At one time, AT&T held a monopoly on almost all telephone service in the US. Their manufacturing arm was a company called “Western Electric”. My first job out of college was working for them.
Western Electric was founded in Chicago in 1869. I found that curious. When I asked the old-timers of the company why it was called “Western” Electric when it was founded in Chicago which even then was in the middle of the country, they replied that the original owners were from New York, and to them anything west of the Hudson River was considered “Western” America.
I experienced a similar phenomena growing up in Oregon. The vast majority of the state’s population lives west of the Cascade Mountains in the Wilmette Valley. I grew up in Ontario. Ontario sits right on the banks of the Snake River, the boundary between Oregon and Idaho. You can’t get much further east in Oregon and still be in Oregon.Yet when I mentioned to someone who lived in the Wilmette Valley that I was from “Eastern Oregon”, the most common response I got was, “Oh, so you’re from Bend?”.
Now if you look at a map of Oregon, you will find that while Bend is east of the Cascades, it is actually west of the state’s center-line. Yet because it was “east” of the people living in the Wilmette Valley, they considered it “Eastern Oregon”.
We see this in Politics all the time. If you are not one extreme, people will claim you are the other. If you are not for banning all abortions anytime, anywhere, the people who are will label you as “pro-abortion”. If you are not for allowing all abortions anytime, anywhere, the people who are will label you as “anti-abortion”. If you are not for allowing any gun, any weapon in the hands of the private citizen, the people who are will label you an anti-gun hater of the 2nd amendment. If you are not for banning anything deadlier than a pea-shooter (and they’ll get back to you on that one), then you are considered a lunatic gun-nut to those advocating complete gun control. If you don’t think that mankind is the chief cause of climate change, then those who do will call you “anti-science”. If you think man might have something to do with climate change, no matter how small, then those who insist that man has nothing to do with it will declare you to be a died-in-the-wool “Global Warmist”.
That last one can be a great source of comedy. The pro-people dismiss every cold snap as weather and point to every warm spell as proof of global warming. The con-people dismiss every warm spell as weather and point to every cold snap as proof there is no global warming. If it supports their position, it’s proof positive that they are right. If it contradicts their position, then it’s only a temporary phenomena. It has become a religion to either side of the argument. You are either a true-believer, or a heretic to be dismissed and/or destroyed. They allow no middle-ground.
This all leads to some rather curious and illogical political rhetoric. If a candidate is a centralist on an issue, the people on either extreme will point to him and claim that as soon as he is in office, he is going to enact the draconian measures their opposites are advocating. Moderates are by definition “moderate”. Yet the extremists confidently declare that such moderates are in actuality just itching to be just like the worst of their opposing extremists. It makes little sense, yet you see this time after time.
Another absurdity that can arise from this is what happens when an centralist on any given issue stakes out a position in the center. (Is that a surprise or what?!) When one side tries to push things too far into their camp, he will oppose them and side with their opponents. Then later when their opponents try to push things too far their way, he will oppose them and support the other guys. That is when the cries of “flip-flopper”, “political opportunist”, and charges that he lacks a “political soul” start.
Extremists tend to see the football field in terms of the end zones, or at best inside the twenty yard-lines. Anything outside of their own twenty yard-line is enemy territory and not worth considering. Only those in the end zones or at best inside the ten are considered “True *fill in the blank*s”. Anyone guilty of being outside the ten yard line yet still inside the fifty is classified as one of those dreaded *INOs. Those would include RINOs, DINOs, CINOS, LINOs, etc. If you ask someone using them to define exactly what they mean, they will either dismiss you contemptuously, or mumble something rather vague. Because they have so many definitions, they really mean nothing. They are in actuality just epithets to hurl at someone claiming membership in your group who doesn’t agree 100% with you.
It is all part of demonizing those who thinks differently from you. The danger here is the vast majority of the American public plays politics between the twenty yard lines. To demonize everyone outside of your own twenty is to demonize most of America. That makes winning elections rather difficult.
We cannot afford to become like Pauline Kael who in 1972 said, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken.” Do we inhabit a “rather special world” where anyone who doesn’t think exactly like us is “outside our ken”? E pluibus unum is the motto emblazoned on the Great Seal of the United States. Out of many, one.
Now, is everyone an extremist? No. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Yet far too often they talk like extremists to further their interests.
Here is a case in point. One 2012 GOP hopeful has been labeled a “Crony Capitalist” because big business donated to his campaign, and he allows access to big business. But businesses will always donate to politicians who they think further their interests, and politicians will always allow access to the “movers and shakers”. All, and I do mean ALL politicians do it. Their time is limited to 24 hours a day. They have to prioritize their contacts. It is a natural thing to prioritize along the lines of the most bang for the minute. Do you represent yourself or a group? How big of a group? The more people you represent, the more likely it is that you will gain access to the politician. It is a simple fact of politics. Yet one hopeful has been tagged with the “Crony Capitalist” label, and the others have not.
Here is another case in point. One 2012 GOP hopeful has been labeled a “Flip-flopper” because he has changed his mind on an issue and has opposed extremists on several others. People do that. Yet this hopeful is called a “flip-flopper” by supporters of other hopefuls just as guilty as he is. They explain it away by insisting their guy changed his stance out of respect for political reality. The other guy did it out of political opportunity. There’s a difference, you understand.
No, not really. But even though they are not themselves extremists, adopting the tactics of the extremists allows them to demonize the candidate they don’t support. Therefore it’s all good.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Very good post. Though, I have to say if you are referring to Perry as the “Crony Capitalist”, I really do think it fits. Since those who donated to his campaign have cashed out with some very sweet government contracts and/or funding.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:10 am
“One 2012 GOP hopeful has been labeled a “Flip-flopper” because he has changed his mind on an issue”
an issue?
an issue?
as in one issue?
How about many issues.
How about the man can’t explain his princple core beliefs on an easy issue like Ethanol!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-pretzel-candidate/2011/10/28/gIQAPEQ8PM_story.html?hpid=z2
In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?
..SOOOO now when someone questions the ROMBOTS about the history of Mitt he is labeled what?
…a politcal whore?
An extremist who is only concerned about 20 yards of the field?
When Mitt could not recongnize the greatness of Ronald Reagan when he was an adult, how can I trust him that he can recongize which is the correct direction today?
And now I take it that no one can question Mitt’s flipps because other candidates have done so?
What kind of nonsense is this?
This Front Page Post is like kneeling down on the football with 12 minutes left to go on the clock when you are only up by 10 pts.
BTW, field goals don’t win games, you need to punch it in from the Red Zone once in awhile.
Of course unless you want to just win on defense which this post is all about.
NEWT 2012!
A Movement Conservative
October 29th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Great article Mark.
Another oddity of Oregon is that the “West Side” is the rich part of Portland. The “East Side” is the ghetto. Most cities that is reversed. I would chalk up all the Strange ways of Oregonians to the weed at Reed College.
But I really liked your analysis.
I think we have become too extreme, all of us. It turns off a lot of Americans. Part of this has to do with the fact that elected officials have to give an up or down vote. They can’t vote very centrist, at least not on certain bills.
I guess Obama accomplished this by voting “Present”.
But the main thing I wanted to bring up is Romney’s stance on issues. They haven’t changed all that much over the years. We all know the abortion thing has changed. But if someone in my family died from an illegal abortion, I might cut that issue some slack too. Glad he’s come to his senses. His Mom was pro-choice, so there was obviously some family pressure here.
But check out this campaign flier from Mitt in the race against Ted Kennedy. Mitt ran as the conservative. Especially bold for Massachusetts if you ask me.
http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf
October 29th, 2011 at 10:18 am
marK,
Perry is not a crony capitalist because he meets with corporations or gives scheduling preference to wealthy donors.
He’s a crony capitalist because he gives tax dollars to companies who contribute a lot of money to his campaign, and intervenes with law enforcement and the bureaucracy to make special execptions for these donors.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Romney was bold in 1994?
Romney who ran away from Reagan in 1994?
Romney who ran away from Contract For America was bold?
Bold?
Bold?
Mitt, who promised to be left of Ted Kennedy in area of Gay rights and on the issue of Pro-choice was running as a Conservative???
Show me one audio clip of Romney describing himself as a Conservative in 1994…..or on a flier.
This is the stuff that I can’t stand and needs to be called out.
You ROMBOTS re-write history like crazy and then you ripp on people who call you out on it.
Romney bold and Conservative in 1994?
What a joke.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Smack, did Cain or Perry recognize Ronald Reagan’s greatness as an adult? Did they? I don’t think so. How can you trust them?
October 29th, 2011 at 10:21 am
marK,
“One 2012 GOP hopeful has been labeled a “Flip-flopper” because he has changed his mind on an issue”
C’mon now, marK. You’re being a touch disingenuous there. It’s not “an” issue. But just looking at Mitt themematically, did he EVER run as a self-identified conservative before ’08? In ’08 every third word out of his mouth was “Reagan” or “conservative”. Mitt became a totally different person when he started to run for President.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Excellent write up.
Most Americans see the world in blues and reds. But the truth has many shades.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:23 am
That aside, I agree with the overall theme of the post. Politics today is driven more by “purity” than by getting done what needs to be done. Rhetorical bombast counts for too much, and finding solution counts for not enough.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:24 am
You can have moderate stance on issues and still be considered a Conservative.
But what pisses people off about Mitt is that he has never been a Movement Conservative when putting his own political career at stake.
Mitt became Pro-life after his election.
MItt became Mr. Social Conservative after his election.
Mitt will change after he wins/if the Presidency. Liberal Washington DC is going to eat him alive.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:26 am
5. Smack
If you look at the flier, you’ll see a host of issue that are conservative. I’m not sure why you think “gay rights” are not a conservative stance. Obviously, Gay-marriage is another thing. Mitt has been consistent on the side of Marriage being reserved for a man and a woman. But Gay rights? You want discrimination of gays? I’m not sure where you are coming from on this one but this is probably what the article is talking about. You want to make this thing black and white. There is some nuance to the issue of gay rights.
Death Penalty: Conservative
Taxes: Conservative
Crime: Conservative
Welfare: Conservative
etc
etc
Read the flier
http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf
And let’s face it: Mitt’s our only chance of beating Obama.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Matt and Smack:
Mitt may have never used the word “Conservative”. But then Jesus never used the word “Christian”. He lived it. Mitt’s policies were conservative. Get over it if you can.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Firecracker,
I’m not a Cain or Perry supporter. Perry is a dope and Cain is seriously not up to the job.
Just because these men should not be President doesn’t make everything I say about Mitt untrue.
TPAW was my guy because he was a sensational Movement Conservative in the state of MN.
Now I’m left with Newt who has been a Movement Conservative nationally.
Newt is imperfect, but he never ran away from Reagan…never.
Newt fought for the Contract of America when Mitt couldn’t ever utter those words out of his mouth.
I see Mitt fought for Romneycare….case closed.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Smack,
Romney’s been consistent on Ethanol subsidies. Energy independence is one of his top issues, and always has been. He saw the trends in crop yields, and supported Ethanol subsidies when they were needed to get the industry established…..BEFORE the industry was economically viable.
This only made sense because it was obvious that it WOULD be economically viable, and when it became so, it helped move us toward energy independence. To be more specific, when farmers were only getting 60 bushels of corn per acre, the subsidy was necessary. Now that they’re getting 160 bushels per acre, the Ethanol industry can stand on its own 2 feet. We don’t NEED to subsidize it anymore.
When the yield goes to 260 bushels per acre…..and it will…..it will be a source of American strength……another one of Mitt’s primary values.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Sir David,
Rombots would do well to stop with all the comparisons to Jesus.
At any rate, the word “Christian” didn’t exist while Christ was on Earth.
Are you suggesting that Mitt invented the word “conservative” in 2008?
October 29th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Smack, have you never changed your mind on an issue?
Are Romney’s ideals right-leaning? undoubtedly.
Have his opinions evolved over time? yes, and that’s a good thing.
If you never change your mind, why have one?
October 29th, 2011 at 10:36 am
And calling Jesus a Christian is absurd. Jesus doesn’t follow Christ or try to emulate him. Jesus is the Christ. It’s calling God a follower of God.
???
October 29th, 2011 at 10:39 am
“Mitt may have never used the word “Conservative”. But then Jesus never used the word “Christian”. He lived it. Mitt’s policies were conservative. Get over it if you can.’
WOW
Where do I start.
Jesus never used the word Christian because if he did he would be talking about himself in thrid person……just like Smackdaddy does.
Ok..let’s get serious here.
Why didn’t Mitt used the word Conservative…afraid he would use the election?
Mitt didn’t want to be known as a Conservative?
Reagan wanted to be known as a Conservative in 1964 knowing that Goldwater was going to get crushed.
Reagan wanted to be known as a Conservative in 1976 knowing that he was the underdog to Ford.
Why couldn’t Mitt be known as a Conservative……..ahhhh but we know why.
It was more important for Mitt to be known as Mr. Senator.
And that is where we have the problem, don’t we.
Romney can talk.
Romney is smart.
Romney as excutive experience.
Romney is not a Movement Conservative.
1 year after the Tea Party rose up and rushed into office great people like Allen West, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio and othes…we now will settle for a Rockefeller?
Not at this time..not now.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Okay, I realize my post was a bit one sided. (but no more than Smack’s that followed, thereby proving Mark Lowe’s point.) I wanted to follow-up with some clarification.
Lowe’s point, regarding cronyism, is that all politicians do this – all the successful politicians take donations from big companies. But that does not necessarily make them a crony politician. In the case of Perry, you can easily follow the money trail. I am curious to know if Romney has a similar money trail. Somehow I don’t think so because it hasn’t come out yet and all of his records as governor are open. I’m sure he took big donations from companies, but it hasn’t come out that Romney reciprocated those companies with no-bid contracts or big fund grants. Still, a quick search shows some relation with Big Dig contractors. A full investigation is needed, for which I don’t have the time or experience to do, which involve looking at Romney’s gubernatorial campaign donations from Big Dig contractors and then looking at the way the Big Dig contractors were chosen (were the contractors fairly selected?) http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?b=959327&c=dkLNK1MQIwG It looks like Romney gave money back to certain contributors. And only the Attorney General, Reilly, took money from Big Dig contractors – which he also gave back. – “‘Although it’s perfectly legal to accept these types of contributions, the governor does not want to encourage the impression that a Cabinet member’s job is based on anything other than performance,’ Fehrnstrom said.”
3. I wouldn’t say that Mitt’s position on abortion changed all that much. In 1994, he said he would not change the existing laws – he would not “impose his personal beliefs on the people.” Just what were his personal beliefs? I would assume it is that he feels abortion is wrong, given the setting, the way the question was asked and answered. His record as governor proves it – he did not change the laws, but he always sided on the Pro-Life stance when it came to signing new laws and bills. What is interesting is this is nearly the same thing that Cain was saying this past week and a half.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:42 am
#10 When did Mitt ever get “eaten alive?” Yeah, he got beat by Kennedy, but that was a long shot. Yeah, he got beat by McCain/Huckabee, but he’s come roaring back. Did Mitt get eaten alive when he was @ Bain? Took over the Olympics? Was said to be dead in France?
Did he get eaten alive by the very much touted Perry? Did he eated alive by the very much touted debater Gingrich? The moron Jeffress? Currently Limbaugh, Levin, Red State, a bunch of influential conservative local talk shows and others are trying to eat him alive.
But the Mitt Machine marches on. If Mitt survives the lying attacks of the right wing media, the onslaught of the left wing cremation machine to become POTUS, he will be the toughest dang president ever to enter the Oval Office.
Mitt has spent his entire life planning his work and fighting tooth and toe nail to work his plan.
Obama is getting eaten alive because of ineptitude. Newt was eated alive by Clinton in the ’90′s. Perry and Cain would be eaten alive if POTUS (for the same reason BO is: ineptitude. Romney’s life has shown he’s one tough customer who will move heaven and earth to get the job done. There’s a reason he’s stayed viable in the polls through thick and thin. There’s a reason he hasn’ gone up dramatically given all the crap that’s been thrown at him from the right.
I guess we’ll see who eats who(m).
October 29th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Elazar,
Yes I have changed my mind.
And when I do so I admit it.
Romney did admit to changing his mind on the issue of Pro-life, but on many things he has not.
Romney does not have a political core…his beliefs changed on the account of his current audience.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Thank you Mark for this article. Very well thought out and insightful.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:55 am
K.G.
Good post.
Points well taken.
“Mitt has spent his entire life planning his work and fighting tooth and toe nail to work his plan.”
I don’t like that he threw Reagan under the bus to “work his plan.”
I don’t like that he promised the voters of MASS that we would protect the womans right to choose..and then switched it up to “work his plan.”
I don’t like that Mitt had to call himself a Hunter to “work his plan”
I could go on and on and on and on…..
It’s all about Mitt “working his plan”…..it has never been about Mitt working to usher in a limted Government, battling the liberals, and making sure that we turn our country around by using Conservative principles.
I do see that the state of MASS needs FED help to pay for Romneycare. I do see that the taxpayers help pay for abortions under Romneycare and that because you need FED money help…well…..now I’m paying for those abortions. I did see Romney fight for that plan.
But he did not fight for the Bush tax cuts…
or for Contract for America…
or for defending the Reagan Era when it was unpopular to do so in MASS.
I see where Mitt fights…and that is why I and Newt will fight him now.
NEWT 2012!!!
Gingrich/Blackburn 2012!!
October 29th, 2011 at 10:56 am
The rap on Romney is that he is not a “principled conservative.” OK, who is this phantom principled, movement conservative with a long list of stirring bold conservative speeches they’ve been giving all their life? Where is the movement conservative office holder who’s governed so effectively and brilliantly they’ve turned blue states red?
Where is the “movement conservative” that can actually beat Obama? Rush seems to believe Obama is soooo weak one of his pet dogs could beat Obama. I say that is a of “b” movement.
There’s may be some true movement conservatives coming up the ranks, but they ain’t running this time around. In the meantime get a kick-a%%, hardcore “conservative businessman” in the Oval Office and save what you can of the country.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Smack.21:“Romney does not have a political core…his beliefs changed on the account of his current audience.”
Article:“That is when the cries of “flip-flopper”, “political opportunist”, and charges that he lacks a “political soul” start.”
October 29th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Smack,
The only matter of basic principle Mitt’s changed his mind on is abortion. There’s no reason for him to confess to changes of fundamental position he’s not guilty of. And comparing him to the relatively incompetent Rockefeller is dumb.
Gingrich, on the other hand, has flip-flopped on literally DOZENS of issues. If he ever rose to the level of relevance required for serious vetting, it would be a bloodbath. But he will NEVER be relevant. He’s not running a presidential campaign….he’s on an ego trip.
And you fell for it.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:59 am
#20 – Excellent points. He was supposed to be taken out by Perry and the reverse happened. The Texas Bully walked into the saloon to intimidate the tin horn Easterner. Then a funny thing happend, the proper Bostonian knocked the Dime Store Cowboy flat on ass.
As far as Movement Conservative go, TPAW never stuck out as one of the stars. Perhaps to in state redidents he was, but outside in MN, I don’t believe so. Nice guy, but known as a zealot.
Too think both TPAW and Ginrich both bought into MM Global Warming BIG TIME (and much more than Romney ever did) and to still think of them as Movement Conservatives strikes a humorous note with me.
I’m also amused at Smack/Craig2′s flip flopping on candidates, yet calling Romney out as a flipper.
The beer must be flowing liberally.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:02 am
#24 – You are on fire today. I ask my friends the same thing. Where is this Perfect Conservative Giant and why aren’t they running?
The answer is he/she does not exist outside the dreams of Talk Radio.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:06 am
I don’t think Craig drinks…..but I do.
I’d rather be drinking my beer then the Mitt’s kool-aid.
6 years after Reagan left office Mitt was running away from him. At the same time Newt stood on the house floor for hours as the CSPAN camera men were the only ones in the room with him. Newt defended the Reagan Revolution in speeches and in action. Newt usered in the Contract for America..Mitt could have never done that.
That is what you call a Movement Conservative.
Mitt did usher in MASS CARE where the GOP voters of MASS are against it 2 to 1.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:06 am
BTW – Excellent post Mark.
You write very well and I enjoyed the history aspect about WE. Would love to see you put some pure historical posts up sometime.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Smackeroo,
Just a week or so ago you were on the Romney Bus,
Did you imbibe to heartily and fall off?
I don’t get where this savagery is coming from lately.
I think Craig does drink, but I bet he can’t hold is booze and is an obnoxious drunk.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:09 am
There is no perfect Conservative Giant.
But I will settle for a candidate who always believe the word “Conservative” was a positive word.
That eliminates Mitt for consideration.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:10 am
If we ever want to choose the right candidate to be our president, blanket superlatives such as flip-flopper & RINO should be avoided. This is infantile name calling.
I think everybody can agree that Romney has been less-consistent in his opinions than others. But that does not make him any less idealistic or less conservative. It makes him smarter, more mature, more moderate.
And yes, Newt Gingrich is also a mature, smart conservative. But he has been wrong on issues as well. In fact, I have no respect to a politician who hasn’t evolved his opinions over time.
Newt vs. Mitt – Mitt wins because of his business & executive experience.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:11 am
#23 Smack, I hear ya’. But (1) Mitt’s plan was to get elected Mass governor and he did. (2) Mitt’s plan was to make Mass better than it would have been if he were not the governor. If he’d run hard right, he would have never been elected, never had the opportunity to balance budgets, improve education, sign some pro-life bills, or sign gun laws more favorable to the 2nd Amendment.
It’s a fallacy to look back and keep harping on whatever Mitt did or said back in the day. Let’s assume he made some mistakes; he should have taken some stronger stands. Let’s assume he’s learned from his mistakes. He’s running now on being “clear and consistent.” He’s laid out his “plans” in his 187 page book, in his foreign policy speech, in the debates.
If you don’t like his plans for the future, vote for someone else whose plans you like better and whose abilities show more promise. But I for one don’t see that person. And I also believe that Mitt, once stating clear and consistent plans for what he will do as POTUS, will sure as heck do them.
Day One, Week One, First Hundred days. Can you ever doubt, considering the manner in which he’s run this campaign so far, that he doesn’t have the will and ability to git it done?
October 29th, 2011 at 11:11 am
marK
I grew up in Portland. I thought everybody understood that Eastern Oregon was everything east of the peaks of the Cascades….You know at the point the climate changes.
But Ontario?! You’re not even in the same time zone! LOL
And you forgot to mention the big cultural divide. Western Oregonians feel like they belong to the “Pacific Northwest” region or culture, which is every thing far enough north of San Francisco to leave out the loony liberals up through British Columbia and west of the Cascade Range. People from Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon are viewed as the same species of humans that live in Idaho
And the liberal vs. conservative boundary also breaks at the Cascade Range.
And Sir David
Ahem, you must be from Beaverton or something. The “slums” are most certainly in “North” Portland and part of Northeast Portland.
Having grown up in Southeast Portland, I resent that over simplified generality. (Keep that up and people will mistake you for Baghdad Craig or Sojourn, of even Smack of late…)
October 29th, 2011 at 11:11 am
#29 – Dou you know the history of Mass Care? If so, I douby you would use ill informed terminolgy such as “usher in,” unless your only motive is to provoke.
Like Pablo in For Whom the Bell Tolls…..”I don’t provoke.”
October 29th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Apologies for the typos = posting w/o glasses
October 29th, 2011 at 11:14 am
“Mitt did usher in MASS CARE where the GOP voters of MASS are against it 2 to 1.”
Smack, recall this from the last debate:
“There’s a lot as big government behind Romneycare,” Gingrich added. “Not as much as Obamacare, but a heck of a lot more than your campaign is admitting.”
Referencing the Newt Gingrich-affiliated Heritage Foundation’s onetime support for the individual health care mandate, Romney fired back: “Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you!”
“That’s not true,” responded Gingrich. “You got it from the Heritage Foundation.”
Gingrich added: “What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.”
“And you never supported them?” Romney pressed on: “Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?”
“I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare,” Gingrich said.
“OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation,” Romney concluded.
“OK,” Gingrich conceded. “A little broader.”
October 29th, 2011 at 11:16 am
#29….Smack, just so you know.
That little clip where “Romney is running away from Reagan” was a little piece of an answer where Romney was asked about the huge deficits Reagan piled up. Romney was saying he was against the deficit build up.
Sounds like Romney was right on the mark
October 29th, 2011 at 11:17 am
I was on the Romney bus………and will be again if he is our nominee.
But Mitt has failed to close the deal for me.
I think he needs to be tested and the only one is Newt.
Mitt does not connect with me…at all. Maybe because when I was fighting in campaigns here in liberal MN with Conservative candidates Mitt was running away from Reagan.
Mitt does not speak to me. His incoherent answers on questions of FED ETH Subsidies, and where he will cut entitlement programs almost reek as bad as Cain’s answers.
If Mitt survives Smackdaddy and the Newtster…well…then……he is out guy.
But until then…………look out baby!
….wait for it…
….wait for it……
Newt Surge!!!
It’s happening.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Doug,
“Apologies for the typos = posting w/o glasses”
Are you using steins?
October 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Jerald,
Oh really……..Romney described himself as an Independent during Reagan/Bush.
That is what I call ROMBOT Kool-aid drinking.
I will stick to my beer thank you very much.
Beer keeps me from getting absorbed in the ROMBORG.
I think it’s the hops that does it.
MItt Kerry will be attacked from here on in from the Perry,Cain and Huntsman camps.
Newt will stay above the fray and Smackdaddy will do his heavy lifting for him..
….right here…
at RACE42012!!!!
October 29th, 2011 at 11:25 am
#32 “always believed?” Reagan did not “always believe” in conservatism. It was an evolution. Reagan didn’t “always believe” abortion was murder. Look at the bill he signed in CA. Reagan didn’t “always believe in border security over amnesty.” He considered his amnesty bill the biggest mistake of his life.
Politics isn’t a religion; it’s give and take, compromises, mistakes, impure if not downright dirty.
Look where ideological purity has got Obama and the Dems. In a two-party republic can the majority cram down crap like the Dems did during ObamaCare? Look at the pushback.
Rush keeps ranting that you “don’t work with Democrats, you defeat them.” Well, isn’t that what they did in the Soviet Union? Round up dissenters and send them to a gulag? Isn’t that what Bill Ayers wanted to do? Convert or send people to reeducation camps. Isn’t that the rap on Muslism? Convert, dhimmitude or death?
People in today’s administation complain on the QT that the reason Obama’s such a disaster is that “he doesn’t understand the complexities.”
I believe Mitt would have a better chance than the rest to understand the complexities and actually effect a favorable outcome. I would give Newt and Bachmann high marks on that too. I just don’t them being able to build a strong team and make thing happen like Mitt.
Bachmann’s not going to be elected and Newt’s got election problems too.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Matt “MWS”
I know you took a pass when asked to get on the Newt Train…..but if you ever did take a step on to it……well…
IT WOULD BE EPIC!!
Just think about it.
Just think.
Tele + Smackdaddy + Matt “MWS” = explosion!!!
…and a Newt victory!!!
October 29th, 2011 at 11:28 am
K.G,
#32 “always believed?” Reagan did not “always believe” in conservatism.
You followed a good post with a horrible one….sorry dude.
You need to do some reading on Reagan..I will leave it at that.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:35 am
#19 Machtyn
The “Big Dig” was launched way before Romney was elected and was far behind schedule and way over budget.
Romney got involved and made it another one of his turnaround legends.
Too bad that story is not getting told much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
There was one incident when a faulty, out of speck, ceiling slab fell on a woman’s car and killed her. Romney was livid and absolultely tore into the contractors and sent some supervisory heads rolling.
It’s a story even Smack would appreciate. But alas, once again, such parts of Romney’s record are never examined or hyped…just little itty bitty snippets of campaign clashes.
Sometimes I just can’t help wondering why the extensive background of Romney actually taking on and solving tough problem after tough problem is ignored while a few sound bits are used in never ending attempts to assinate his character.
It just doesn’t make sense….
October 29th, 2011 at 11:39 am
#42……Smack….Are you drunk?
You are the guy who has declared that you are going to fight tooth and nail along side the Democrats to defeat Bachmann’s reelection attempt and YOU of all people have the nerve to vilify Romney because he was independent?
I hate to break it to you Smack, but there are lots of independing voters that mostly, if not always, vote with the GOP.
By the way, what the hell happened to you Smack, you are acting like your wife ran off with Romney.
But the bottle down and sober up…Mitt’s enjoying life with Ann…..He’s not the one who took your woman…
October 29th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Jerald,
Once again you miss my point.
It would be best for the GOP for there Nutjob to lose in 2012 and have a great GOP Rep win it in 2014 like Amy Koch of Buffalo, who is a rising start here in the MN 6th district. I’m willing to take 1 step back now to take 2 steps forward later.
Although anytime a NUTJOB loses it’s not really one step backward at anytime.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
I lived near Portland a couple of years and in Bend for over 10 years. I really enjoyed living in both sides of Oregon. It was amusing we were East of Portland, thus Eastern Oregon, but it makes sense considering there isn’t a lot of population East of the Cascades. I always considered it Central Oregon, but then again, it was only a two party system to the masses (West and East). The Eastern side was definately more conservative.
Now I am in Colorado on the Western Slope, and this side is definately more conservative than in Denver. I guess you could say I flip flopped. East to West. But still conservative.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
What? Christ never spoke in third person? What is all that talk of his father? Isn’t the Trinitarian view that Christ and the father are the same person? If you believe that notion, then Christ spoke in third person all the time.
But my point is that no matter the label, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Mitt ran and governed as a conservative.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Sorry if I offended any East side Portlandiers. I just remember NE Portland to be pretty rough and the West Hills to be more plush. But I am sure there are great Places to live on both sides of the river.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Smack writes: ”
But Mitt has failed to close the deal for me. I think he needs to be tested and the only one is Newt.”
yeah Newt will take Romney to task.
Like in the last debate when he called only about the health care mandate, then melted before our eyes, like the Stay Puff Marshmellow Man on a humid August afternoon.
Perhaps Newt can schoiol Mitt on the Art of Marriage, considering Romney has only been married once, compared to Newts 7 or 8.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
“Perhaps Newt can schoiol Mitt on the Art of Marriage, considering Romney has only been married once, compared to Newts 7 or 8.”
Hehe
October 29th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
“Mitt ran and governed as a conservative’
Not only do I disagree with you, but Mitt does himself. He called his Governship “Libertarin”.
Kind of funny isn’t it.
Nobody outside of Romney’s most ROMBOTIC fans would take your statement as serious.
Romney and his followers are on an island to yourselfs. The island is not big enough to win this election. Because you did not want to take any critcism of your island seriously…because the ROMBOTS would not play with the REAGANS in the neighborhood…well….this is what happens.
Lost elections and seriously stupid statements that say Romney ran as a Conservative for Governor…..unbelievable.
BTW, your white tee shirt has kool-aid stains all over it.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Smack, you are a fool for thinking Newt Gingrich is what you’re looking for.
Newt Gingrich was the symbolic hypocrite of the 1990s.
Newt Gingrich fought for Cap and Trade alongside Nancy Pelosi.
Newt Gingrich called Paul Ryan’s plan “Right Wing social engineering.”
Newt Gingrich is the biggest historical promoter of the nationalized individual mandate in the history of this country.
If you think Newt Gingrich is any better than Romney on Conservatism, you’re a total dumbass, I’m sorry. It’s just a fact.
October 29th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Mitt Romney believes climate change may be influenced by humans – Newt Gingrich fought for Cap and Trade on national television with Nancy Pelosi.
Mitt Romney has lived an impeccable Conservative personal life with his family and wife – Newt Gingrich and his wife are obsessed with themselves and Newt Gingrich cheated on his wives as Speaker.
Mitt Romney endorsed Paul Ryan’s approach – Newt Gingrich called it “Right Wing Social Engineering.”
Mitt Romney passed a state-level mandate for health insurance – Newt Gingrich pushed national health care HARD in 1995.
October 29th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
#55 AND Newt has never been a real executive. We loved him in ’94 with his Contract. We voted for all those guys. We were on a high. The rest is history.
What has done in the last 15 years besides talk and write books?
His lack of discipline is legendary. And talk about an untrustworthy flip-flopper. What would you call a serial adulterer?
Newt is a writer and a talker. Get him in a job where he can do that. I still like him as press secretary–IF he could settle down and keep it all straight. He kind of scares me.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
46. Thanks, Jerald. I’ll see if one of the popular Mitt blogs can pick that up and do an article.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
46
Exactly.
Another reason Mitt was a great governor.
His response to that incident really inspired confidence IMO.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
When we’re talking about flip floppers and such…it is important to note the political evolution of a candidate. For instance, over the years has a particular candidate become “more conservative” or “less conservative”? If the answer is “more conservative”…then we probably have more recent evidence to suggest that we can trust them on conservative issues. Someone can change their mind on an issue…but have they established that as a political fact? Have they done anything to prove that they do indeed hold that position? In my view, Mitt Romney’s biggest mistake from 2008, was running as a “staunch” pro-lifer…when he had done little to prove his current position. I always thought if he took more time to establish himself as pro-life, then people would be more forgiving on that issue. But he change positions in 2005, and started running for president almost immediately after. That’s just looks horrible. But it’s been 4 years since then…and his position has stayed the same. Do i believe his conviction? No…not a damn bit. Especially because of his conversion story. But do i trust him to govern pro-life? Yes. At least much moreso than obama. When you say something enough, you tend to believe it. Romney will at the very least be a G.W. Bush type on abortion. That is, he’ll not do much to advance the cause of life…but he will keep back the evil forces that want more abortion access. I expect him to do the same thing Obama did. Issue an executive order. Which will end abortions on military complexes(in obama’s case he made abortion legal on military bases).
October 29th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
154 smack,
Libertarian is the essence of conservatism….with the major exception of the issue of abortion. Republicans should ALL BE LIBERTARIANS. It’s insane to think otherwise.
November 11th, 2011 at 5:13 am
Tremendous things here. I am very satisfied to peer your post. Thanks a lot and I am looking ahead to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?