Boy, that bodes well! But Steyn has more to say:Amidst the torrent of commentary on the Second Coming of Newt, Jonah’s point is worth considering:
I’m in the latter camp: I think these are “crazy and extraordinary times.”Mitt Romney is still the sensible choice if you believe these are rough, but generally sensible, times. If, however, you think these are crazy and extraordinary times, then perhaps they call for a crazy, extraordinary — very high-risk, very high-reward — figure like Gingrich.
This helps explain why Newtzilla is so formidable. In order to stop him, you need to explain to very anxious GOP voters that the times don’t require him.
So, if these are “crazy and extraordinary times,” go with the crazy, right? Newt certainly thinks bigger than Mitt, but unfortunately he thinks in the same direction of unbounded micro-managerial faux-technocracy.And if Newt and Mott are on the same path, the conclusion must be:
It’s a tragedy that the Republican nomination has dwindled down to a choice not worth making. Yet not a single real vote has yet been cast. Iowa and New Hampshire will do us all a favor if they look beyond the frontrunners and keep genuinely conservative candidates in the game.Exactly Mark. Vote for a different loon because Newt Gingrich is NOT CRAZY ENOUGH.
UPDATE OF FREEDOM!!!
Crazy-related: Roy is summons the Ron Paul swarm.
14 comments:
...Genuinely Conservative Candidates.
This concept has a long history, but in this context, it's instructive to remember that these people believe that GW Bush's failure was that he was insufficiently "conservative", which is a word that no longer means what it means, but rather describes a brutal, authoritarian, bigoted, laisez-faire kind of fascism that we can all recognize but that, by being based on lies and intentionally deceptive positions, is very hard to pin down.
So yeah, those candidates they support would not be "conservative" in any way, but would rather be radical right wing white supremacists who hate women and anyone who is not christian. The clear battle cry (it's not a "dog whistle" because he lays it out in all it's brutal clarity) is Newt's battle against "secularism".
Now what's interesting is that this is CLEARLY a call for a theocracy, but at the same time he expresses hatred for Iran because, as a Theocracy, they are non-democratic. And this is NOT seen as inconsistent.
This is the nature of the enemies of democracy...
remember, kids, Conservatism cannot fail, it can only BE failed.
GW Bush's failure was that he was insufficiently "conservative"
There's a little bit of mental wiggle room there. A winner is, somehow, conservative, therefore whoever takes the race will be automagically moved over to the right a few notches. You can't be an authoritarian without an authority to defer to.
GW Bush's failure was that he was insufficiently "conservative"
Obama 2012: The Competent Conservative™!
~
A competent conservative wouldn't be all that bad in good times...mind you Bill Clinton helped set the stage for the current catastrophe.
very high-risk, very high-reward — figure like Gingrich.
Funny how Newt garners all the rewards, and others all the risks.
owa and New Hampshire will do us all a favor if they look beyond the frontrunners and keep genuinely conservative candidates in the game.
Santorum fever! Catch it, probably from a public men's room toilet.
Wow. Great idea! But Newt is not crazy enough. Smart Republicans would be combing the mental hospitals for someone with a truly crazy approach to life. Someone who might, say--- compose his/her agenda for any given meeting in his own feces, on an old bed sheet. Or watch youtube all day for those coded intelligence messages that can be found in Marilyn Manson videos.
They could promote him as the crazy candidate who is crazy enough for these crazy times; and for ONCE they wouldn't be lying.
There's always Ron Paul. Check out the comments.
They could promote him as the crazy candidate who is crazy enough for these crazy times
Once again, history is reduced to plagiarising from my second-favourite William Tenn story.
By the time the Conservative Republicans met in convention assembled, the danger of loss by landslide was already apparent. They changed their tactics, tried to meet the attack head-on and imaginatively.
They nominated a hunchback for the presidency. This man suffered from the additional disability of being a distinguished professor of law in a leading university; he had married with no issue and divorced with much publicity; and finally, he had once admitted to a congressional investigating committee that he had written and published surrealist poetry. Posters depicting him leering horribly, his hump twice life-size, were smeared across the country over the slogan: “An Abnormal Man for an Abnormal World!”
My dawg, Smut! I. did. no. see. that coming.
It was like getting slapped upside the head with a dirty mop.
A winner is, somehow, conservative, therefore whoever takes the race will be automagically moved over to the right a few notches. You can't be an authoritarian without an authority to defer to.
I dunno, they seem to be more than willing to defy the office when a Dem is sullying it. I wonder if thwarted authoritarianism explains some of the crazy?
Well yeah, your authority figure has to be a representative of your tribe. Also: the president is BLACK!
...mind you Bill Clinton helped set the stage for the current catastrophe.
Oh, I mind that A LOT.
In fact, Ronald Reagan set the stage. Then Bill Clinton came along and set the plates and silverware.
And long after the entire affair turned into a notable catastrophe, Obama continues to ensure that the Democratic party is nothing more than Ronald Reagan's corrupt crew of enablers from across the aisle.
~
NAFTA was such an enormous loss for the US and for the Democratic party. Canada's done relatively well from it, but holy smokes what a bad idea.
Post a Comment