This is not a ‘Vote-For’ election. This is a ‘Vote-Against’ election. This is not a ‘Sit-It-Out-And-Pout’ election. This is a ‘Get-Obama-Out’ election. That is what it is about and that is all it is about.
If people can’t understand, at this point, that very simple concept their minds are much too simple to be conservatives and they might as well go off and sit at the kiddy table and write in ‘Vermin Supreme’ with a blunt pink crayon.
If true conservatives want to have a truly conservative candidate in a truly conservative party they will have to commit to the long march. You know, ‘the long march’ like the one the left took through out political, academic, religious, and media institutions. The one they spent decades on. The long hard road to political supremacy. The one that takes work and money.
They will also need a truly conservative voting population, which the United States does not have nor will ever have again assuming it ever did. Any country that could elect Obama even in a moment of sentimental absentmindedness, and could think of doing it again after seeing his first four years as President, is not even remotely conservative no matter what they tell the people from the Gallup Poll.
No. This is just Mitt apologetics by another name.
Principle must always be important.
On the OT, JC seems to have joined me as a 16er.
Romney is a joke.
The only candidate worthy of support is Perry.
The only candidate seriously likely and inclined to save America fiscally and liberty-wise is Ron Paul.
That the latter gentleman is an aloof nut as regards national security and Israel is a tragedy.
C.L.
16 Jan 12 at 2:00 am
No CL I think you are wrong. No matter how bad you think Romney is, and I would have preferred Perry as well, the choice will be between Obama and the Republican. The only Republican I wouldn’t vote for is Ron Paul. His security policies are so dangerous they will end up costing much more in blood and treasure inmate medium to long term than they will save inmthenshort term.
But if it is Romney I think he will be infinitely better than Obama. As Larry Kudlow recently wrote US Government Inc is desperately in need of a private equity style takeover and makeover. In which case Mitt is your man.
Jack Welch makes a compelling argument that Mitt is the best qualified candidate to be President in at least 50 years. He challenges the interviewer to name another who has a strong and very successful private sector record – setting up Bain Private Equity and then rescuing Bain Consulting, then he turned around a corrupt Olympics in no time before turning around a massive state deficit and generating a surplus as Governor. That is a strong record.
He isn’t my cup of tea but he is better than Obama and arguably exactly the kind of guy e USA needs right now. At his worst Mitt will be a lot better than Obama. At his best Mitt could be a great President.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 2:14 am
Anyone hoping for a perfect candidate in 16 might find that there is precious little to save. As Mark Steyn argues, such people just don’t get the urgency of the problem at hand. By 16 it could be too late. I would much rather the imperfect, but better than Obama, Republican candidate now whilst reversal is still viable, than a perfect Republican candidate in 16 when things will be much worse.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 2:22 am
The irrational hatred that right-wingers have for Obama makes the so-called “Howard haters” look totally sane and sober by comparison,
You RWDB types really need to get a life.
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 2:24 am
Howard left the country better than he found it.
So the hatred heaped on him by people like you was entirely irrational.
Obama, by contrast, has wrecked his country.
Loathing for his dihonesty and for what he has done is entirely rational.
He is the worst president in American history.
C.L.
16 Jan 12 at 2:29 am
Kant,
It is not irrational hatred, I don’t care for Obama one way or another in a personal sense. I don’t claim he is evil. What I do say is that his record is woeful and he is probably the worst President since WWII. He had no achievements of note in his life before becoming President and it shows in the inept way he has handled executive office. I would like him to lose because he is a terrible President, nothing more and nothing less.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 2:32 am
“Howard left the country better than he found it” – lol. All Howard did was spend, spend, spend – oh, and divide, divide, divide, for which we will all pay in due course. Costello did all the heavy economy lifting, not that there was much to do given that Hawke and Keating had saved Australia and put it on the right path.
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 2:37 am
Manny’s back with his usual prognostications. It’s a wonder the philosopher king hasn’t wondered back into wanting to discuss “counterfactuals”.
It’s not hatred that motivates people, you clown, Manny. It’s the fact that he’s a total fucking incompetent and leftwing ideological goon.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 2:39 am
Obama is not fit to be called “President”. He’s a fraud and quite stupid. But he’s great at fooling people.
Gab
16 Jan 12 at 2:39 am
spend,spend,spend – yes, he did spend too much but he still left Australia with a big surplus when he left office. I wonder what happened to it?
Divide, divide, divide – any policy the luvvies dislike is automatically divisive, whatever its merits
squawkbox
16 Jan 12 at 2:43 am
Howard also spent a lot of money to pay off Labor’s debt. I look forward to the day when Labor pays off Labor’s debts. I am still waiting.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 2:44 am
By your own words Jc, you have shown that you are incapable of engaging in constructuive debate – that ideology for you will always trump facts and good arguments. I thus see no reason to give any weight to your statements, including your denial that hatred is involved. Indeed, if anything your denial would only make me more certain that hatred was involved.
The others here running for cover, recognising their exposure to the criticisms of hypocricsy given the frequent baiting of so-called “Howard haters” on this site, also lack credibility – the language used betrays their emotional state.
As I said, you guys need to get a life.
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 2:45 am
“All Howard did was spend, spend, spend”
Yeah, That’s why we had a $22 billion surplus, plus however much in the wealth fund – all of which was squandered five minutes after Rudd and his yokels got their grubby little hands on the dosh.
Gab
16 Jan 12 at 2:46 am
“All Howard did was spend, spend, spend – oh, and divide, divide, divide, for which we will all pay in due course.”
Manny the philosopher seem stuck in 2006. The moron doesn’t know what spending looks like as he isn’t aware labor is in office.
“Costello did all the heavy economy lifting, not that there was much to do given that Hawke and Keating had saved Australia and put it on the right path.”
Another Howard hater.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 2:47 am
Kant, your the only guy being emotional. Yes Howard spent a lot, but he spent far less than he took in taxation. Labor has spent even more, lots more than it has taken in taxation. These are indisputable facts, why can’t you accept them as such.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 2:48 am
squawkbox – the issue is whether he left Australia better or worse off; not whether he left the Treasury’s coffers in better or worse shape – which you’d realise are very different things if you’d understood some economics.
As for what happenned to the surplus, ever heard of the GFC?
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 2:49 am
John, the rebutall above to squawkbox applies also to your latest post.
Further, while I realise that JC won’t understand this, but amongst other things you need to consider the counterfactual.
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 2:51 am
Then why did you bring up Howard’s spending habits in the first place if they are not relevant to whether Australia is better or worse off, you braindead troll?
squawkbox
16 Jan 12 at 2:54 am
“By your own words Jc, you have shown that you are incapable of engaging in constructuive debate – that ideology for you will always trump facts and good arguments.:
Manny calls his rants debates. another fucking lefwing clown shows up.
” I thus see no reason to give any weight to your statements, including your denial that hatred is involved. ”
Which is he can’t wait to reply to what I post.
Eleven years in office and Howard did nothing. It was all Keating floating the Aussie in 1983.
Fucking clown.
“Indeed, if anything your denial would only make me more certain that hatred was involved.”
LOl. Drama queen alert.
“The others here running for cover, recognising their exposure to the criticisms of hypocricsy given the frequent baiting of so-called “Howard haters” on this site, also lack credibility – the language used betrays their emotional state.”
Yea, everyone runs for cover from the sheer intellectual brilliance of your arguments Manny. Don’t make us laugh, you clown.
“As I said, you guys need to get a life.”
Manny doesn’t seem self aware even.
Another stupid leftwinger that will end up getting carried out on a stretcher like the rest that show here.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 2:54 am
Kant,
By which measure were we worse off under Howard than now? Ever heard of the Asian currency crisis, tech wreck, 9-11, East Timor, Pacific Crises etc etc. The stimulus was way too much. The ALP has left the nation much poorer than it was when it came in.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 2:55 am
“ever heard of the GFC?”
Yes, overseas. But over here in ‘Austraya’ it was known as the Great Frying Calamity, courtesy Rudd, Gillard et al.
Gab
16 Jan 12 at 2:55 am
“but amongst other things you need to consider the counterfactual.”
Bingo. Manny the philosopher’s “counterfactual” is back.
Lol.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 2:56 am
“The ALP has left the nation much poorer than it was when it came in.”
On a per cap basis, that is true.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 2:57 am
What ultimately mattes John is the level and distribution of per capita wellbeing. We have no direct measure of that, so must rely on other indicators. It is clear that some narrow financial indicators improved or did not greatly worsen during Howard’s time in office (although, as I mentioned, that is not necessarily attributable to Howard). Equally, many social and environmentla indicators worsenned during his tenure, and he squandered the boom (and the sound footing bequeathed to his government by Hawke and keating) on populistic spending.
Gab, “great frying calamity”, huh? THere’s just no comeback to such briliance!
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 3:00 am
I have tired of you now, you boring troll.
Gab
16 Jan 12 at 3:03 am
This idiot is amusing.
The philosopher king starts with:
In the very next comment he starts off slagging on Howard.
The hypocritical twat is not even self aware of his own deranged hatred.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 3:06 am
If you understood the importance of counterfactual’s JC, you would also understand why your point about the ALP leaving the nation much poorer, even if true, is of little relevance to judging whether they’ve governed well or poorly, given the GFC. You really do come accross as an idiot.
But then, you have already shown that you don’t really care about careful analysis; your mind is closed and you just want to peddle your ideology.
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 3:06 am
My point was “by comparison”, you twit – ie, my point was about relativities between Obama haters and so-called Howard hater; so once again your supposed rebutall has failed to address the point.
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 3:10 am
“What ultimately mattes John is the level and distribution of per capita wellbeing.”
Here we see Da equality argument when GDP per cap doesn’t work out.
“We have no direct measure of that, so must rely on other indicators.”
To repeat another way.
Of course, when GDP per cap doesn’t work use something else perhaps even da equality argument. LOl
“It is clear that some narrow financial indicators improved or did not greatly worsen during Howard’s time in office (although, as I mentioned, that is not necessarily attributable to Howard).”
Of course it wasn’t, says Manny Kant. It can all be related back to the float in 1983.
“Equally, many social and environmentla indicators worsenned during his tenure, and he squandered the boom (and the sound footing bequeathed to his government by Hawke and keating) on populistic spending.”
Oh fuck me, Manny think Howard caused the 10 year drought.
“Gab, “great frying calamity”, huh? THere’s just no comeback to such briliance!”
Better than any of yours you irreversible brain dead clown, Manny.
I think we’ve hooked a keeper. Manny Kant is going to be endless fun.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 3:12 am
The ‘sound footing’ bequeathed to Howard was of course a 10 billion deficit and 100 billion public debt. Labor simply cannot balance a budget even with growth. They are useless. Why do their zombie supporters bother?
Fisky
16 Jan 12 at 3:13 am
Kant, I will ask again, which measures were we worse off under Howard. There is no use saying that some social and environmental factors got worse under Howard. Give us an example. Nice of you to admit that financially we were better off under Howard.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 3:15 am
“My point was “by comparison”, you twit – ie, my point was about relativities between Obama haters and so-called Howard hater;”
Lol.
“so once again your supposed rebutall has failed to address the point.”
What point Manny? The only point I’ve seen is that you think Howard caused the 10 year drought, you imbecile.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 3:15 am
“There is no use saying that some social and environmental factors got worse under Howard. Give us an example. ”
Manny thinks Howard caused the 10 year drought.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 3:16 am
No-one who understands economics, JC, thinks that GDP or GDP per capita is a measure of wellbeing – it is at best an imperfect measure of output in the market sector. Even leaving aside distributional issues, there are myraid other considerations that are ommitted from GDP.
If you think that a country’s success can be judged by GDP per capita, you truly are an ignorant dolt. But, given your bigoted nature and closed mind, there’s little point in trying to engage with you on such matters – you are, simply, not worth the time.
Good night.
Kant
16 Jan 12 at 3:20 am
Bingo
“Counterfactual” again.
“If you understood the importance of counterfactual’s JC, you would also understand why your point about the ALP leaving the nation much poorer, even if true, is of little relevance to judging whether they’ve governed well or poorly, given the GFC. You really do come accross as an idiot.”
Yes it was a huge influence on the nation for approximately 3 months. Huge! In fact it was so huge they will leave us worse off after six years in office.
Fucking clown, Manny. You complete and total fucking clown.
“But then, you have already shown that you don’t really care about careful analysis; your mind is closed and you just want to peddle your ideology.”
Dickhead, you think Howard caused the drought and you call me ideological. You doubt that after 11 years in office it was Keating’s float that improved the economy from 1996 to 2007 while Howard was an under achiever. And you call me ideological.
Manny, you are close to the stupidest leftie we’ve seen for a while now.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 3:24 am
“No-one who understands economics, JC, thinks that GDP or GDP per capita is a measure of wellbeing – it is at best an imperfect measure of output in the market sector.”
Fuckknuckle, it’s highly correlated. In fact Manny, your assignment, if you choose to accept is to show that it is not highly correlated in a conventional way understood by the economics profession and not produced by some lunatic at Greenpeace. Prove a lack of correlation. Show examples. GO!
“Even leaving aside distributional issues, there are myraid other considerations that are ommitted from GDP.”
As I said it’s highly correlated, you dickhead. However by any measure, the Howard government left office with an economy that was much, much better than when his government took office.
Only a fucking moron would suggest otherwise.
And only a moron would suggest we aren’t worse off now on a per cap basis.
“But, given your bigoted nature and closed mind, there’s little point in trying to engage with you on such matters – you are, simply, not worth the time.”
I’m bigoted yea? You racist clown, Manny. You racist bigoted clown and you have the hide to call people who are not bigoted merely because they disagree with you.
“Good night.”
Fuck off. Dickhead.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 3:33 am
“Even leaving aside distributional issues, there are myraid other considerations that are ommitted from GDP.”
Cant, would you be kind to tell us which of these social indicators got worse under Howard? Pretty please? Was it unemployment, inflation, real wages, life expectancy, fertility, budget balance, net assets…? Which was it? We’re dying to know.
Fisky
16 Jan 12 at 3:43 am
“Even leaving aside distributional issues”
No, distribution is not important in a growing economy. Income distribution is much worse than 10,000 years ago, so do you want to reverse the industrial and agricultural revolutions or not, Cant? Oh, that’s right, as an apologist for the Alliance, you do.
Fisky
16 Jan 12 at 3:45 am
Saying Howard blew the boom is ridiculous. The highest termsof trade, commodity prices for our exports etc occurred under the ALP. They left us with hundreds of billions in debt. Howard wastednthe boom paying off Laor debt.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 4:28 am
I tipped this. It was the only sane response from you lot given your views. The debates have receded once the primaries started happening, so Perry is back on more comfortable ground. He’s pushing the proverbial uphill, no doubt, but he’s your boy.
m0nty
16 Jan 12 at 5:31 am
Nice threadjack. Well played! But yes, it’s hard to see a Republican, any Republican, being worse than Obama at this stage. You have to stop being attacked before you can begin to heal the wounds.
big dumb fu
16 Jan 12 at 6:03 am
“Saying Howard blew the boom is ridiculous. The highest termsof trade, commodity prices for our exports etc occurred under the ALP. They left us with hundreds of billions in debt. Howard wastednthe boom paying off Laor debt.”
We had 3.9% unemployment with a large and persistent surplus and lower terms of trade than what we have now.
“Howard blew the boom” is clearly bullshit.
I think I actually agree with C.L., but it’s a shame Gary Johnson never get looked at.
.
16 Jan 12 at 6:24 am
Any of the Republicans, except for Paul, will be markedly better than Obama. I think US Conservatives and Libertarians will be foolish to let ideological purity get in the way of removing Obama. It would be a case of making the ‘perfect’ the enemy of the best option available. That option at this stage looks like it will be Romney.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 6:33 am
The Republicans should select withever candidate has the best chance of beating Obama and, at present, that candidate is Romney.
But the significance of Ron Paul’s success should not be underestimated. The US has built up an impressive military force and I’m very glad that the biggest kid on the block is such a benign and friendly power. But, with the collapse of the Soviet empire, the US has less need to have such a powerful military force and maintaining the force places a great strain on the US budget and US people. Why shouldn’t US citizens say ‘Enough is enough. We don’t need to be the world’s policeman any more. Let others sort out their own problems’.
If Ron Paul can successfully tap into that sentiment, from the RIGHT, then we need to start doing some serious thinking about its implications.
We might also like to think about whether it is the right policy for the Right and let the Left remain the party of big powerful government pushing other around.
johno
16 Jan 12 at 7:25 am
Johno,
I think Paul’s foreign policy is a massive gamble that has every chance of backfiring. If Paul is wrong and Iran develops a nuclear weapon including a suitcase, or shipping container bomb it detonates in a major US city then all the savings Paul made from slashing the military would be lost. This is not an implausible scenario. If Iran hates the US for ideological reasons that the US cannot accommodate through isolationism alone then the Paul foreign policy gamble backfires enormously. Once again this is a likely scenario. If the US retreats then many will scramble to fill the vacuum. The resultant costs of multiple wars and conflicts would erase any savings Paul made by cutting the military.
The reality is that the military is very small beer compared to Medicare, Medicaid and social security. The only way to repair the balance sheet is to reform the big ticket items. If Paul cut the whole military to nothing he would still be only half way to getting rid of the annual US deficit.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 8:08 am
“If Paul is wrong and Iran develops a nuclear weapon including a suitcase, or shipping container bomb it detonates in a major US city then all the savings Paul made from slashing the military would be lost.”
How does refusing to be screwed by military contractors or having bases in Iceland make any difference?
.
16 Jan 12 at 8:28 am
John
I agree that his foreign policy is risky and it is one reason I would be nervous if he was successful in winning the Presidency. And I agree that slashing military spending would be a small component of cutting government spending.
But I think dot makes a good point that stopping the Iranians developing a nuclear weapon does not require a massive military. A massive military capacity is required if you are going to invade a country to take a vicious regime, such as Saddam or the Taliban, but the post liberation outcome of those interventions is yet to be determined. In five years from now we may decide that the effort wasn’t worth the eventual outcome.
If US intervention does not produce desirable long term outcomes and, if the existance of massive military power causes some of the world’s more nasty regimes to be more aggressive towards the US (and the West) than they would otherwise be, what is the value to the US (and us) of such a massive military force?
johno
16 Jan 12 at 9:32 am
Dot,
HoWARd spent money and ‘vironmenal policies caused the 10 year drought according to Manny Kant.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 9:39 am
Monster:
stop wrecking the thread. What’s with “you lot”, you idiot.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 9:41 am
Is this like the ‘Get Bush Out’ election of 2004, where the Dems threw out all their good candidates in favour of the ‘more electable’ John Kerry?
south
16 Jan 12 at 9:56 am
let’s get the facts straight. there is only one GOP candidate that out polls Obama, that’s Romney. like it or not that is the reality.
Adrian
16 Jan 12 at 10:47 am
Furthermore, only Romney and Paul are ready for a national campaign.
Adrian
16 Jan 12 at 10:48 am
At least Romney is ready and electable.
The deep pool of talent that has emerged for the Republicans in the past 4 years (Ryan, Christie, Rubio, Nikki Haley, etc) need more time to get more direct experience before they are ready to run for the President.
Token
16 Jan 12 at 11:02 am
John Comnenus, I feel that if the Iranians managed to scrape enough together for a bomb, IMO they would be more tempted to use it on Israel before the US – the reasoning being that if one nuke is all they’ve got, it’s a drop in the ocean to the US but a significant hole carved out of Israel (especially if they pack plutonium dust and other crap around it to make it a dirty bomb). And if they’re going to get wiped out in the inevitable retaliation, best to take out one target entirely than make a small dent in the other.
The flipside of the coin is that they know a Republican administration would not hesitate to see Tehran (among other cities) vaporised in retaliation – either with its own nukes or by not restraining what was left of Israel. And I suspect the other major nuclear powers would give a tacit nod to one major-yield strike on one Iranian target by way of retaliation.
The only problem I see after that is Pakistan going nuts and unleashing its own arsenal, in which case we would possibly have an India-Pakistan nuclear slugfest which India is (in the ultimate resort) probably large enough as a nation to soak up and survive.
perturbed
16 Jan 12 at 11:11 am
A lot of possible and proabable events. The problem is we don’t know what Iran’s real motivations are and what drives it. We all think we know, but we don’t really, and that’s the problem with Ron Paul, he thinks he knows that Iran won’t attack the US if uit gets a few nukes. In fact he is willing to bet on it through heavy force reductions and isolationism. I think that is a very reckless and dangerous policy founded on optimism that might well be very misplaced.
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 12:08 pm
“any policy the luvvies dislike is automatically divisive.”
Very well observed.
“Any country that could elect Obama even in a moment of sentimental absentmindedness, and could think of doing it again after seeing his first four years as President, is not even remotely conservative.”
I think a lot of Americans got fooled because Obama came across looking so presidential – and of course there was all that noble sounding speechifying when people needed desperately needed to feel uplift. Instead of uplift all they got was further downdrift.
Australians don’t even have that excuse.
Viva
16 Jan 12 at 1:11 pm
Posted this on the weekly thread.
Obummer is on Newsweek’s cover:
“Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb? Andrew Sullivan on the man with a plan”
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/newsweek.html
Excerpt:
“[I]t remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game … [T]he president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.”
JamesK
16 Jan 12 at 1:29 pm
Why are Obama’s critics so dumb? Because nothing screams smart and competent like 100% of GDP debt with high unemployment. Nope, must be the critics who are dumb!
John Comnenus
16 Jan 12 at 1:54 pm
“if one nuke is all they’ve got, it’s a drop in the ocean to the US but a significant hole carved out of Israel (especially if they pack plutonium dust and other crap around it to make it a dirty bomb)”
That’s a nasty weapon the Iranians would have there, Perturbed.
I would hope that it is verrry stable and doesn’t go off upwind of Tehran. By accident, of course.
That would be very much bad luck.
Winston Smith
16 Jan 12 at 2:00 pm
So called conservative Andrew Bolt this morning on MTR was panning every GOP candidate as being loonies….
Adrian
16 Jan 12 at 2:18 pm
Everytime Bolt goes to Europe he comes back an annoying Euroweenie. Takes a few months to get that shit out of his system.
We need to ban European immigration and travel. It’s too dangerous.
Infidel Tiger
16 Jan 12 at 2:22 pm
Adrian, it was Steve Price that said that
Token
16 Jan 12 at 2:57 pm
You’ve made this claim several times now, JC, so would you like to point out exactly where I said that.
You can’t, of course, because as well as being a closed minded bigot, you’re also a liar.
kant
16 Jan 12 at 2:57 pm
Manny:
You accuse me of being a bigot simply because I refuse to accept any of your leftarded beliefs.
You post drivel here about economics when it’s clear you have no understanding and think you can get away with turgid 4th rate crap. The offensive part is that you actually have the temerity to think we will accept it whole.. hook line and sinker.
I will continue making the claim until you stop calling me a bigot.
Racist turd you are Manny.
JC
16 Jan 12 at 3:04 pm
“Adrian, it was Steve Price that said that”
yep, and bolt agreed with it.
Adrian
16 Jan 12 at 3:37 pm
Good to see 3the blogs went on & on: debt ceiling under Howard & Costello was. $75 billion; under Rudd/Gillard & Swan now $250 billion not including NBN. A lot of talk about a small surplus coming our way but no detailed strategy on how to get the $250 billion back to less than $75 billion!
Exgratia
16 Jan 12 at 8:03 pm
In Britain, Max Hastings refers in the conservative-leaning Daily Mail to “the lunatic, gun-toting badlands of America’s Hicks-ville, Tea Party country”. Sir Max, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, concludes: “My bet is that Barack Obama will be returned to the White House next year, because he is opposed by grotesques and buffoons. But if you want to be kept awake at night between now and then, think of the alternative: one of the lunatics could win.”
Andrew Smith
18 Jan 12 at 5:15 am
I have been reading WW1 history lately.
General Robert Nivelle was selected to replace General Joseph Joffre in late 1916 after two and a bit years of horrendous bloodshed with no significant gains (to the point where anything you might say about British losses and waste has to be magnified hugely).
After two short, sharp victories at the tail end of the Verdun campaign, he promised “the solution”, a breakthrough battle that would be successful within 48 hours or he’d close it down. No more brutal slugging matches. Victory, guaranteed on a platter.
You might almost call it “change you can believe in”.
He had the gift of the gab and spoke fluent English, so as well as convincing his own government he also convinced the British PM (Lloyd George), who was much enamoured of the eloquent Frenchman and not so enamoured of his own stammering, pathologically reserved C in C.
And so it was that this eloquent Frenchman led his armies – full of hope – straight into disaster and rebuff. Many, many days later, the whole mess was still going. And thus the French Army mutinied.
The horrific irony of it was that there were hints, even before the offensive started, that the promises might be hollow. But they let it go ahead because they wanted something, anything other than what they’d already been doing. They wanted the easy way out, when there was no easy way out. And so they gave Nivelle his shot, with horrific consequences.
The parallels are obvious. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
perturbed
18 Jan 12 at 6:07 am
People like Max Hastings are why the Americans do not the UK seriously anymore. They’re the loser, washed up Uncle etc.
“Only hicks could possibly vote against Obama”
Obama is basically an inner city hick. The envious, paranoid stuff that ACORN and Rev. Wright believe aren’t much different to some conspiracy nutters in the backwoods.
.
18 Jan 12 at 6:30 am