Unlike some lower-case-libtrolls, the number of which is legion…

Regards,
Peter H.

Again, read my post carefully.

Why should anyone? Look at your posts in this thread. Dense verbiage that doesn’t amount to a whole lot more than snotty, personal warfare on some people.

‘On the contrary. I’m very secure…’

Again, read my post carefully. I wasn’t referring to you but to those who seem to think correcting another participant’s spelling, etc. is scoring points. I’m not mentioning names, but you probably know to whom I refer. If not, fine.

If you go back and read our conversation, you’ll notice that you’ve referred to me as ‘arrogant’, ‘snobbish’, ‘anal’, ‘way over educated or stuck on himself’ and someone who thinks he’s brilliant. The catalyst appears to have been a single word: elocution. I’ve not responded in kind, but with explanations as to why I disagree with you, such as why I think it’s important that the President speak clearly and effectively. You claim to be very secure, but the terms you’ve chosen to hurl at me indicate otherwise. You claim the moral high ground by claiming you understand the gist of what someone says or writes and isn’t hung up on how they express it, yet you have consistently misread and/or misinterpreted what I’ve written. I apologize if I’ve been unclear, but in reading what I’ve written, the meaning comes across quite clearly to me.

I expect others such as yourself to disagree with my politics. This is, after all, a politically-oriented blog. However, I think this conversation has degenerated into one that is less-than-constructive, personal, and frankly, rather uninteresting. I suggest we concentrate on politics and move on. Also, let’s not forget that Contempt and Envy are brothers and that one is often mistaken for the other.

On the contrary. I’m very secure and wonder why others aren’t. I have to wonder why someone as brilliant as you think you are would have to strain to get in the last word like that last comment.

You won’t catch me doing it, although there are some here who certainly have and will.

I have done that a few times a long time ago, but don’t. As I said, I make mistakes too. Plus I’m not that petty and generally scorn those who are, as you’ve seen.

‘Sorry.’

You don’t have to apologize for disagreeing with me.

‘I encounter poor “elocution”… One can cram “elocution”…’

I regret that I used a word that required reaching for your dictionary.

‘…but I’m not arrogant enough to judge people on it.’

Read my post carefully. I wrote that many people mistakenly think Bush is an idiot because he is a poor public speaker. This means I recognize he isn’t an idiot. (I suspect many who say he is also know he isn’t but can’t resist Bush’s engraved invitation.) Meanwhile, you, calling me ‘snobbish’, ‘anal’, and ‘arrogant’ because I wish Bush wouldn’t hand his critics ammunition, have no problem judging me by the language I use. Does that strike you a bit hypocritical? Moreover, public image is not a zero-sum game, as if complimenting one politician’s speaking ability (Giuliani’s) necessarily detracts from another’s (Bush’s). Wishing that Bush would pay more attention to and thus have greater success with his speech craft is wishing him well, not ill.

‘…I consider the “ignorant” to be the ones who are stuck on how it was said…’

Communication with the public is part of the President’s job description. Bush is our employee and demanding he pay some attention to effectively presenting his policies both serves us well and serves him well; the public’s opinion of him is in direct relationship with its opinion of the clarity of his policies and thus it is in his and the national interest to present them effectively. If Bush were able to better articulate his plans for Iraq for example, the public might be more willing to support him and more importantly, support the troops. For those who think as I do, this is not unreasonable and is the antithesis of ignorance — indeed, its purpose is to combat it.

‘Also, I’m one of the best spellers that I know…’

People who correct spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation on an open, public forum such as this think themselves awfully clever, but are obviously extremely insecure. You won’t catch me doing it, although there are some here who certainly have and will.

Now, I really must dash. Rory and I are meeting Bitsy and Muffin for brunch at Chez Shea, then driving up the coast to meet the new staff at the summer cottage. Ta-ta.

Soooo we should set aside what we believe in just to win? I don’t think it’s a matter of “how far to the right we can be pushed…”. Conservatism does resonate with voters and it wins. Giving up what you believe in to make people happy and just to win is when you get bogged down.

I think it’s about time to redefine what being a conservative means

Why in God’s green earth would anybody want to do that? Do you see liberals redfining what liberalism or Socialism means? No. They hide what it means, but they don’t redefine it. Why in the hell should we hold a finger up in the air and change whichever way the wind blows so people will like us and be happy?

I don’t fancy your “moderate-ism”. You need to change that.

#36

Sorry. I encounter poor “elocution” on a regular basis, but I’m not arrogant enough to judge people on it. In my world, I consider the “ignorant” to be the ones who are stuck on how it was said rather than what was said. One can cram “elocution” as far as I’m concerned. Maybe that’s why I hated Public Speaking in college.

Also, I’m one of the best spellers that I know (it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it), but I don’t judge people based on that. I get the point of what was written and move on.

1. On gun laws = “What worked in NYC would not work in Texas. I believe in the Second Amendment. I also believe that states should set their own gun laws.”

2. On illegal immigration = “Legal immigrants should precede illegal ones. Those who are here legally should become citizens. That includes an English proficiency test. We should fine those who are here illegally and strengthen our borders.”

3. On the GOP nomination = “Republicans should elect someone they believe will lead the nation and keep her safe.”

I report, you decide. Let the comments commence.

PS – I’d love to hear more from other candidates if they ever become available. (Memo to McCain – snubbing the CPAC convention is not a good way to win friends and influence conservatives.)

Regards,
Peter H.

I’ve always thought that one of the biggest failings of the Republican Party is that it simply cannot understand the importance of image (visual and otherwise). The Democrats have it all over us in this category. Now, I know that image is often used to distract from issues or it assumes an unwarranted importance and is extremely important to those who are in the business of agitprop, but that doesn’t mean it is unimportant. One of the reasons Reagan was so successful was his command of common language and the ease with which he existed when a lens was trained on him. We are fond of Reagan in part because he was brilliant at creating memorable visual and aural images and liberals who hated what he stood for couldn’t help but like him — proof that communication is a very powerful ally.

Nixon, probably one of the brightest Presidents we’ve ever had, famously didn’t understand the importance of image. Gingrich doesn’t. Lott and his clumsly statements re. homosexuality certainly doesn’t. Bush 41 doesn’t and his son doesn’t either. Pointing that out isn’t bashing the President — I intended to compliment Giuliani’s speaking ability (he’s very good under pressure [how could he not be and remain Mayor of NYC?]) and point out one area where he is an improvement over Bush.

Do I wince when Bush speaks? Yes, sometimes. It’s because I, as you write, know what he means and wish he could get it out a bit more smoothly. Communication is too important not to take it seriously and there are some who wonder why he doesn’t seem to do so. Sure, some have a natural ability such as Reagan but others like Charles Grassley have worked hard (and sometimes struggle) and manage to do pretty well despite an apparent lack of talent.

Last week I heard Romney offer his prespective on what he’d like to see the GOP and America stand for once again. Of course, Romney said it at the Ford Museum and the liberals started whacking him on his tacit support for the notorious Jew-hating Hank Ford… but then that’s par for the Left Put-put course of politics.

And just to put a finer point on it, here in Michigan in 80, when RR lost the Primary and then won the General… he was talking mostly about restoring American power and prestige abroad and cutting taxes. In the former case, govt is the only answer… like the 600 ship Navy and StarWars. RR won the blue collar Reagan Democrats here in Michigan because of his tax cutting pledges and his keen interest in seeing American military might restored –two clear winner issues then. Conservatives may have cheered when he offered that govt was the problem… but then RR didn’t revoke the Dept of Ed or Dept of Energy or HUD or the thousands of federal agencies that pollute the regulatory waters of business.

Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” And people were inspired by that truth.

Hordes of people turned out to vote for Reagan to cut government (and stand up to the Soviet Union). That’s part of the winning philosophy, that the Republican needs to have.

Is it George Bush’s or Denny Hastert’s or Steve Boehner’s philosophy? Not so much. They pay lip service – sometimes – but have let government expand and grow far beyond anything Slick Willy did.

Is it, in fact, Rudy Giuliani’s philosophy? That’s where I have unanswered questions.

I haven’t heard Rudy talk about cutting government. I have heard him say he “definitely believes” in Manbearpig. (Big Government measures for combatting Manbearpig, to follow.) I can’t say what Reagan would think, but it doesn’t seem very Reagan-ish.

And then yeah, there’s that other very painful issue of border security…

V, I’ll offer my apology to you as well if you took my comments as trying to muzzle discussion… what I was trying to point out, without much luck given your comments at 30, was that I think the GOP ought to be more about winning and less about how far to the right we can be pushed on issues that didn’t resonate with voters in 06… and likely won’t resonate with a broader base of voters in 08.

Last night, a group of GOP moderates (me included) met with Michigan’s Pro-Life movement’s leadership. When we examined the results of the 06 election, the leaders of pro-life groups generally argued that the reason the election was lost –and I kid you not– was because the House didn’t pass a ban on abortion procedures on military bases outside the US. No reference of the corruption of power; no recognition of the role of an unpopular war; no acceptance that social conservatives stayed home and the Dems were motivated by the anti-war faction to get out and vote.

I thought that was a bit like the debate/discussion I’ve been having with some social conservatives who have claimed that the Party –state and natl– haven’t been pro-life enough… or strong enough on illegal immigration… or willing to rebuke Congress in 2000-2006 for drunken sailor spending.

When some folks talk about the GOP doesn’t stand for anything anymore… I hope it’s more about their frustration with party conservatives not being Reagan-ish enough to suit them. Well, Reagan ain’t running… and McCain has now pissed off the CPAC crowd to a point where he’ll never get their attention. Like the calls from social conservatives for the GOP “to find itself”, I think it’s about time to redefine what being a conservative means in the absence of the Reagan-era defining item: spread of communism. If you haven’t read Chuck Lester’s piece, you should.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1255/article_detail.asp

I think sticking to GOP conventional values and reinforcing that the overarching issue IS winning the WOT will allow us to resist the historic impulse to switch WH party control in 08 and maybe gain control of the Senate.

Sorry if my intemperate remarks were construed as off-putting or bullying or cultish. If that was result, I am indeed sorry.

You can’t win when you don’t run on anything.

TGC, indeed. I tried to say the following the other day – maybe I’ll get it right this time:

- In 2004, the Democrats proved you can’t beat something with nothing – not even if the media is on your side.

- In 2006, the Democrats proved you CAN beat nothing with nothing – especially if the media is on your side.

Republicans don’t have the media on their side, so they better have “something” if they want to win elections. That is: Reagan-like, consistent and philosophical or principle-driven leadership.

In 2004, WOT was the issue and Bush had it (especially by contrast to Kerry). But 2006 was more domestic-oriented, and in terms of domestic politics, the Republicans have been a mess for a long time – offering only a confused hash of “me too” Big Government policies.

Maybe Guiliani is the new Reagan, and maybe he isn’t. I can see why he is so popular on this blog – and I also have doubts or concerns. I’ve acknowledged both.

I had what I thought were real concerns about [Guiliani], but every time I raise them, people attack conservatives, or me personally, instead of defending his policies… So, I’m just going to drop it.

V, please don’t. I love what you have to say. Sometimes I don’t agree, sometimes I do agree, but I almost always love how your mind works. We need the dissenters and (to use a very silly word) “blasphemers”.

My how snobbish. You would prefer a candidate who can “pahk the cah in the Havahd Yahd for some chowdah” perhaps? To my way of thinking, if you’re so anal that you miss the point of what it’s said by dwelling on how it was said, you’re way over educated and/or stuck on yourself. I know what he’s saying and I know what he means. That’s good enough for me. Plus, he does very well when it really counts.

I see incorrect grammar, spelling etc. on here, many other blogs and even in newspapers on a daily basis, but I usually don’t say anything because I’m not an arrogant dick. Plus I know that I make mistakes too and I have the balls to admit it.

BTW, why doesn’t anybody else call the several other presidents who pronounced it nucular complete idiots? I keep asking, but nobody can answer.

The very notion that the liberals are picking up anybody is patently absurd. They’ve offered nothing and, so far, won’t be offering anything anytime soon. They offered nothing in 2006. They didn’t win, Republicans lost.

You can’t win when you don’t run on anything. Besides, what in the hell does the left offer that would inspire ANYBODY? Sure if mad, purple apoplectic rage is your bag, the libs are for you. Hate, anger, misery etc.? Democrats all the way. Other than that, why in God’s name would anybody want to be around that kind of people?

No. The libs couldn’t pick up a bag of dog crap, let alone more voters.

Matt, I’m on your side! You’ve misunderstood me. No offense taken. Please read on.

First: Your GayLeftBorgTypes (GLBT) is brilliant and spot-on.

Some dullards on this blog have (weakly) tried to copy you, by phonilytalking about a “GayRightBorg”. E.g., see HardHobbit #17. Please note: I DO NOT use the term. Except in quotes – that is, to criticize the term.

You say there is no GayRightBorg. That’s my point!!!!!! I agree with you 100%.

Also – for the record Matt, I am not a conservative nor a Republican, and I never have been. I don’t care about ideological purity.

You started out #8 by saying “Dan, I know this is blasphemy around here…” You made my point for me: NOTHING is blasphemy around here, except (I would say) anti-American viewpoints.

So let’s not join the “GayRightBorg” types – by that I mean, the people who are dumb enough to use a nonsense term like “GayRightBorg” – by pretending your pro-Rudy viewpoint is blasphemy. Your pro-Rudy viewpoint isn’t blasphemy. It’s popular on this blog. It’s Dan’s own viewpoint. That’s all I was saying.

Peace man!