel to actually watch it.

AndrewPrice said...

Happy St. Patty's Day Jed! Sounds like a cool trip! :)

It took me two tries to get my account right. That's a real problem, especially as they never bothered to explain to people how to make that happen. What a pain.

Sorry to hear about the Crohn's Disease.

USArtguy said...

Oh Boy, I've been waiting for an open thread to post this! I'm no longer a casualty of the Obama economy. After 14-1/2 months of being unemployed, I am once again a Sr. Graphic Designer... albeit without the perks that 25 years at my previous job gave me. Nevertheless, I'm working once again in my field and didn't have to move to do it. Plus I'm actually making a smidge more than I did while at the former ad agency (it's been sold off which is why I became a statistic in the first place).

Anyway... yay me!

Oh, and happy St. Pat's day. Erin Go Bragh and all that jazz.

AndrewPrice said...

USArtguy! That is fantastic news!! I've honestly been thinking about you and hoping you find something!

Congratulations and best wishes, especially on not having to move!

BevfromNYC said...

Yea!!! USArtGuy - Congrats on the new job!

Sorry I've been away today! It was my Mother's 80th Birthday and we've been celebrating all day.

Kit said...

HBO is left-wing

Hey, BigHollywood, WE F--KING GET IT!!!!!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Happy Mom's-B-Day! 80.. very cool.


Kit, Very direct and to the point! An unmistakable message. LOL!

USArtguy said...

Thanks Andrew and Bev. I've been checking in occasionally, just haven't been taking time to comment. It's really true that finding a full time job is a full time job. Plus trying to get freelance work in the meantime has kept me busy. Once things settle down at the new office, perhaps I can participate here again a bit more regularly.

Joel Farnham said...

The Bigs now resemble the National Enquirer in the look, and the amount you get to read. It used to be, I would have more to read from each article. Now, it is strictly light reading, and if you already know the subject well, non-reading.

Still, from what I gather about Breitbart, it reflects him. If you notice, Andrew Breitbart was every where. From standing in front of hostile crowds, to CPAC, to the lobbies of hotels confronting unethical journalists.

I still will go there because it usually is a great starting place if I want to know more about a subject.

tryanmax said...

I still pop over to the bigs, but I'm done commenting, I think. Disqus is so clunky and annoying to my inbox. If I have anything to say, I'll bring it over here.

tryanmax said...

Anybody catch wind of this?

Joel Farnham said...

I found it on Drudge.

This sounds like martial law.

I HATE that presidents have executive order privileges.

AndrewPrice said...

USArtguy, You're welcome to participate any time! I really am glad you found a job! :)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Some of the Bigs are now better than other Bigs. And I think you're right they resemble the National Enquirer. I get that feeling too. I have been rather disappointed several times to open an article and see nothing more but the teaser written out into a slightly longer paragraph and that's the whole article. I might as well have just read the AP headline at that point.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Yeah. Mr. Rick "I'm not talking about social conservative stuff, the media is making that up" Santorum is now planning to wage a war on pornography.

1. I'll bet his definition of porn is a LOT different from the rest of ours. 2. Nice precedent. This guy is a danger and this is yet another example of why I will never vote for him.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court won't let him do it because it has repeatedly said that the government can't decide what counts as good speech and bad.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Those classifications have existed since forever. I've personally dealt with them on government contracts. People don't know about it, but the government has the power to seize businesses (products, resources) in a national emergency if they need something you make. There is also a whole export control regime which hits a surprisingly large number of businesses.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, as you said the other day, "...died of it's wounds in 1933..."

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I still hate that the President has the ability to give out executive orders. I know that sometimes they are necessary, but still this blowhard we call the president missuses them. About Santorum, he would probably consider Annette Funicello's bikinis way too revealing and bordering on Porn.


Annette Funicello and Sally Field in bikinis.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Sadly, yes. And too many people including self-described "conservatives" are happy to see it go. Rick is the perfect example. To him, the constitution is a meaningless document.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I hate them too. I understand why they need them, but the courts need to rein them in and make sure they do nothing more than implement a law -- not make law. And what really drives me crazy are the czars.

Yeah, Rick would probably call that porn. He's implied (very strongly) that sex is only about procreation, so basically anything that uses sex for a purpose other than procreation is probably porn in his world.

Kit said...

Another reason he should be running for governor instead of president.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, As with all megalomaniacs, governor isn't enough for him because that means 300 other million Americans can escape the Santoroparadise he will create by forcing everyone to live according to his views. It's better to just start at president so that no one can escape his goodness.

DUQ said...

Has anybody seen how Puerto Rico is going?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I haven't heard anything yet.

DUQ said...

It's only 3% reporting, but Romney's up by 85% to 9% in Puerto Rico.

tryanmax said...

My, that's suspicious. LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

My thoughts exactly. Either PR is the porno capital of the world or Romney must have bought everyone on the island! Grrr! Outrage! Outrage!

Actually, Santorum keeps making all kinds of gaffes down there (real ones).

tryanmax said...

Oh, but didn't you hear. Romney spent two days campaigning in Puerto Rico. Because he knew he was in trouble there and not because it's Puerto Rico or anything. There's no telling what shenanigans he was up to on that second day. He probably spent the extra day rigging the voting system.

AndrewPrice said...

That's true. He does have money and that means he can't be trusted. He probably bought voting machine riggers and went around and personally installed them there. You know how these island people are -- you can't trust them... not like porn-fearing Americans!

DUQ said...

By the way, if Romney exceeds 50%, then he gets all the delegates tonight.

AndrewPrice said...

They've called Puerto Rico for Romney. The only question now is if he gets above the 50% mark and takes all 20 delegates.

Kit said...

More whining about BigHollywood.

This week we have HUNGER GAMES coming out, which is generating plenty of buzz.

From what I know it is about freedom vs. tyranny but they are saying very little about it.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, I can't honestly tell you why they aren't covering that. It would seem like something a conservative website would be all over. But I guess not.

Kit said...

Why talk about a potentially libertarian-themed movie when you can bitch and moan about (and possibly provide free advertising for) Tom Hanks and HBO?

AndrewPrice said...

That does seem to be the new priority. :(

Kit said...

Good thing ACT OF VALOR came out a few weeks ago. Otherwise BH would've utterly ignored it.

We have, what, 500 channels these days? Okay, well 499 of them are NOT HBO!

And there are thousands of programs on tv that are not Game Change!

Now, to be fair, they are moving away from it. To Rosie O'Donnell being a "nightmare" to work under.

Shocking.

Kit said...

Also, did you know in Hunger Games that Elizabeth Banks is playing the woman in all the make-up?

Wow, she was unrecognizable!

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Well, I'm glad to hear there's a new topic. :/

I actually know almost nothing about The Hunger Games. So I can't really comment on it.

Kit said...

Seen the trailers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9a5V9ODuY

It's set in the future where, in the aftermath of an apocalypse a government has arisen in North America called Panem ruled by the Capital. About 80 years ago the rest of Panem, the 13 Districts, rebelled and were crushed, with the 13th being obliterated.
Now as punishment, 2 children, one boy and one girl, are chosen by lot from the 12 Districts to be "Tributes" , in what is called "the reaping", are sent to the Capital to fight in to the death called "The Hunger Games".

The book is about a 16-year old girl named Katniss, who lives in the very poor 12th District (modern day Appalachia) who has been pretty much caring for her mother and little sister, Prim, since her father died in a coal mining accident by hunting gathering (sometimes illegally) for food, often with a bow and arrow, her favorite weapon.
When her younger sister, who wouldn't last 5 seconds in a fight to death, is chosen Katniss volunteers to go in her place.

I've been reading the book and it is pretty well written.

Like with Harry Potter they've chosen some fairly recognizable actors for the adults such as Donald Sutherland, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, and Lenny Kravitz.

Kit said...

Woody Harrelson is in it too.


It also doesn't hurt the movie that the girl playing Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence, is quite the looker.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, That's really about all I know about it. Beyond that, I don't know if it's liberal/conservative action/romance/drama or what.

Here's your link: LINK

Kit said...

It's been a big hit among the Young Adult crowd and, from what I've read, is surprisingly realistic and gritty for what we think of as a Young Adult book.

The book does not shy away from how harsh her life is nor how cruel the practice of the Hunger Games are.

Kit said...

Buy the book. They pretty much cover the book shelves at Wal-Mart right now.

Kit said...

The country, Panem, by the way, apparently comes from the phrase "Panem et circensas", or "Bread and Circuses".

Clever.

AndrewPrice said...

Well, it sounds like it will do well.

rlaWTX said...

Kit, they don't tell you that until the end of the 3trd book - Until then I was trying to make Panem a bastardization of Pan-Am or something.

Hunger Games books: very interesting. starts as saving your family, making your way in a harsh world. then turns "global" so you see that it's def. freedom over tyranny. how to live your life in tyranny. how to react to tyranny. eventually, how to fight (or if to fight).
I very much enjoyed the books. The 1st is the best (as usual)because it's setting up the world, introducing the people. The 2nd and 3rd take on the tyranny in the personal and then empire-wide.
There's a point where someone discusses what will come next and the idea of a republic is raised - and the idea is treated with derision because they have no idea how that will work. A feeling of post-USSR.

Because of the "Game" in the first one, I think a lot of people will miss the big picture. But it is unmissable in the next 2. I am looking forward to seeing how they do it all.

AndrewPrice said...

Pan-Am! An airline gone rogue! :)

It sounds like this series is worth reading.

tryanmax said...

And the RWR spinners keep on spinning: Romney won Puerto Rico handily, but only because Santorum made a gaffe by calling them "a Spanish-speaking country-uh-er-island." Translation: Puerto Ricans are thin-skinned, fickle and stupid. Way to reach out to the Lation vote, talkers!

Of course, no one is surprised that Romney won, even though the day before yesterday he was destined to lose. I mean, he says he would have opposed Sonya Sotomayor! Santorum voted for Sotomayor back in '98, so that makes him a lock with Puerto Ricans, right? Mitt is so tone-deaf with Puerto Ricans! How can he possibly explain himself?

"Judge Sotomayor and I have very different judicial philosophies," Romney told island voters last week. "She is an activist, a liberal jurist. And I prefer people who follow the Constitution and do not make law as a judge. And so I will support Justices who are conservative and who follow the constitution."

See how he squirms? Oh, wait...

Somebody get Kristian Ramos on the line for me. I need to tell him that he apparently does not speak for all Latinos, after all.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm not surprised, not at all. This is the same game they play every time now.

1. Romney is destined to lose... so we should all support Beaker.

2. Romney is making unidentified gaffes -- Santorum's gaffes are all explanable and no one sees them as gaffes, so Beaker will win. . . so we should all support Beaker.

3. Beaker really won despite the numbers. . . so we should all support Beaker.

4. Romney only won because he has money. . . so we should all support Beaker.

5. Romney underperformed because everyone expected him to win. . . so we should all support Beaker.

6. That race didn't matter anyway. The only race that matters is _______ (insert next race where Beaker is competitive).


In any event, you are right. Conservatives are doing nothing to endear themselves to Hispanics. It's one thing to insist on a color-blind system, but it's quite another to treat Hispanics like they are foolish children who are have mono-interests and act like drones.

tryanmax said...

What kills me is that, by any objective standard, Romney has this in the bag, more-or-less. But the ongoing theme, still, at this late stage, is "why can't Romney seal this thing up?"

Pundit #2: "Well, it clearly shows a divide within the Republican party. Romney just doesn't connect with "real" conservatives.*

*slack-jawed, toothless, inbred, red-necked yokels from the sticks.

AndrewPrice said...

Conservatives are being played right now by the MSM and by self-interested RWR. They are having a massively negative stereotype imposed upon them: "conservative" equals angry, white, male, hillbilly evangelicals who hate women and gays and want to use the government to force them pesky women and gays back into their place.

Conservatives are stupidly embracing this too and this will hurt conservatives for years to come. Indeed, what person who thinks they might be a conservative but isn't sure will want to join THAT crowd?

AndrewPrice said...

I'll tell you something else, conservatives are proving they are stupid. They are proving they will fall for what the MSM tells them so long as the MSM packages it right.

Also, I find myself very frustrated by the delusional argument that somehow by throwing a futile temper tantrum we are "keeping Romney in line" or "forcing him to be more conservative."

Hardly. Throwing a tantrum does not win respect, it wins enmity. Also, this is teaching Romney that he can win without conservatives. So if he is a secret moderate, then what he's learning right now is that he can laugh off conservatives in the future because they lack to the power within the party. And if I were Romney, I certainly wouldn't give a shit about what places like Mississippi want in 2014 or 2015 because they have proven they lack the power to do anything to him.

tryanmax said...

I can only hope to be right, but I think Romney is more conservative than he's been painted. That said, I completely understand what you are saying. If Romney happens to actually be the masked-moderate his detractors think him to be, they are encouraging it. The far-right has become every bit as deluded as the far-left in their confirmation bias. Nothing will dissuade them from their beliefs.

I'm afraid I am now wholly on board with you about the damage that has been done to the conservative brand. Every time Newt and Beaker open their mouths, they basically say, “Why, yes, I’m a white racist bigot homophobe. And that’s why you should vote for me.” Just by his staid manner, Romney is far more conservative than those two. Meanwhile, RWR has done all it can in the last year to equate conservatism with the far-right. Part of that is due to the lack of any other terminology for that end of the spectrum. But much of it has to do with the self-serving actions of nouveau célèbre right-wing pundits losing their collective heads and adopting leftist tactics to make their arguments.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

This is where Romney out-shines Santorum and Obama. Should Mississippi suffer a calamity, Romney wouldn't hesitate to ask them if they need any help. I don't think Santorum would and I know Obama wont. Also, almost every blog has one or two people holding out for Santorum in the forlorn hope that a brokered convention will yield a conservative more to their liking.

Redstate is the only blog I know of who is still playing with the fiction that Santorum can win it all. The rest are just being polite to their audience.

Plus, Romney knows that he has to keep to the right. If he doesn't, he loses. The Conservative Majority will be electing Romney.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I THINK Romney is much more conservative than people understand. I get this from having listened to all of his debates and having found a consistent pattern of him providing reflexive conservative answers. In other words, I'm hearing it in his instincts at this point.

Yes, he doesn't use the nomenclature and he's not out there proposing stunningly new conservative ideas, but I hear it every time he suggests that something is a matter for states rights or when he talks about the need to get government out of the private sector and stop attacking individual rights. Those are solidly conservative thoughts and they seem to be his first answer to each question -- something I cannot say of the others.

Indeed, thinking back on the "compassionate conservative" comment is instructive. On the one hand, that should have clued us in that something was wrong with Bush -- that he fundamentally misunderstood the nature of conservatism and that he had a disdain for conservatism. On the other hand, I honestly don't see Romney revealing "inner liberalism" in this manner. So I am very much starting to believe he is a lot more conservative than people want to believe.


My point on the idea of pulling him right is just that IF he is a secret moderate as they claim, then conservatives are kidding themselves if they think the way they are behaving will make him beholden to them. Once you prove to someone that they don't need you, you pretty much lose any power you may have had. That's what's going on here, especially as they are also attacking him repeatedly. It doesn't take long for true enmity to build up in that situation.

In truth, I don't think Romney is the kind of guy to hold a grudge. He seems too decent for that. But it certainly isn't helping.


On the damage issue, well said. The problem is that conservatives are moving into their own bubbles on talk radio and on the net, and they aren't hearing what moderates are saying. They think this is "just talking sense," whereas moderates are hearing this and cringing.

I always try to listen to the moderates because they decide elections. And there are a TON of moderates with conservative beliefs who have been turned off from the conservative brand over the years because of the liberal smear of conservatives as white, racist, religious-kooks... AND because too many conservatives have willingly adopted that because it served their purposes.

This election cycle could have been the moment conservatism became a 60% electoral force. Instead, with guys like Newt and Beaker playing into every negative far-right stereotype (and huge numbers of conservatives agreeing with them), we have really lost the moderates. They will vote for Romney at this point because they want to be rid of Obama, but they will not finally identify themselves as "conservative." And that hurts us long term.

tryanmax said...

I'm surprised at myself for thinking this, but thanks to the media divide, a part of me thinks that a major party upheaval of some sort is likely in the near future (by which I mean my lifetime, not the coming months).

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I agree. One of the things that gets lost in this whole debate is that Romney really is a decent guy. His whole history demonstrates that, as does his demeanor. He believes in American values and would not hesitate to do his job as President to the best of his abilities without picking favorites or holding people hostage. I can't say the same thing about the others... especially Obama.

My point though is more general. IF... IF Romney is a secret liberal. Why would Romney go out of his way to give something to conservatives once they've proven he doesn't need them?

I don't think Romney is a secret liberal, nor do I think he's that political. But it's a nonsense argument I keep hearing that somehow smearing the guy and fighting a futile primary battle against him will somehow make him owe us?

I think you're right about the blogs. I'm starting to see shifting away from the Santorum as well. I think people are seeing the writing on the wall because even when Santorum wins, he still loses the delegate count. At this point, even a brokered convention is pretty much impossible.

I think the poll this weekend showing that Newt's people are evenly split will help push that along too because it just makes it even more obvious that the ABR camp can't win.

tryanmax said...

...stunningly new conservative ideas... I would argue that there are no such things, and to be wary of anyone claiming to have one.

As far as speaking the "language of conservatism" goes, I don't believe in it. I think it is just a buzzword for "buzzwords." That's a double-edged sword at best. One of the most stunning complaints I've heard against Romney is that he once said folks should "pay their fair share" which sounds like something Obama would say. Nevermind that each man means something entirely different.

AndrewPrice said...

tyranmax, We are in the middle of a conservative civil war of Religious Right v. Economic Right. I'm not sure what the ultimate result will be, but the Religious Right actually belongs on the left and they may gravitate back over there IF the left gives up the atheists.

Joel Farnham said...

What really is annoying is the MSM talking up Santorum and some conservatives parroting the me. Like this one.

Santorum: "Romney has no core." Seriously, the man should go and find out about Mormons. Attend one of their Sunday meetings. He will find a core that is far better than he has right now.

I remember when I attended one. It is still memorable. It didn't have fire and brimstone. It wasn't overlaid with heavy rituals. It had at least three speakers, and not just old guys, one was a missionary fresh from Germany. The best speaker had the temerity to tell a joke. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I agree. Of all the people I've met, I have to say that the Mormons really have some of the strongest values of anyone AND they really do live by them. It is the rare Mormon I've met who will violate their beliefs just because it would help them professionally. It's not personally my kind of lifestyle, but I respect it greatly.

And when I compare that to Santorum, who is all sound and fury, but who truly has no core value whatsoever, I find myself stunned by the idea that somehow Romney is the guy with "no core" or that Santorum is "the moral" one of the two. Santorum is glitz with no substance, Romney is substance with no glitz. Conservatives should always prefer the Romney-method.

It frustrates me that conservatives are falling for these things without ever considering that they're being fed a line by the MSM that just isn't true.

And the pro-Santorum love by the MSM reminds me of the argument McCain made in 2008: "the media has been good to me, so I will be the best candidate." Wrong. They are good to you now because they see you as the weak link. Once you get chosen, then they will savage you.

Post a Comment