Gay Patriot Header Image

Daniel Hannan for President of the USA

If only it were possible. (hat tip: Loyal Friend and GP Reader Dan M.)

Where are OUR Daniel Hannans here in our Republic? Who will speak out about Obama bankrupting America? And would our news media even pay attention?

Senseless questions in a depressing time.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

100 Comments

  1. In fact, even McCain’s immpecable credentials on fiscal prudence and restraint wasn’t good enough for some.

    Suspended his campaign to vote for the TARP bailout. Nuff said.

    fatcat RushBlow

    How very civil of you.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - March 26, 2009

  2. MM, yeah, I don’t want to anger GP/GPW more than I already have and I hate to see my pearls of wisdom tragically wasted. Hah!

    That a single speech given by a British MEP can cause a mini-wildfire just shows how inept the American Republicans are. We are starved for someone to formulate an articulate answer — not only to provide an alternative to those who may waver but to directly, even bluntly reject The Lie, especially someone young and attractive like Hannan. I watch his speech with an odd combination of inspiration and depression.

    He was interviewed by Glenn Beck this morning and Hannan recalled (I’m paraphrasing) that as a 15 year-old student he asked a professor “What is the purpose of a conservative?” and he remembers the professor paused and answered “The purpose of a conservative is to re-assure the people that their prejudices are justified.” MM, do you think there’s truth in his answer, do you think Rush Limbaugh practices what Hannan’s professor meant, and how does Roslyn Carter’s estimation of Reagan fit in the argument, i.e. she thought Reagan made people comfortable with their prejudices?

    Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - March 26, 2009

  3. V whines “fatcat RushBlow… how very civil of you.”

    Well, given that Bruce’s and Dan’s call for civil discussion here was for theaderators to treat each other with more civility and not a call affecting license to poke some fun at fatcat elites of the farRight, I’d say your comment is either intellectually dishonest or intentionally deceptive, V, since you know the difference between harking at a public figure who is a fatcat elite.

    Additionally, I find it intellectually fraudulent for you to complain about civility or incivility here given that your immediate reaction to Dan’s and Bruce’s call was to disagree and resist. I guess for you, since that’s how you roll, complaining about something you didn’t intend to support is a little, wee bit hypocritical?

    But, then, you’ve been on hypocritical overdrive about McCain’s positions, about soc-cons and the corrosive effect they’ve had on MY Party, about advising people to abandon the election and turn the govt over to the farLeft and Obama in order to… why was that? Gain some ground for extended complaining?

    On top of all that, you were reserving the right to slap some iinsultive namecalling on theaderators here if YOU wanted to cap off a particularly good comment.

    Sorry, V. “Intellectually dishonest” is how that gets graded by even a fellow “Ponger” on the Atari gameboard. I didn’t think that “was how (you) roll” but stranger truths have been more self-evident.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - March 26, 2009

  4. Yeah, the GOP needs to stop listening to losers like Rush Limbaugh and start following in the footsteps of Landslide McCain.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 9:51 pm - March 26, 2009

  5. Ignatius notes “That a single speech given by a British MEP can cause a mini-wildfire just shows how inept the American Republicans are. We are starved for someone to formulate an articulate answer — not only to provide an alternative to those who may waver but to directly, even bluntly reject The Lie, especially someone young and attractive like Hannan. I watch his speech with an odd combination of inspiration and depression.”

    I thought you got an erection?

    Anyway, I thought later about Hannan’s speech and the diatribe that RushBlow rambled out and on at the last CPAC meeting and how the two are so incredibly, inalterably different and, for all the love that the dittoheads have for their main man, Hannan says more in 3 minutes than RushBlow has fumed in 15 yrs.

    To answer your questions: 1) yes, there’s a lot of truth in the answer of Hannan’s prof and it strikes me that RushBlow is a unique –but not lonesome– example of that point. He feeds the crowd redmeat and they don’t even have to go to the Arena to feel the lions’ roar, the crowd cheer or the blood splash the stands.

    2) I’ve only met Mrs Carter twice in my life. Both times I spent about 4 hours with her nailing OSB to a prefab wall. For the full 4 hrs, we were never more than 20 ft from each other and she spoke with all 14 of us equally… even after she learned that Ford was a friend of mine.

    I think she was saddled with a failure of a husband who had a petty streak that some here, it seems, are intent on eclipsing. Was it her idea or one placed by the campaign staffers? Was it formed in the heat of battle or a reflection in later life? I know, from reading Adams, about Adams, Jefferson and about Jefferson that sometimes natl leaders grow to regret their indiscretions while in the heat of battle.

    I felt sorry for her after the first stint in 96. 3 yrs later, I felt even more sorry for her. The 2d time was in ’99.

    Got a reference I can check?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - March 26, 2009

  6. V offers the same ol’ bark: “Yeah, the GOP needs to stop listening to losers like Rush Limbaugh and start following in the footsteps of Landslide McCain.”

    So, we can agree you were being intellectually dishonest with the “how civil of you” comment?

    Great. I’ve always said V that indirect apologies are acceptable when the person has pride issues.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 9:55 pm - March 26, 2009

  7. Michigan-Matt:

    Rush Limbaugh had an addiction to prescription drugs. He confronted it and overcame it. Cindy McCain, Betty Ford, Kitty Dukakis, not Teddy Kennedy or the wife he ditched, but many others have done the same.

    You may weasel a bit and say that your “Rushblow” has only to do with hot air and nothing whatsoever to do with his former addiction. But that would be unethical and dishonest, because a person as learned in all the nuances and writings of the Founding Fathers, you can not duck your double entendre.

    You disdain Rush Limbaugh, but you are not clever enough to be objective and specific about why. You simply smear and smirk. Sort of like the agitated motorist who finally passes you, but honks and shoots a bird on the way past.

    If you really intend people to read your thoughts and consider your meaning, you might try climbing down from your high perch and addressing your words in a less condescending or abusive manner.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 26, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - March 26, 2009

  8. Whatever

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - March 26, 2009

  9. (Not at you, Heliotrope)

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - March 26, 2009

  10. MM, a man’s brain is his best organ.

    Hannan’s professor is likely re-iterating Hume’s concept of cultural common sense of whose change a conservative is rightly wary. Limbaugh is certainly irreverent, but I do hear a great deal of such common sense in his commentary, even in his more egocentric tangents. Perhaps he appeals too much to an established audience, one he no longer has to earn but merely maintain. Obviously, Hannan and Limbaugh are different animals, the latter primarily an entertainer and if nothing else is able to say the things the elected cannot. However, both are articulating the same message of fiscal responsibility and for all we know admire each the other’s words.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 10:22 pm - March 26, 2009

  11. “You may weasel a bit and say that your “Rushblow” has only to do with hot air and nothing whatsoever to do with his former addiction.”

    Not at all, helio. I’ve been on record here since I coined the term RushBlow to mean exactly that –his unique reputation for hot air and fuming. You may not be able to accept truthful answers, but then I can’t help you puzzle out of your prejudiced view with that baggage.

    Like I suggested to some other “offended” DittoHead, tell when did taking Oxycontin by snorting become the method of delivery preferred by Mr Limbaugh? Because to believe your slander, it would require my understanding that is/was how Rush did his drugs.

    Not all people who are addicted to painkillers would take the time to crush them up into a fine powder, make a line on the mirrored surface and snort it into their nose, now would they? I was thinking one would just swallow them, right helio? Not exactly condusive to the argument I intended to be a weasel or ferret or something and imply “RushBlow” was about illicit drug addiction?

    Or do I get you wrong? I can accept you can’t take the truth.

    And V, when you offered this “Yeah, the GOP needs to stop listening to losers like Rush Limbaugh and start following in the footsteps of Landslide McCain” I guess you mean to imply that RushBlow is more popular, more heard than McCain and therefore, the Republicans ought to be heeding his Hot Air?

    Kind of doesn’t work as a rationalization, V.

    The Pope reaches more people and has a wider audience today than RushBlow had on his highest (now falling) rated day back in 2003. Pope Benedict, the world’s most recognized social conservative leader, couldn’t get his American voters to support the right candidate when needed.

    My Catholic brethern voted for the abortion supporting, stem cell research funding, condom promoting, assisted suicide sympathesizer to the WH. I think it was because they thought Obama’s message of social justice was more compelling than his Life positions.

    Why did you want him to win? Oh yeah, to “teach Americans a lesson and put the Republicans out in the wilderness” so they could magically, wonderfully clamor for a soc-con restoration?

    Yeah, that one worked out just great for you… on GP’s blog we’ve got people saying it’s time to distance ourselves from that political suicide.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 11:09 pm - March 26, 2009

  12. PS, V, I love the kitty cat in #56. It’s all about the love, baby.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 11:11 pm - March 26, 2009

  13. I guess you mean to imply that RushBlow is more popular, more heard than McCain and therefore, the Republicans ought to be heeding his Hot Air?

    No, just that unlike McCain, Rush is actually good at his job.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 11:12 pm - March 26, 2009

  14. (This really shouldn’t be this much fun)

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 11:17 pm - March 26, 2009

  15. Rush would have a lot more credibility if he wasn’t so silent or soft peddling when conservatives were doing not-so-conservative things in the last eight years. Patriot Act? Talk about something that should have been read before passage. Rush trots out the “don’t question your government you unpatriotic hippie, this is for your safety”.

    Somehow the voice of conservatism became a right wing nanny. Don’t question your gov’t? Just listen to us and we will make you safe, trust us? What? Thats not a conservative patriot postion.

    He spent all his time pointing out how awful dems were, meanwhile, Rush’s so-called conservative friends in Washington are running the place into the ground.

    And as for his drug addiction issue, he sure went silent on his earlier belief. “Its not just the drug dealers you should lock up, its the drug users you should lock up too.”

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 11:20 pm - March 26, 2009

  16. I should be the last person to defend John McCain. But really?

    “No, just that unlike McCain, Rush is actually good at his job.”

    Like it or not, he has been a senator for how many years? I dont like him, but seriously, he does have some measure of political skill to stay in office and be an effective statesman. He was so horrible at his job that he beat out the likes of Mitt, Huck, The Thompson Twins, Ron Paul, and all the rest.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - March 26, 2009

  17. Michigan-Matt:

    My bad. It looks like you are ducking the double entendre. Sad, I thought you had a bit of a spine.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 26, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - March 26, 2009

  18. helio writes “My bad. It looks like you are ducking the double entendre. Sad, I thought you had a bit of a spine.”

    I’m sorry if you can’t appreciate truthful answers, helio. Now tell me how all those sorry assed drug addicts on RushBlow’s Oxycontin chop up the pills, smash the drug into a fine powder so minute it can be absorbed just on contact by the nasal capillaries? How do they get it into the delivery system?

    Right, I didn’t think you could. Nice dodge, tho.

    RushBlow is about Hot Air, my DittoHead friend. Like I predicted, you can’t handle the truth, helio. Maybe that’s from listening to RushBlow too much? Maybe you can toss in a little diversion with NPR? I think those folks are impossible and incredible, but since truth isn’t a requirement for you, maybe it’ll work?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 1:30 am - March 27, 2009

  19. V posits from his little soapbox to the imaginary, adoring fans at his feet “This really shouldn’t be this much fun”.

    Wow, V, I think you’ve crossed over into John Edward-the-psychic land and are channeling a famous fellow Pong enthusiast that used to endlessly restate rebutted restatements.

    You smugly think you’ve won something? Or that prized corrosive cynic character of yours is worthy of admiration?

    Well, keep the day job because as a debater or blogger, you career path ain’t exactly upward when even this GP blog begins to argue that soc-cons need to cool it and the GOP needs to move away from them in order to win elections.

    But you’ll probably see that as vindication with all that hindsight you’ve been tossing around. I see it as vanquishment.

    “This really shouldn’t be this much fun” -indeed.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 1:39 am - March 27, 2009

  20. My Catholic brethern voted for the abortion supporting, stem cell research funding, condom promoting, assisted suicide sympathesizer to the WH. I think it was because they thought Obama’s message of social justice was more compelling than his Life positions.

    Or, more likely, because they couldn’t tell the difference between Obama and Obama Lite, aka John “Me-Too” McCain.

    Because, after all, McCain and his fellow “moderates” wouldn’t take a stance against any of those things, because that would be too “divisive” and alienate “independents”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 2:13 am - March 27, 2009

  21. NDXXX, the point wasn’t that the Catholics voted for Obama.

    The point is that V was trying to claim RushBlow’s popularity proves the GOP should listen to him and not McCain… who he quipped was McLandslide.

    My point was that V’s argument was silly on its face, sigh, again. The Pope is far more popular than even –OMG can I say this to a DittoHead– than RushBlow. The Pope reaches more people in a day than RushBlow ever did even at his heightest heights in 2003. And the Pope’s people didn’t listen to him… they went against all the biggest policy matters and voted Obama.

    If popularity was a reason to listen to someone about what to do in politics, we’d have a Hitler or an il Duce standing before us… because the popularity of their message is what got them to be listened to by the masses.

    Did that help cut through any fogg there, NDXXX?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 2:49 am - March 27, 2009

  22. That would be Romney and his clear, overwhelming understanding of economics, business, finance, fiscal affairs and stellar experience as a private sector CEO, a public sector CEO and non-profit CEO.

    You mean the same Mitt Romney who instituted socialized medicine (which is already failing miserably) in Massachusetts?

    Having flip-flopped on a whole laundry list of major positions, Mitt also has some real credibility issues that would make his delivery of such a speech problematic at best.

    Comment by American Elephant — March 27, 2009 @ 8:53 am - March 27, 2009

  23. If being “cynical and corrosive” while LMAO keeps me from turning bitter. I’m having a good time and I’m smiling. All too often, people let their hatred and bitterness turn themselves into… well, look at Andrew Sullivan.

    I’ll just take this as an object lesson not invest my emotional well-being in the fortunes of any particular candidate or party. That way lies madness.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 9:11 am - March 27, 2009

  24. You mean the same Mitt Romney who instituted socialized medicine (which is already failing miserably) in Massachusetts?

    Yes, but remember, Romney is bad because he didn’t lead “for principle not (spit) profit” in the words of Landslide McCain.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 9:13 am - March 27, 2009

  25. My mistake, the phrase was “patriotism, not profit.” “Profit” being that contemptible activity by which Mitt Romney helped start new companies like Staples and create tens of thousands jobs. “Patriotism” means palling around with Ted Kennedy, co-sponsoring legislation to restrict citizen participation in the electoral process, and ensuring a steady supply of illegal labor to undercut American wages.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 10:10 am - March 27, 2009

  26. It shouldn’t go without stating that John McCain has one of the most pro-life records in the Senate.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 10:36 am - March 27, 2009

  27. …which goes to show that McCain is not the first loser to enjoy insulting people who should be his friends.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 11:03 am - March 27, 2009

  28. I.e., political loser. How can a politician rationally expect to get over 50% when he repeatedly alienates and insults his own base and everything they stand for?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 11:09 am - March 27, 2009

  29. Michigan-Matt:

    1) When you invent and consistently use a moniker such as Rushblow, you own it. Doing “blow” is tied to the drug habits of the rich and famous such as Lindsay Lohan. You seem over educated on drugs. To wit:

    Now tell me how all those sorry assed drug addicts on RushBlow’s Oxycontin chop up the pills, smash the drug into a fine powder so minute it can be absorbed just on contact by the nasal capillaries? How do they get it into the delivery system?

    2. You claim innocence in your double entendre moniker because you are so specifically educated about the unique qualities of Rush Limbaugh’s addiction. The moniker you invented and use liberally does not require any knowledge of Oxycontin. To the contrary, it is the perfect smear of a demagogue who means to mislead. You can always parse your meaning later, a la Bill Clinton, as you have tried rather lamely to foist off in the quote above.

    If you had meant to paint Rush Limbaugh as long winded and full of hot air, you might have settled on Rushblowhard. But that doesn’t really touch so well on the drug aspect, does it?

    Sorry, Michigan-Matt, for all your intense knowledge of the Founders, playboy toys, connections with the uber-famous and dedication to moderating the dress code at the steeple chase, your ability with language is somewhat wanting. Why are you so defensive? My respect for Rush Limbaugh is not modified a millimeter by you calling him Rushblow. But my respect for you is rapidly waning. Why can’t you be specific concerning Rush Limbaugh rather than acting like a fourth grader?

    Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 11:11 am - March 27, 2009

  30. I admit I have a crush on Mr. Hannan, can’t help it 🙂 conservative man who speaks articulately, and with the correct perspective.

    Comment by Colocelt — March 27, 2009 @ 12:13 pm - March 27, 2009

  31. Yep. Articulate, passionate, conservative, and cute. What’s not to love?

    Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 12:58 pm - March 27, 2009

  32. heliotrope, 100% spot-on comments!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - March 27, 2009

  33. #80 Echo chamber and Pong master. Wow.

    Are you going to keep on injecting your spite into these threads until Bruce has to ask you to take it elsewhere… again?

    BYW, accurate descriptions aren’t insults, ILC. 10… 9… 8….

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - March 27, 2009

  34. MM, Bruce asked you at #23 to take it – and, presumably, keep it – offline.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - March 27, 2009

  35. Considering the publicity Daniel Hannan has received, he may very well be the Tory candidate for PM. He sounds like he could rally enough voters to win. The shift to the right began with the election of Margaret Thatcher. If only we could find another Ronald Reagan, then victory would be assured in 2012.

    Comment by Roberto — March 27, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - March 27, 2009

  36. It’s not defensive on my part, helio –although resorting to that kind of characterization is surely a sign you failed in your attempt to label me a meanie for hurting RushBlow and the feelings of all the dittoheads here because their MainMan is a recovering addict.

    Hey, anyone who faces their addiction(s) deserves praise as long as they stay sober. And they don’t deserve to be sent to prison for using as maybe RushBlow once thought. And no, I don’t think they deserve to be brought up on doctor-shopping charges… which I had never even heard of until RushBlow hit the airwaves.

    I wonder if Michigan-Matt realizes the second paragraph completely conflicts with the sentiment expressed in the first.

    In short, if Matt truly believes in the principle that people who face their addiction should be praised, not vilified, why is he vilifying Rush for his addiction?

    Answer: because Michigan-Matt’s self gratification is more important than his principles.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 2:59 pm - March 27, 2009

  37. Contradictory position?

    Like Rushs position to lock up the drug users for just as long as the drug dealers?

    Then nary a word when he admits to drug addiction?

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 3:21 pm - March 27, 2009

  38. LOL…Chuck, you attempt the classic dodge of the gay liberal, “But so-and-so….”

    As my parents always put it, “It doesn’t matter what so-and-so did. You should take responsibility for your own actions.”

    Now, since you condemn Rush Limbaugh, you should thus be able to condemn Michigan-Matt, since you’re trying to argue that Rush did the same thing as did Matt and that therefore Matt’s actions should be excused.

    Or are you only interested in condemning Rush Limbaugh, and don’t really care about making contradictory statements?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - March 27, 2009

  39. Isn’t the Teleprompter-in-Chief sending law enforcement to crack down on Mexican drug cartels, even though he admits that he was a drug user? Is he to be condemned as a hypocrite also, Chuck?

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 3:46 pm - March 27, 2009

  40. I think MM can defend himself about contradictory statements. If he did then fine. Do you agree that Rush has made contradictory statements?

    V the K, wow, way to conflate an issue. And I think ND30 said it best regarding your comment:

    LOL…Chuck, you attempt the classic dodge of the gay liberal, “But so-and-so….”

    Welcome to the liberal club VtheK

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 5:43 pm - March 27, 2009

  41. [Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 5:44 pm - March 27, 2009

  42. [Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - March 27, 2009

  43. MM, Bruce asked you at #23 to take it – and, presumably, keep it – offline.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - March 27, 2009

  44. Hannan has a book:

    http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-plan-twelve-months-to-renew-britain/3704883

    Unfortunately, I haven’t found anything yet about what’s *in* the book…

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 10:08 pm - March 27, 2009

  45. I do not THINK that I am in love with Daniel – I AM in love with Daniel (except I am a heterosexual woman who loves her boyfriend of over 11 years!). This guy makes more sense than anyone who I have ever heard in politics given our current situation or not!

    Comment by Kristen — March 28, 2009 @ 10:42 am - March 28, 2009

  46. In case you missed it here is the earlier one:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDwQEEAZhWM

    Comment by ukipwebmaster — March 28, 2009 @ 6:37 pm - March 28, 2009

  47. ukipwebmaster, what a hoot! GO NIGEL! I love the guy behind him, laughing and clapping.

    There’s nothing like righteous indignation. Can the British turn the tide? Will these voices inspire their American brethren? Frankly, I’m envious of a system that allows MPs to directly attack. American political discourse would be greatly improved were we to adopt a similar system.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 29, 2009 @ 11:05 am - March 29, 2009

  48. You’ve marvelled at the speech, now you can get the tee-shirt!!!!

    http://shop.cafepress.com/design/33443496

    The free market rides again!

    Comment by Alan — March 30, 2009 @ 5:02 am - March 30, 2009

  49. Looks like there is a Daniel Hannan for US Congress website now…

    http://www.danielhannanforcongress.com

    Comment by Rob — March 31, 2009 @ 3:55 am - March 31, 2009

  50. Everytime I watch British PM Daniel Hannan on American news show- either endorsing Ron Paul or criticizing the Obama admin I can’t help but ask why is this guy mendling into our national
    Elections politics?
    Imagine Chris Dodd, Barney Franks endorsing a British Politician during elections, what would you cheering followers say?

    Comment by Dan — April 2, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - April 2, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.