Comments Posted By jackson1234
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 190 Comments
You don't win by losing. Just as conservatives should embrace moderates in the Republican coalition, everyone should work together for victory in 2010, including you. The fringe that wants to primary moderates is tiny and insignificant. Hell, Armey isn't even a Republican any longer. But sometimes even bomb throwers are right, and their outrage over Dede was, as you point out, justified. But they also saw the limits of bomb throwing, as you also pointed out.
I think the following also should scare the Democrats:
1. Obama has very limited influence left outside the black community--which is to say, he will have no coattails in 2010 and his previously strong odds to win re-election continue to diminish.
2. As Wehner pointed out, GOP recruitment has been excellent and the more confident the party the better candidates it will attract.
3. Democrats grossly misread their mandate, and the early stimulus and cap and trade votes already have consigned some in more conservative districts to ouster.
4. The economic outrage is so wide that it spread over into Virginia's House of Delegates races, and one and possibly two solidly Democratic southwest Virginia districts sent their first Republican to the state legislature ever.
5. The White House and Congressional Dems apparently had internals that set their hair on fire. While speculative, the pre-emptive Senate announcement that health care would be kicked into next year was the result of what they saw before the first vote was cast.
This is the first good day to be a confident Republican since 2005. It feels good.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 4.11.2009 @ 13:19
You haven't jumped the shark. Beautifully done.
As an aside, when you write:
"The problem as I see it will be that the right draws the wrong conclusions from any gains that might be made"
I find you sincere. Unfortunately, I also find you inconsistent because this represents the very change you embrace. It isn't always clean and orderly, and wrong conclusions are reached by all politicians and commentators. Hence, the gross over-reach of the Obama Administration--the result of wrong conclusions--probably will lead to the right's gains, and the right probably will draw the wrong conclusions from its victory. You may be too idealistic to accept wrong conclusions are a natural result of change, but it has been a common theme throughout history.
It is purely speculative, but the United States apparently is in a state of flux that probably will not sustain any one ideology or one political party for more than a few election cycles. As a conservative, I find comfort in the inability of power to become permanent.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 3.11.2009 @ 11:58
On that sole point, you are right, Rick.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 14.10.2009 @ 14:48
I wasn't about to comment on this one simply because of my true reaction to this blog, which is the one that jumped the shark. But SShiel, I do want to thank you for calling out this fraud Bottoms. As someone else with, I imagine, just a tiny bit more knowledge than Bottoms has, a few more tidbits.
The left-wing initially claimed we needed more troops and then raised hell about the surge. Rumsfeld correctly decided that the Democrats would not accept commitment of more troops, particularly under his leadership. His departure was a requisite to the troop build up. The surge indeed was a reversal of tactics that had to be delayed because of the loyal (bullshit!)opposition.
When Gen. Petraeus (remember "Betrayus?")was given the mission, it had nothing to do with luck, hardheadedness, or the Democratic Left's psychic abilities gone south. It was precisely as you said--skilled soldiering.
Thank you for bringing a smidgeon of sanity here today.
How stupid is somebody who continues to visit a site he thinks has "jumped the shark?" If you think I have nothing of value to say, how idiotic do you have to be to read it?
ed.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 14.10.2009 @ 14:43
'THE FOREMOST CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME'
All true.
Now a serious question for you. Why then did you advise Republicans to try to help shape a national health care bill the public doesn't want and that would eventually become the grand-daddy of all entitlement programs the world over? I can't square your circle, and wonder how you do. I guess you could argue again the GOP could help put the brakes on what will bankrupt this nation, but honestly, how could they? Would they? Even when the GOP regains the majority, which I think will be sooner than you believe, the pressure will be against elimination of whatever insanity the Democrats are about to throw on top of the ticking entitlement program.
I listen to the Democrats lie and lie and lie about their intentions to reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse to the tune of $500 billion, and can imagine them or the GOP or another party two generations out arguing how they plan to eliminate trillions in health care fraud and and abuse.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 13.10.2009 @ 14:18
SHOULD THE PRESIDENT DECLINE THE PEACE PRIZE?
That may have been directed at me, Todd, although I am more moderate than "right."
The president simply has confirmed he was/is unqualified for an executive position. Even Bush, whom I loathed, didn't display such gross incompetence at governance. From Afghanistan to simply passing a health care bill to save face, this man has shown no ability to govern whatsoever. You obviously are an Obama partisan and don't see it, at least yet, but trust me, when you do it will be so painfully obvious you will question your judgment deeply.
People who compare Obama to Carter defame the latter. Carter had been a governor, and had marginal talents for governance. The 20-day senator turned president would have done well to have been mayor of Wasilla for a week.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.10.2009 @ 13:53
A final thought. Does anyone seriously believe that this president needs any incentive whatsoever to be a bordeline appeaser? I think the Nobel Committee, much like the American electorate, did this as a feel good measure without a lot of deliberation.
And to give the devil his due, what is this bungling idiot supposed to do? Return the award? If anything, the Nobel Committee has joined the line to sodomize this man.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.10.2009 @ 13:09
And as an addendum, Michael Reynolds has proved the Blind Pig cliche has utilty. This is the second time this week something of that nature has happened here.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.10.2009 @ 12:49
I could give a shit less. I do agree with you that there isn't an easy way to give back a Nobel, although if this president had any class--and God knows, he doesn't--he would return it only on the condition it were awarded post-humously to Reagan for his efforts to destroy communism.
The only award/reward I want to see denied the president is re-election. It likely will bring tears to your eyes, but it seems more likely than ever he will be denied that one.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 9.10.2009 @ 12:47
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: CHANNEL YOUR INNER ELDER
Rick:
(a)What does how the left acts have anything to do with how the right acts? (b)Are you saying because the left doesn’t call out its kooks and loons, it’s ok for irrational, bombastic, loons to be accepted on the right? (c)How idiotic is that? (d)Shouldn’t we reach a little bit higher?
(e)And the next time you insult my integrity you’re gone.
a. Everything. It actually bolsters Horowitz' Stockholm Syndrome argument.
b. "Accepted" vs....you know, ignored as the left does.
c. It's called politics, boys and girls.
d. See "c."
e. Noted, therefore I won't comment on this particular topic any longer.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 7.10.2009 @ 14:43
