freecounterpoint: Butt boy

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Butt boy

21 comments:

Mr roT said...: Could you put it other words again? I don't understand this set.; 1/21/2009 3:56 PM
Tecumseh said...: Pepe is the epitome of foreign/confused. No, Mac didn't have his time [in power] -- he lost the election. So how could he possibly [mess] it all up, if he wasn't in charge?

At any rate, trying to make sense of Pepe's pronuciamentos is hopeless -- Sisyphus had it much easier.; 1/21/2009 6:02 PM
Tecumseh said...: In the meantime, same old, same old from Palin. Like a broken record.; 1/21/2009 6:23 PM
Mr roT said...: AI, actually it's you on the same old, same old.

McCain saying to get on with it and confirm Hillary is just good sense. The Senate confirmed her today 94-2 or something like that.

Would you be one of the wackos voting against? What for?

McCain ran too honorable a campaign against these douchebags God gave us as opponents, but the voters went for Oprah over Tecumseh and that's that.

Mitt would not have done better, and McCain ran a decent campaign and likely did as best he could.

Bush, by doing the right thing over and over (often against your and AA's opinions) sacrificed the GOP for a greater good and now we have (you guessed it) no GOP.

Tough shit.; 1/21/2009 9:13 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: I remember Limbaugh and Hillary having some jokes together some years ago. 99.9% of Limbaugh's audience went insane. Rush defended himself the next day, saying that he wasn't above or below talking to someone as though they were human.

...the McCain interpretation now is interesting...; 1/21/2009 9:20 PM
Tecumseh said...: JJ: Same old, same old was referring to Palin's droning on and on about her stoopid kids: who gives a rat's ass 'bout that?

As for Mac, I was referring to the lead sentence: Sen. John McCain is imploring his Republican colleagues to drop partisan demands and let the popular president get to work. Same old "mavericky" line. He's been consistent in this kind of lapdog-to-the-opposite-party for the past, oh, 8-10 years. Fine, it's a free country -- but what I never understood (and what I will never understand) is why a major party would pick as standard-bearer a politico whose main goal (repeated ad nauseam) is to be a poodle for the other major party. To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented, either in the US, or any of the other countries in Europe with which I'm familiar with. The other stuff you're trying to adduce in support of your weakly argued position is just a smokescreen, and never addresses this fundamental point, in my opinion.; 1/21/2009 10:46 PM
Mr roT said...: In Europe all the moderate parties bounce from one coalition to the other whenever the wind blows right, so either you don't know much about politics, or you're being fatuous.

As to McCain, that bouncing to the opposition is sometimes reasonable. When the GOP is kissing the ass of the Rush Limbaughs too much, then there needs to be a corrective. Look at this douchebag call the GOP the heirs of McCarthyism in the WSJ no less.

That I don't mind much. Also, if the whole populace was sick and tired of the GOP because there's a dirty job to do and only the GOP (under Bush) would attempt it, McCain was likely to be the only one able to win.

OK, so he didn't. Now you want the GOP to go obstructionist against a new 'historic' president with a 70% approval?

What part of 'suicide' don't you understand?

That's being among the 2 voting against Hillary.; 1/21/2009 11:06 PM
Mr roT said...: Palin is running against the media and this is one way to do it.; 1/21/2009 11:07 PM
Tecumseh said...: JJ, JJ -- you don't pay attention to what I say. Where did I say "obstructionist"? You're just raising your usual strawmen, surrounded by red herrings. Let me repeat what I said: where did you see before a major party in one of the major Western Democracies choosing as standard-bearer in a national election a clone (for all practical purposes) of the other party? I personally cannot remember this happening before, but, if you care to give a relevant counterexample, please do: I'm listening.; 1/21/2009 11:15 PM
Tecumseh said...: Palin has nothing to say -- so she just drones on about her family. When she says something that's half-relevant to anything, wake me up, and I'll listen.; 1/21/2009 11:16 PM
Tecumseh said...: A clarification:
John Cornyn of Texas has objected to confirming her without a roll-call vote. Cornyn has voiced concerns about possible conflicts of interest stemming from the global fund-raising efforts of Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, as head of the nonprofit Clinton Foundation. But McCain, last year’s Republican nominee for president, argued that the Senate should skip the time-consuming roll-call vote and confirm Clinton by unanimous consent.

On Planet JJ, asking for a roll-call is being "obstructionist", while rubber-stamping and gushing over is just great. Why do we need a two-party system, anyhow? Let's dispense with stooopid things like votes and debates, and become like one big pinko family. That will set Pepe ululating, and Mac & JJ beaming with pride.; 1/21/2009 11:26 PM
Tecumseh said...: Some comments from the WSJ readers, channeling moi:

Glad to see McCain becoming the pre-presidential campaign McCain.

Why is this unexpected? McCain has always been cozy with the dems and now that he is never going to be President, any incentive he had to stand firm is gone. I expect him to suck up to the democrats in the Senate and President Obama early and often to cement his reputation as a “maverick”.

The same libs who fell in the love with McCain and then demonized him, will fall in love again.; 1/21/2009 11:39 PM
Mr roT said...: McCain would've been better than the schmuck we've got now. If the voters want to roll over and take it in the ass, it's their prerogative.

As to obstructionism, it's clear what you meant in calling McCain a butt boy, so don't try to snow anyone here.

Now, to tackle this:

but what I never understood (and what I will never understand) is why a major party would pick as standard-bearer a politico whose main goal (repeated ad nauseam) is to be a poodle for the other major party. To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented, either in the US, or any of the other countries in Europe with which I'm familiar with.

Main goal? Poodle? Other major party?

Dropping the tendentious stuff, let's take Bill Clinton's critics on the left and see if we can't find them saying the same thing you're saying about McCain now.

That was in America.

Maybe the point is that if you overheat everything, you end up sounding not only like Hitchens with his heat and light (and stupid incoherence) but also anyone else that's overdoing it.

McCain didn't make any goddamned thing his main goal except being a good guy. Stepping on the Jesus types and going against his party sometimes was the right thing to do.

Let me remind you that he (and W) were going against their pussified Voinovich, Hagel, Coleman, Baker,... party in pushing for the surge.

Have we forgotten about that already?

Poodle to the dems? Really now? Where? In the surge again? So it was W, McCain, and Russ Feingold and Teddy Kennedouche that were all for sending Petraeus and Odierno out there to make buddies of those possible and make corpses of the others?

Let's try to recall your and AA's approach to this war when we go all Clausewitzian...; 1/22/2009 12:05 AM
Tecumseh said...: Cutting through the noise, here is the purported "counterexample" you adduce, JJ:

let's take Bill Clinton's critics on the left and see if we can't find them saying the same thing you're saying about McCain now.

This is laughable. Bill Clinton ran a very focused, partisan campaign in 1992 -- with dogged partisans such as Jim "Mad Cajun" Carville and Paul Begala masterminding it. They didn't pull any punches like McCain did when running against Obama -- they went after Bush Père tenaciously ("it's the economy, stupid"). No mavericky stuff there, no kumbaya -- and it worked like a charm.

I didn't like it at the time, but I didn't fault Bubba for doing it -- he had to do what man has got to do in order to win. But Mac never did anything in the campaign. He just stumbled erratically, and never presented a coherent alternative to the prevailing pinko orthodoxy. Just a "me, too", slightly watered down alternative: Nanny State Lite (barely so, at that). Why would the voters go for such ersatz? They just picked the real McCoy. It happens all the time in such situations.

At any rate, he's now back to his old groveling ways. It's simply embarrassing to watch.; 1/22/2009 8:00 AM
Mr roT said...: I mean afterwards. I am comparing McCain in the Senate crossing party lines to hash out deals with Feingold and Kennedy.

When Clinton did that on we;fare reform, the errr, community organizers went crazy and talked about Clinton in the terms you use.

In America.

If you want to talk abou tthe ribaltone in Europe, I have plenty of examples too.; 1/22/2009 8:33 AM
Tecumseh said...: You first have to win an election before wheeling and dealing from a position of power. McCain ran a very poor campaign (unlike Clinton, who ran brilliant campaigns), and, not surprisingly, lost. C'mon, JJ, face it.; 1/22/2009 9:30 AM
Tecumseh said...: And, regarding all that "crossing the party lines" that you so admire (the "mavericky" stuff, I call it), what was its purpose, and what did it accomplish? He either was doing the bidding of the welfare state (providing some kind of bipartisan fig leaf), or trying to cover up for past transgressions (his corrupt behavior during the Keating 5 scandal) by curtailing free electoral speech. So I don't see anything admirable there, and no lasting achievement.; 1/22/2009 9:36 AM
Mr roT said...: The surge will have no lasting achievement now that you far-righters faulted McCain for his lack of ideological purity and so helped a real commie into the WH.

Is that what you mean or have you done your homework on the whole oeuvre of McCain's tenure in the Senate?

I am pretty sure there was no campaign McCain could've run that would have won him the election against Princess Diana.; 1/22/2009 10:43 AM
Mr roT said...: Reagan's lasting achievement in the Middle East was 300 unarmed (!) Marines dead in Lebanon and an ignominious surrender by these standards.; 1/22/2009 10:45 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: ...the good ol'days...; 1/22/2009 3:38 PM
Tecumseh said...: JJ, JJ -- are you back to railing against dastardly "far right-wingers" and Ronald Reagan? How's that different from your garden-variety pinko?

In the meantime, more from McCain (and his buddy Lindsey Graham): We support President Obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions... blah, blah, blah. In other words, McCain=Obama and JJ=Pepe. A GUT at last!; 1/22/2009 9:33 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)