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. God, I think I’m in love with that guy. Why can’t our American politicians be so articulate and brave?

    Comment by David — March 26, 2009 @ 9:41 am - March 26, 2009

  2. Bruce said: “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?”

    I believe the answers to those questions are Texas, Ron Paul, and a big, resounding NO!

    Comment by Brendan In Philly — March 26, 2009 @ 9:58 am - March 26, 2009

  3. Bruce, when Gene of PA linked MP Hannan’s speech in an earlier thread I was one to remark that he was bloody brilliant.

    Here was a speech that matched the spirit and talent of our own colonial Patrick Henry’s skill set.

    A great, great speech. And now that Fox News, this morning, began highlighting Hannan’s speech, there will be millions of Americans able to see and hear what a great speaker, a great speech can do to instill and excite and explain –all at once.

    Nice job. And good that Gene of PA also brought it to the attention of GP readers a bit earlier.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 10:25 am - March 26, 2009

  4. #1 – Thanks, Brendan! We Texans are used to taking on a big country and winning! ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 11:03 am - March 26, 2009

  5. Hannan has kind of a blog:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan

    It’s great that GatewayPundit and now Bruce are bringing Hannah’s clip to a wider audience! And it’ll be interesting to see what British voters do in the next election.

    Something to keep in mind: the British pound really has gone down quite a bit in this finanicial crisis (as Hannan says). So, the consequences of bad policy are more evident there. The U.S. dollar is still riding high and the Chinese and other foreigners are still buying U.S. debt, so the consequences of bad policy are less evident here – For the moment. It won’t last. The U.S. has a major currency crisis in its not-too-distant future.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 11:17 am - March 26, 2009

  6. BTW Bruce, thanks for grabbing the filtered comments out of hiding in all the other threads.

    I thought we were supposed to indicate “filtered” because it would draw your attention to it and the “filtered” comment would be kind of a place-keeper for the hidden comment once it was ferreted out of the spamLand garbage. I’ve noticed that wasn’t how it worked at all.

    Not to get a bunch of brown-staining on my nose that it might be confused for sunblock by some here, but thanks to you and Dan for the effort here. I can’t tell you how often I recall in my mind the days of MikeRogers slimeball tactics against you and what could have been a horrible consequence in chasing you from the public square.

    “Thanks” by itself seems so insufficient. But thanks, nonetheless Bruce… you’re every bit the man of Daniel Hannan.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 11:24 am - March 26, 2009

  7. MM, it’s Dan who just grabbed your filtered comments out of the spam queue.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 26, 2009 @ 11:25 am - March 26, 2009

  8. As for this:

    Where are OUR Daniel Hannans here in our Republic?

    I have high hopes for people like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. Challenging Obammunism will take track record, not just rhetoric, and both Jindal and Palin are building track records as we speak as the nation’s true fiscal conservatives. Kudos to them!

    Unforunately, if vicious lefties have their way, they’ll make it financially impossible for Palin to participate in American politics.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 11:28 am - March 26, 2009

  9. Umm, Peter contends: “We Texans are used to taking on a big country and winning!”

    I think the guys at the Alamo and later the soliders of the Union might have something to take exception to in your boast… as well as the Mighty Mexicans to your south.

    My experience is that Tex-icans are mostly known for living large and talking big and owning Texas-sized toys.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 11:29 am - March 26, 2009

  10. Dan, I didn’t see your comment at 7 here. May I redirect my thanks to you. And the balance of my comments apply to those dark, MikeRogers days here and you stepping up to the plate.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 11:33 am - March 26, 2009

  11. I wish that this country had debates like the British Parliament does. Instead of spin machines, MSM, et al. It would be a cage match of ideas. I sometimes catch Parliament in debates late night on one of the C-Spans. The depth and breadth of their debates is wonderful. I wish that would happen here.

    If it did happen, however, Sarah Palin would go down in round one, you betcha. Then again free markets, less regulation, private retirements accounts, medical savings accounts, and smaller government would be a tough sell for anyone at this point. Hmmm, I wonder why?

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 11:41 am - March 26, 2009

  12. #9 – M-Matt, you are REALLY losing me fast.

    True, the Alamo was a loss. But on April 21, 1836, a little something called The Battle of San Jacinto was won in record time (about a half-hour) and the Republic of Texas was born.

    When Texas was admitted to the Union by a treaty (which we can break at any time) in 1845, the USA helped Texans defeat the Mexicans – again – and the spoils of the war were the states of New Mexico, Arizona and California. Not bad for taking on “the mighty Mexicans.”

    As far as the CSA goes, the Battle of Galveston was a Confederate win. And the last battle of the War Between the States was fought in Texas, which actually was a victory albeit a pyrrhic one.

    And as for Reconstruction, it did not have the same effect on Texas as it did for the rest of the South for three really big reasons:

    a. Too much square mileage to patrol (which is why Texas was divided into five military districts through 1869)
    b. Border and Indian skirmishes (funny how the border issue is still relevant 175 years later)
    c. The burgeoning cattle industry which fed the North and kept us rich.

    Finally, to address your Yankee talking point about “living large, talking big and owning Texas-sized toys,” all I can say is it ain’t bragging if you can do it.

    Come visit us down here in the Lone Star State. Unlike the French, we’ll be happy to see you. And we even speak the same language…somewhat.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - March 26, 2009

  13. Hannan talks a good game, and its very easy to poke holes in a stalinist bureaucrat like Brown, but a lot of what he said is either untrue or grossly unfair. Britains car industry has not been nationalised. He seems to be against bank nationalization, but the tories have not put forward a single financial initiative in parliament. If they mean that they would let banks fail, then there would be even more than 100,000 private sector jobs lost. It’s suspect that he calls the 30,000 governement jobs ‘unproductive’, when they include nursing, teaching and police positions. And the fall in the value of of the pound? while it’s a bummer for me, cause it used to be $2 to the pound and now its more like $1.30, this means its much cheaper for foreign investors to put money in the british economy. The Russians are moving into all the newly cheap desirable real estate in London, for instance.

    The tory party are elitist scoundrels who broke Britain during their rule, which led to us appointing our own obama-like naked emperor, tony blair. while the new labour government has been a massive dissappointment, the conservative opposition are altogether without credibility.

    Comment by Scottland — March 26, 2009 @ 12:14 pm - March 26, 2009

  14. FILTERED.

    Comment by Scottland — March 26, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - March 26, 2009

  15. Listening to Hannan, it occurs to me that only one respectable, confident and knowledgeable GOPer could carry off and deliver Hannan’s speech as effectively as he did.

    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 can’t deliver a speech like Hannan’s and pepper it with “Gosh gollies” or “Shucks, that just’s the way we do it in Alaska”. Nor could you do it if the speaker used only a single cadence pattern and looked more robotic than HillaryClinton at her worst.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/03/picking-jindal.html

    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/25/political-robot-bobby-jindal-shows-why-hell-never-be-president/

    I know some outside the Party adore Bobby and Sarah with a “no strings attached” kind of passion.

    But Hannan’s speech needs gravitas. That’s a big talent seriously missing in many “leaders’ on the GOP stage… including Steele, I am growing to think.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 12:32 pm - March 26, 2009

  16. Romney is a great executive and communicator no doubt. I don’t know exactly why he never caught fire last go round?

    Was it the fear of a Mormon? Name recognition? Being a successful Governor of a Liberal State, Massachusetts? Allowing civil unions to happen in Mass. under his watch?

    He comes off as a little overconfident at times to me. I see a little bit of “don’t bother me, I already have the answer” which can stifle debate within a party, and be off putting to the electorate. This confidence is great when you are a business executive, politicians need a lot of finese too.

    And Matt, your support of Romney doesn’t have anything to do with the fact both of you being from Michigan does it? hahaha. I know how you ‘ganders can be pretty hard core for the home team.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - March 26, 2009

  17. I know some outside the Party adore Bobby and Sarah with a “no strings attached” kind of passion.

    Really, who?

    If you were directing that at me, MM (because I praised Jindal and Palin at #8), then no, you still don’t know much about me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 12:52 pm - March 26, 2009

  18. ILC begs “If you were directing that at me, MM (because I praised Jindal and Palin at #8), then no, you still don’t know much about me.”

    Umm, no, ILC. Come on, despite what YOU might think, not everything is about you all the time, 24x7x365x100x1000.

    I’m really not here to “get to know you” pal. Do I enjoy the discussions here and learn from the diversity of opinions? Sure. But it isn’t all about you, no matter what you might presume.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - March 26, 2009

  19. MM, very good! That leaves us with my question, then:

    [in re: "I know some outside the Party adore Bobby and Sarah with a “no strings attached” kind of passion."]

    Really, who?

    I was/am curious to know whom you meant.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - March 26, 2009

  20. I like the values and policy positions of Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, but I think they need more seasoning before they’re ready for the national stage. One of the things I resent about McCain was putting Sarah into the spotlight before she was ready, and then failing to support her. Huckabee or Pawlenty would have been better picks, as a matter of strategy. (But he would have lost anyway because he ran an awful campaign.)

    Similarly, even though Mitt Romney is one of my brethren… and unlike McCain I have great respect for Mitt’s business acumen… I understand why the rank and file have problems with him. He does come across as not quite genuine.

    He also comes with the baggage of RomneyCare and his flip-flop on abortion. Since I had a similar moment of clarity that led me to change my own position on abortion, I find his account of why he changed his mind credible. But to many voters, it looks like he took one position as a matter of convenience to run for office in Taxachussetts and a different convenient position to run for national office.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - March 26, 2009

  21. Very nice blog !

    Congratulations !

    http://kamerunscoop.wordpress.com/

    Comment by Allain Jules — March 26, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - March 26, 2009

  22. Oh for the love of Mike, Steve and Adam, you are such an attentioned centered individual, ILC. Honest, it’s not all about you 24x7x365x100x1000 –in case you need help, that’s 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days in the year, 100 years in the century and I think 1000 years in a millenium.

    Top three GOP contenders with a serious grasp for the brass ring: Romney, Palin, Jindal… sometimes you even find Huckabee or Gingrich’s names tossed in, but they’re not the top three usually mentioned because Huckabee has a famous day job now (talk show entertainer) and Gingrich is somewhat suspect because he flirted once with a prez run in 08 and flew the coop.

    We just did our own straw count in Michigan at the GOP State Party Convention –where we voted in a moderate GOPer businessman with strong executive skills– and the top 3 came out Romney, Palin and Jindal. We’ve been eating, sleeping and working those three names for a month now. Romney got 68%, Palin got 9%, Jindal got 4%.

    In case you didn’t catch it, it’s also in the polling:

    http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/cpac-2012-straw-poll-results/

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/27/cnn-poll-gop-2012-gender-gap-use-this-version/

    http://rightsoup.com/zogby-poll-sarah-palin-leads-republicans-for-2012/

    You had the right response at “MM, very good!”

    Honest, it’s not all about you all the time around here, pal. To think so and continue to think so in the face of the obvious is… well… very, very telling. And a wee bit scarey, too.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - March 26, 2009

  23. Whoops, voted in a moderate GOP businessman as (insert) State Party Chairman. Sorry.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - March 26, 2009

  24. you are such an attentioned centered individual, ILC… in case you need help, …

    And, the trademark MM incivility kicks up a notch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 2:10 pm - March 26, 2009

  25. Can you two please take your personal tiff offline?

    Thank you.

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 26, 2009 @ 2:17 pm - March 26, 2009

  26. We just did our own straw count in Michigan at the GOP State Party Convention… In case you didn’t catch it, it’s also in the polling:…

    I can’t tell if that’s in answer to V’s comment, or my question.

    My question, again, was that I am curious to know, MM, who are these people you referred to at #13 who are (1) outside the Republican Party, and (2) deeply passionate for Jindal and Palin “with no strings attached”, as you put it at #13. It’s just a question. Intuitively, I would expect the really strong Jindal and/or Palin supporters to be inside the GOP. Giving a rundown of internal GOP Presidential politics, while it may be informative, answers a different question.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 26, 2009

  27. ILC, you’re just wrong. It’s not uncivil when you tell someone it isn’t about them, they come back with a trademark and tiresome practice of re-re-restating, and then badger until they get a reply. You think it’s complimentary of your tenacity and have indicated so prior… I and others kind of see it as destructive of civil discourse.

    I think the practice and tactics you use to badger folks here is actually what is uncivil… not something you point to to try to divert attention away from what is obvious.

    And the attention-starved personae you project should be of some concern.

    No, that’s not “free advice”. There’s no free advice in any of that… that’s just how I roll (wink to V).

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 2:22 pm - March 26, 2009

  28. Can you two please take your personal tiff offline?

    Bruce, you’re the boss. Just for the record, my intentions are:

    (1) Not to have any private contact with MM. (don’t have his e-mail; don’t want it)
    (2) To simply participate in the blog discussion. E.g., ask a question if I don’t get something.

    My comment at #22 was written/submitted before I could see your request.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 2:25 pm - March 26, 2009

  29. #23 MM – Bruce asked you to take it offline.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - March 26, 2009

  30. Sorry Bruce, didn’t see your instructions. Done.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - March 26, 2009

  31. Getting back on topic now…

    Bruce posits: “If it were only possible” for Hannan to run for President.

    Why not? We already have a guy in office whose own citizenship is in doubt. Certainly can’t do any worse that him. I hope.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - March 26, 2009

  32. Nice to see conspiracy theories abound across all political colors of the rainbow. 9/11 was an inside job is still my favorite however.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - March 26, 2009

  33. #30 – My other favorite is that one about gay concentration camps from your side of the aisle, Chuckles.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - March 26, 2009

  34. I think I have an erection.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - March 26, 2009

  35. Gay concentration camps? I think I missed that one at the last conspiracy meeting.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - March 26, 2009

  36. Ron Paul, you have to be kinding? The man is a NUT!!!!

    Comment by PatriotMom — March 26, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - March 26, 2009

  37. #32 – Iggy, sounds like a personal problem to me.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - March 26, 2009

  38. #3 Thanks for the hat tip MMatt. I was feeling kinda bad.
    I really like about 10 of the top Republicans for higher office. The party also needs to quit assuming you need to be 65 or older to run.
    Palin, Jindal, Romney, Toomey, Mark Sanford, Barber, all could be great conservative candidates. Imagine a stage with 7 or 8 people like that talking about Obamanomics.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 26, 2009 @ 4:36 pm - March 26, 2009

  39. Does Mr. Hannan have a sister?

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — March 26, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - March 26, 2009

  40. To #34:
    Ma’am, with all due respect, Rep. Paul has the strongest record of defending the actual letter and spirit of the Constitution. He’s not crazy, or an anti-Semite, or an isolationist. But if ad hominems are going to be the rule of the day, then so be it. Good day.

    Comment by Brendan In Philly — March 26, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - March 26, 2009

  41. Ron Paul is like a cool old grandpa, everyone circles around and loves to listen, but seconds after you happily walk away, nastalgic for the “good ol’ days”. You suddenly realize how what he talks about, would never work in the real world.

    I am not disagreeing with what he says, its just that it would never fly between special intrest groups, buracracy and the two party system.

    Its also fun to watch him struggle to defend his putting earmarks in bills, then voting no when they came up. Hence he remains idealogically pure, while serving his constituents.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 26, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - March 26, 2009

  42. To #39:
    You’re right, the Constitution is just not pragmatic these days. Gosh darn those meddling Founders. What were they thinking?!

    Comment by Brendan In Philly — March 26, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - March 26, 2009

  43. McCain gets a clue, even if it’s only in the form of a ‘joke’: People voted ‘mostly for Sarah Palin’ last year.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - March 26, 2009

  44. #42 – Take note, GOP!!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 5:44 pm - March 26, 2009

  45. What a literate, articulate, and impassioned defender of free market principles Hannan is. And he didn’t even need a Teleprompter!

    He’ll be on Hannity tonight (3-26) at 9 EST.

    Comment by Nelson — March 26, 2009 @ 6:53 pm - March 26, 2009

  46. Actually, if someone in the GOP did deliver a passionate, coherent, impeccable speech like this, two things would happen.

    1. Olbermann, Stewart, Maher, Colbert, and the rest of the liberal “brain” trust would attack him unmercifully.

    2. Moderate Republicans would be overcome with the vapors. “How could we let such a hateful, divisive figure speak for our party.” Then, they would tell Maria to mind the children because they needed some “me-time.”

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 6:53 pm - March 26, 2009

  47. So much for comments being unfiltered w/out prompting.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - March 26, 2009

  48. If Mr Hannan is from rural England, or his daughter is not married and pregnant, or he has ever uttered a kind word about Ronald Reagan, the drive by press would still crucify him. His words would be quickly buried. More than half the Republicans troubles are the MSM bias. With FOX news swamping the other cable news channels I wonder why no one starts a second “fair and balanced” conservative, moderate network. Lately as the Obamaphiles energy is sapped by the blunders, errors, and missteps the viewership of all leftists channels is falling. FOX NEWS is now tripplng the viewers of MSNBC.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 26, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - March 26, 2009

  49. V offers “2. Moderate Republicans would be overcome with the vapors. “How could we let such a hateful, divisive figure speak for our party.” Then, they would tell Maria to mind the children because they needed some “me-time.””

    V, how could you say that with a str8 face since McCain was a moderate RINO lovin’ dishonorable say-anything-to-get-elected dishonest politician according to you and he likely agrees 100% with Hannan’s points –as I do. In fact, even McCain’s immpecable credentials on fiscal prudence and restraint wasn’t good enough for some. Moderate? Maverick?

    We haven’t been overcome by the vapors, dude.

    I think turning a great speech by a talented man into a slam against moderate GOPers who you despise with a lechery unhinged underscores you’ve had a tough day today.

    First, Dan links to a McCain campaign official (OMG, will the sun come up tomorrow?) and then endorses his strategy for victory in 2010 and 2012 by moving away from the corrosive, divisive soc-con issues that were the hallmark of the Tom Delay era… focusing in on economic and security issues… actually working to win an election rather than lose an election for purposes of teaching a lesson to America and the GOP.

    There aren’t any moderate GOPers who would swoon at Hannan’s bloody brilliant speech or skill set or talents, V.

    It’s either just wishful thinking on your part or more of the out-of-right-field observations that have no connection with reality.

    And what’s with the anti-elitist reference in the same segment? The only guy I know with a housekeeper named Maria is your fatcat RushBlow… oh wait, he fired Maria when she wouldn’t get him the drugs or sell him the drugs, I forget.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 7:58 pm - March 26, 2009

  50. Ignatius, I know… it’s a queer thing. You want to just let the webmasters now that there’s a filtered comment hanging out there in SpamFilter land… but if you do, it gets you demerit points.

    Like right now. I have a filtered comment that follows Gene in PA’s comment… probably at 46 3/4s or something.

    (hint, hint)

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - March 26, 2009

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. 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

  54. 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

  55. 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

  56. 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

  57. 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

  58. Whatever

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

  59. (Not at you, Heliotrope)

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

  60. 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

  61. “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

  62. 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

  63. 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

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

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

  65. 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

  66. 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

  67. 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

  68. 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

  69. 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

  70. 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

  71. 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

  72. 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

  73. 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

  74. 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

  75. 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

  76. 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

  77. …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

  78. 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

  79. 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

  80. 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

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

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

  82. heliotrope, 100% spot-on comments!

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

  83. #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

  84. 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

  85. 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

  86. 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

  87. 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

  88. 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

  89. 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

  90. 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

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

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

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

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

  93. 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

  94. 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

  95. 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

  96. 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

  97. 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

  98. 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

  99. 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

  100. 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.