The surest way to antagonize immigration hawks is to accuse them of nefarious motives yet he seems intent on doing so, again and again. A play straight out of the Rotter playbook.
That’s a fine strategy for appealing to Latinos in the general election and poisonous as a strategy for consolidating tea partiers in the primary. To get to point B, you first have to get past A. The diagram doesn't commute. How many times do I have to explain that?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
Intrade: Romney 39.7%, Perry 31.5%.
Mr Rot at the bat:
Rick Perry is blowing his chances to exploit Romney’s weaknesses. [..] As has been his habit, Perry began to fade as the debate wore on. During this particular answer, he wrestled for words and stammered. He couldn’t finish his sentences. If you weren’t a political junkie who knew all of the background, you’d have no idea what Perry was mumbling about. And Romney's smooth response made him come off as more steady and reassuring, even though on substance, Perry should have owned him.
Wet noodles.
When he received an admittedly difficult question about what he would do if he got a 3 a.m. phone call informing him that Pakistan’s nukes had been taken over by Islamists, he struggled. He ended up giving an incoherent answer that was more of an information dump of random stuff he had been briefed on about the region.
Yes, I noted that, too. Perry's answer on Pakistan was almost as incoherent as the one he gave on Afghanistan in his first debate. Not too reassuring in terms of his capacity to think on his feet, at least when it comes to foreign affairs and national security.
Rot's damp towelette:
Romney kept telling Perry “Nice Try” after his attacks as though he meant it to sting. It stung. “Come on, Tim Pawlenty attacked me more effectively than this, and he just endorsed me,” Romney seemed to say.“This is like being savaged by a damp towelette! I’ve eaten pates that disagreed with me more.” At one point Romney attacked himself, just to show Perry how it was done. “There are a lot of reasons not to vote for me,” he said. (That’ll show up in every campaign ad on the face of the planet.) But you didn’t manage to name any of them! You just stood there and mumbled and failed to make eye contact!
Piling on: In real life, Perry projects a swagger and a confidence. On stage, he looks unsure and small. Life is a biatch.
Pinko rag sums it up pretty well.
Intrade update: Romney 43.5%, Perry 29.1%. Debate having a measurable impact.
Lowry joins in the piñata-bashing.
Lowry joins in the piñata-bashing. Upshot: It's become clear that Romney has an advantage over Perry in these forums simply because he's more articulate, detailed and authoritative-sounding in his answers; he's like a boxer with a reach advantage.
Vox populi: I thought Perry did okay in what I've seen of his Texas debates. But he never had competition like Romney or Gingrich onstage with him. The comparison is just brutal.
I dunno, I've suggested this and that for Perry. (Like he's gonna listen to me.) But I'm just wondering if he has the chops to compete at this level. Saying the GOP base (or most of them) has no heart? And all the embarrassing stumbles and goofs? Who is this guy and what is he doing here? This is a presidential debate, not amateur hour.
Rot fires off a letter to the editor:
Apparently the Stupid Party is determined to live up to its name. Romney, a passionate advocate of global warming cultism and socialized medicine, seems determined to out-flank McCain on the left.
I thought the GOP learned its lesson in 2008 when they bowed to MSM pressure and nominated a leftwing Democrat as their Presidential candidate. McCain went on to get his clock cleaned by the Won in the general election. With Mitt "Republicans want to kill old people" Romney on the ticket the Won may win in a 57-state landslide.
Sort of makes you wonder: who will the GOP nominate in 2016? Dennis Kucinich? Barney Frank? Michael Moore? The mind boggles!
1) Immigration hawks don't understand how the country works.
2) A shame that the GOP can't find a competent alternative to Romney. The fact that immigration hawks think he's on their side proves (1), since he's on no one's side.
3) Fuck it, we're all cooked anyway.
1) (not Rothink) => dumb?
2.1) Yep.
2.2) Typical (A=>B for all A and B) statement.
3) Getting Spenglerian?
I am not saying that one has to agree with me in order to have a mind. Point is that in Texas, that's the way the border has been handled since time immemorial.
That's what works there, just like a big social secu apparatus might work in Massachusetts and not in Texas.
Have fun tearing down Cabrini-Green, though. Hey, it's your money and your kids walking by.
Conservatism means not fucking with other people's customs as much as possible.
If Texas taxpayers choose to pay for heroin for in-state users, then assholes in Massachusetts have nothing to say about it. This is states' rights, and btw, Massachusetts at least used to have methadone programs that caused some problems in towns. NYC used to have a needle park close to Columbia. Cool, eh?
If the right claims to judge on principle, there's no way that its members can tolerate a government intrusion like Romneycare and then prohibit Texas letting people hire whom they please or spending tax money on anything.
Your creep neighbors want to kill babies with tax money and Texans can't stop you, and then you pretend to stick your nose in on who a Texas restaurant hires after that! You're on the moon.
This is the point of libertarianism, which is the kind of conservatism that Texans really believe in, was the core of decent GOP thought, and which the GOP has dropped in favor of bullshit.
That some libertarianism works is obvious, and I would say that you and AA's blasé attitude toward being bothered by cops for no reason is a good symptom of a citizen cowed by the state. Perhaps that's your ideal, but it's not mine.
2.2) Typical (A=>B for all A and B) statement.
Comical.
You think Romney has principles!
Well, compared to "show me your papers," yeah, Romney is Patrick Henry.
Compared to Perry's dirty socks, Romney is Quisling, though.
Sure, I get the 10th Amendment -- unlike others, who think they can read whatever they want in the Constitution, I interpret it quite literally, and eschew all that "penumbras" bullshit.
But, you know, Mr Rot, there is something in there called Article 4, Section 4, which says, and I quote,
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
What part of "shall protect them against invasion" you don't dig? Are you asserting that the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people") supersedes Article 4, Section 4? How could it, when the power (and the duty) of the federal government to protect the states against invasion (meaning, in particular, armed intrusion) is enumerated in the Constitution?
Of course, when some states, like Arizona, get fed up with the fact that the feds do not exercise that power on their behalf, and fail to protect them against armed incursions, you turn around and deny such states the right to defend themselves, and deride and mock their governor or the sheriffs there who try to defend their fellow citizens against armed attack. It's all infinitely malleable in Rotter Logick: (A=>B and A=>non B), as the case may be.
Irrelevant.
Sez who?
Framers' intent on "invasion" has nothing to do with this.
First, it's not "framers", but "founding fathers". And second, define "invasion". I say, it includes armed militia (or criminal cartels) crossing the international border illegally. You think that's something Madison or Jefferson would have been comfortable with? Maybe somewhere in the penumbras of the Federalist?
As a counterpoint, here is a detailed report put out by Rep. Mike McCaul (R. TX). Maybe you should read a bit on the subject, it looks like you lost track of what's going on.
Post a Comment