ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Call The Newtsplosion Contest

[ Posted Monday, December 12th, 2011 – 16:17 PST ]

Peggy Noonan, a consummate Washington insider with impeccable conservative credentials, recently came up with a nice turn of phrase to describe Newt Gingrich: "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, 'Watch this!' " Back in Newt's heyday, the comic strip Doonesbury portrayed Gingrich as a lit bomb with a short fuse, who would occasionally explode with a bang. Right and Left seem to be in agreement on Newt's resemblance to trinitrotoluene, in other words (or, maybe, "Newtroglycerine"?). Which leaves only one key question to be answered: When, exactly, will this "Newtsplosion" take place?

Seeing how it's an interesting test of political prognostication, and seeing as how we haven't done one in a while, we're going to hold our very own "Call The Newtsplosion" contest. First we're going to outline the possible impact on the presidential race in a few wide ranges (so we all understand what the Newtsplosion's timing will mean), and then we're going to throw the contest open to all commenters at the end.

So, ready to play? Here we go....

 

Early Newtsplosion -- by January

Newt says something fundamentally idiotic before Florida's primary. This could even happen before Iowa caucuses, but in general the outcome would likely be similar if it happened as late as just before Florida votes. The resulting media uproar and pushback from the Republican establishment fatally wounds Newt's chances to become the nominee. Romney, in all likelihood, would leapfrog over the wreckage to grab the nomination (although all the Newt voters flocking to some other anti-Romney candidate is also a strong possibility, at this early date).

Either way, the Washington ether rings with echoes of pundits screaming "I told you so!" Establishment Republicans breathe an enormous sigh of relief that it happened sooner rather than later.

 

Middlin' Newtsplosion -- before wrapping up nomination

Newt holds off until later in the race, showing a discipline that few would have previously given him credit for. However, after Super Tuesday -- but before Newt has gained the "magic number" of delegates to make him the de facto nominee -- Newt goes "Bang!" in a very public way.

This would be harder for the Republican Party to recover from. If Newt and Mitt both have amassed a decent number of delegates, then Mitt will likely waltz into the nomination. Establishment Republicans, drenched in the cold sweat of imagining Newt as their nominee for weeks, heave a gasping and desperate sigh of relief, complete with tears of joy that Newt has taken himself out of serious consideration as their party's standard-bearer.

 

Late Newtsplosion -- after he's the nominee

Newt wraps up a winning number of Republican delegates. After this happens, Newt pulls the pin and spews shrapnel all over the crowd. If this self-immolation happens before the Republican convention, then possibly the party could still pull itself out of a nosedive by somehow rigging the vote for another candidate. If this happens after the convention, however, and during the general election, then the party is going to have to watch the rest of the race in sheer terror -- as they realize what "might have been" long before the voting even hands Barack Obama a landslide in November.

Establishment Republicans burn Newt in effigy across the land, in mob scenes. Democrats pop an extra-large amount of popcorn to gleefully watch the show. Republican voters stage a mass exodus for a third-party candidate (should one be on the horizon, at this point in time).

 

No Newtsplosion -- the pin stays in the grenade

This option is barely even being considered in the punditocracy, and it really should be getting more attention than it has so far garnered. Virtually the entire inside-the-Beltway set have decided that Newt is so unstable that he'll eventually torpedo his own chances. Across the political spectrum, it is rising to the status of foregone conclusion.

Perhaps this is a bit premature. Or, to put it another way, perhaps Newt is now more mature than people give him credit for. Newt surprises everyone, in this scenario, by keeping a lid on the crazy talk throughout the entire campaign. He shows brilliance in debating Obama, and the race is closer than a lot of Democrats would ever have dreamed in their worst nightmares.

Of course, since picking this one is kind of generic, if you choose "no Newtsplosion" in the comments, we'll have to insist on a few tiebreaker questions: Will Newt be the Republican nominee? Will he beat Obama? What will the vote be in the electoral college?

 

A few other general contest rules before I throw it open for your entries. The prize will be (in honor of Mitt Romney) a whopping 10,000 Quatloos. For those who have never seen a contest in this column before, the Quatloo is the favored fictional currency we use to place playful bets and run amusing contests (since, like Rick Perry, we simply don't have $10,000 lying around for such frivolity).

Entries must specify an exact date ("April 1" for instance). Or, at the very least, a date in relation to some other well-known campaign-schedule date ("four days before Super Tuesday" or "two weeks before the convention," for example). Entries which are too vague will be asked to name an exact date ("sometime in the spring" is not kosher, in other words). If you don't pick a date, and instead select "No Newtsplosion," you are required to answer the tiebreakers as well (anyone picking a date doesn't need to answer these, but feel free if you'd like...).

Winners will be announced either after the Newtsplosion is universally announced in the press, or after election day (should the pin stay in Newt's grenade all the way to the end).

So, what do you think? When will the Newtsplosion take place? For fun, if you'd like, please suggest what Newt will be quoted saying which will ruin his chances of being taken seriously. We'll even hand out a bonus of 100 Quatloos for the funniest "Newt steps up to the microphone and says..." line, just to keep things interesting.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

57 Comments on “Call The Newtsplosion Contest”

  1. [1] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Ummmmmmm.... I vote for None of the Above.

    I'm sorry, but I have to vote for IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

    1. Romney won't win. I've said it,others have said it.
    2. The other R's are fatally flawed:
    Rick Perry: Treason, seccession, stupidity, and just plain dumbass
    Bachmann: Crazy. Too crazy for the TP. Crazy
    Santorum: His name is synonymous with ass-lube
    Johnson,Karger,Huntsman, et al: Really? C'mon

    This leaves Gingrich or a Republican to be named later. Since we are talking about Gingrich tonite, it will be Gingrich. Fox News will cover up his explosions just like Rush did in the mid-90's. The faithful will not believe anything that Fox news doesn't tell them.

    Michale will get his dream and Gingrich will be the exciting nominee for the TeaParty ... sorry, Republicans. Who will proceed to tepidly campaign.

    The "independants" (you know, the ones who USED to be Republicans????) will sigh and pull the lever.

    The independants (you know, the ones who've voted for a Democrat at least once in 20 years????) will sigh and vote Obama.

    Democrats will pull the lever for Obama two or three times (to quote my mother: "vote early and often").

    The "Hysterical left" will sigh and vote for Obama.

    The REAL Left (both of them) will sigh and not vote.

    Progressives will vote for Obama while cursing.

    The Paulies with write in Ron Paul.

    Since R's currently make up about 1/4 of the electorate and D's currently make up about 1/3 of the electorate ... D's win.

    BFD

  2. [2] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I can't give an exact date but I will go with his Newtsplosion during his third debate with Obama.

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'll guess implosion, not explosion. It will be some boring garden-variety stupid foot-in-mouth episode, and it will take place on New Year's Day.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    my hundred quatloos are on late october. fox will spin it as "being genuine and not a typical washington politician," or "showing independence from the washington elite." fox viewers will shrug their shoulders and vote for him anyway.

  5. [5] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    My quatloos are on Gingrich imploding by late February so I can celebrate my 40th birthday with an early gift. Although a Gingrich nomination would surely be a gift that keeps on giving until November, so I win either way :D

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Since this is not an "I'm betting against everyone else" contest, I'm going to make my own guess.

    Newt keeps quiet until just after Super Tuesday. Then, exhausted, he says something which torpedoes him, during an interview with a local TV station.

    My pick:

    Newt steps up to the microphone and says: "If the South had won the Civil War, black people in America would be better off by now." He then goes on to double- and triple-down on this statement, by making his entire historical case for such a proposition.

    Newt fancies himself a historian. If he goes up in a flash of Newtonium (didn't anyone like "Newtroglycerine"??), it will be over some sort of comment about history, that's my guess.

    :-)

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    DerFarm [1] -

    The best line of the campaign so far that I've heard was "Rick Perry is dumber than a bag of hammers." Hard to top that one. Heh.

    BashiBazouk [2] -

    Think Obama will take Newt up on the "Lincoln/Douglas debate" thing?

    nypoet and Osborne Ink -

    I'm going to need a more specific date than that, sorry.

    :-)

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will Newt be the Republican nominee? Will he beat Obama? What will the vote be in the electoral college?

    Yes

    Yes

    Landslide

    Here's why...

    On top of everything else going wrong for Obama, the SCOTUS has stated that they will hear two Hot Button topics....

    Crap Care and US vs Arizona.

    Both of which, if decided against Obama, will completely and utterly put the "CARTER WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY" stamp on the Obama presidency....

    CrapCare is a shoo-in to be decided against Obama. Even the logical Weigantians here (all 3 of them :D) have stated that the mandate will likely fail constitutional muster.. So, CrapCare will definitely be a loss for Obama..

    Now USvAZ might have been a squeeker and even a win for Obama. But his pet Progressive on the court (Kagan) has recused herself from the deliberations on USvAZ.. As such, it's likely that this will also be a loss for Obama...

    Ya know, I started to just do a big run-on sentence about all the bad things that's likely to happen to Obama, but then decided it would just be easier to list them all and the likelyhood they will occur..

    Unemployment never dips close to 8%, the number that Obama promised it would go to after his first stimulus. 100%

    SCOTUS rules against CrapCare. 95%

    SCOTUS rules for Arizona in USvAZ 85%

    Holder is shown to be completely shady and utterly incompetent so Obama is forced to fire him. 98%

    Obama is utterly shellacked in the debates, even when Newt allows the TOTUS. 100%

    Iran conducts a nuke test, showing the world that they have become a nuclear power. Republicans and independents/NPAs crucify him. 50%

    Obama authorizes war against Iran. Democrats crucify him. 50%

    Terrorist attack on US soil using NBC devices. 75%

    For all of those reasons and many many more to come, ya'all better get used to saying President Gingrich..

    It's going to fun time around Wegantia come 2013, eh? :D

    As far as the Newtplosion, you won't see one because it's easy to maintain control when your opponent is busy kicking his own ass... :D

    Democrats will pull the lever for Obama two or three times (to quote my mother: "vote early and often").

    See!!?? Photo ID would prevent that from happening!!! :D

    Couldn't resist.. :D

    Michale.....
    182

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, the previous post was a case of wish-casting, much like everyone else's predictions. :D

    But what should REALLY scare ya'all is that it COULD happen... :D

    DF,

    Since R's currently make up about 1/4 of the electorate and D's currently make up about 1/3 of the electorate .

    I would LOVE to see your reference for that wishful thinking stat... :D

    Michale
    183

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Newtonium ... that was good. How about "Unberablynium"?

    Eh ... it loses the explosion analogy. *sorry*. It's still early here in the Midwest.

    I think they manage to muzzle him until the nomination. Then, his ego takes over and during his acceptance speech he can't help but go off script and BLAM-O, he goes out in a blaze of glory when he makes an off-color joke about Romney.

    Obama has the right idea. His 60-minutes interview was good and Steve Croft pushed him with all the standard conservative questions and he sounded ready.

    Republicans are going to try to make this the "anti Obama" election. Heck, they'd even choose Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann over Obama.

    Obama's point is that all of the Republican believe in the same economic theories they always have. Trickle down theory. Tax breaks for the wealthy ... blah, blah, blah. The same economics which brought us to where we are today.

    This, not any dumb bet Mitt Romney tried to make or any gaffe Newt might make should be the reason to vote Democrat.

    -David

  11. [11] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. How many Gingrich's does it take to change a lightbulb?

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    One, he holds the bulb in the socket and the whole world revolves around him.

    :)

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Republicans are going to try to make this the "anti Obama" election.

    I am constrained to point out that it's a pretty good strategy, considering Obama can't make it a PRO Obama election... :D

    The same economics which brought us to where we are today.

    No, the same economics that brought us where we were 3 years ago...

    It's the Democrat economic model that has gotten us where we are today... Much MUCH worse off...

    I am also constrained to point out that even Obama himself said Americans were better off under Bush...

    Michale
    184

  13. [13] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Michale [9]

    Ask and ye shall recieve. I was somewhat in my cups last nite and didn't give the reference.

    "An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72
    million registered Democrats."

    Google Answers is where I found it

    USA Today original source

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    I can't argue with your source...

    The only reason I question it is because, according to Gallup, 2/3rds identify themselves as Conservative or Moderate (62%) and 1/3rd identify themselves as Liberal (36%)
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

    Which pretty much re-enforces what I have always said...

    Polls, like statistics, can be tweaked or spun to say any damn thing the person wants them to say.

    Hence, they are usually useless...

    Michale.
    185

  15. [15] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Michale,

    You DO realize, do you not, that not everyone identifies "conservative" with "batshit crazy"?

    It is quite possible to conservative and not like any of the candidates currently being touted on the R's nominating cycle.

  16. [16] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This leaves Gingrich or a Republican to be named later.

    @DF

    I think your analysis is pretty spot on. It's really interesting to watch how the moment that one of the candidates start to stand out, suddenly the coverage is rosy and the coverage of the opposition gets vicious.

    Newt's about the only option left because the "base" hates Romney. Barring a Ron Paul sneak attack.

    This will likely make it easier for Obama in the election. If Dems really want to attack Newt, they should talk about how he caved to Bill Clinton in 1994 :)

    *sigh* I miss Cain. At least he was funny. Newt's about as stiff as Al Gore.

    -David

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    You DO realize, do you not, that not everyone identifies "conservative" with "batshit crazy"?

    I know.. Just the Left does.. :D

    It is quite possible to conservative and not like any of the candidates currently being touted on the R's nominating cycle.

    And there is a difference between not liking current candidates and hating anything and everything that has to do with the Right...

    The former is logical and rational.. The latter is political bigotry..

    Michale.....
    186

  18. [18] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    akadjian[16],
    I've spent a lot of time thinking about this exact issue. It is common wisdom (which might or might not be accurate) that only Newt and Mitt are precieved as being capable of defeating Obama.

    There are dangers inherent in bringing in a white horse from the sidelines:
    1. The most partisan of the followers will feel outraged. This is not good in a close election.

    2. Depending on the finesse of the outside rebellion, the unaligned could easily be outraged also. Yeah, right. Finesse from these clowns? Look at what happened in NY26. At least part of the R loss there was outrage that outsiders came in and blindsided the R candidate.

    3. Who amognst us is Pure and Unsullied? What in the hell makes anyone think that a politician will not have significant scandals coming out of the blue? Imagine if Edwards had not been a candidate in 2008, the convention was brokered and he strode forth to save the Democrats!!! To quote Perry: oops. Like it or not, the primary process will expose the warts that everyone has. Better to find out in December than September.

    Michale [17],

    Ask any member of the Klan, Posse Comitatus, Christian Exodus, the Michigan Militia and you will recieve the answer that they are "conservative".

    There are definitions of Republican and Democrat that are generally agreed upon. You might not like it, but its there.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I am forced to go a bit off topic to share something with ya'all... :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/androidphone.jpg

    :D

    Michale
    187

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ask any member of the Klan, Posse Comitatus, Christian Exodus, the Michigan Militia and you will recieve the answer that they are "conservative".

    And ask any member of Weathermen or any other Left Wing terrorist group and you will receive the answer that they are "democrat"...

    What they say is irrelevant...

    How they act is the point.

    Michale.....
    188

  21. [21] 
    dsws wrote:

    The only time I watch tv is at the gym, so I don't have anything like a representative sample. But this morning, CNN was doing an infomercial for Huntsman, courtesy of Gingrich.

    Apparently, Gingrich thinks he can win by splitting the establishment/conservative* vote between Romney and Huntsman.

    *as distinguished from bat-shit-crazy far-right radical

    This doesn't seem to me like a great bet for Gingrich. Huntsman may stay in the single digits (or is he in the decimal places?), or he may take off as the new version of at-least-he's-not-Romney. In the former case, he won't do Newt much good. In the latter, he'll be Newt's replacement.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the latter, he'll be Newt's replacement.

    I would LOVE to see this..

    If only for the fact that many here in Weigantia have expressed the notion that Huntsman is a Republican that they COULD vote for over Obama.. :D

    Suddenly that "-D" after Obama's name would gain new significance...

    Hoisting and Petards come to mind... :D

    Michale.....
    189

  23. [23] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Michale [20]

    You show your ignorance yet again. I knew plenty of SDS (LID, SLID,Weatherman, and other factions) and NONE claimed to be Democrat. The foreshortning of your left vision means that you can't tell the difference between Lyndon Johnson and Mario Savio.

    Other LeftWing Terrorist organizations? lets see:
    Black Panther: Nope, no democrats here
    Trotski Militia: Nah
    IWW: no. no electoral politics at all.

    But then, the rise in American terror groups in the US has been mainly on the right and single issue anti-Abortion groups, according to the FBI.

    But then, once again, we have no way of knowing what you consider "far left terrorist". No references, no names. Are you dense or just lazy?

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It would make sense, DF.

    It's the reverse McCain/Palin combination. In the case of McCain/Palin, Palin was who the base liked. McCain was the establishment R.

    With Gingrich/Huntsman, Gingrich is the one the base likes more. Huntsman, the more establishment candidate.

    -David

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    So, in your world Left != Democrat?? :D

    Yet Right = GOP and you hate everything Right...

    Seems to be a self-perpetuating delusion..

    Hay, if it makes ya happy... :D

    Michale.....
    190

  26. [26] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- An interesting poll on how Republicans and Democrats feel about who is the biggest threat to Obama. http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/12/12/call-the-newtsplosion-contest/#comment-17907

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/13/1044897/-Daily-Kos-SEIU-State-of-the-Nation-Poll:-Democrats-think-Romney-more-electable,-GOP-thinks-Gingrich?via=blog_1

    It's interesting because Republicans feel Gingrich has a better shot, Dems, Romney.

    Take w/ a grain of salt as any poll.

    -David

  27. [27] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    I found this a few minutes ago. Expect more if Newt is nominated.

    Michale [25]
    1. Left Democrat because the Democrats are not leftists. They are primarily center, center-right. Once again, you refuse to cite WHO you think is "left" and you have no definition. In my experience, people who call themselves leftist, rarely call themselves Democrats as well.

    2. Right=Republican? I never said that. I SAID that all rightist describe themselves as "conservative". But it the shoe fits ...

  28. [28] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    A mistake.

    Left Democrat from above should read Left != Democrat

    The less than sign followed by the greater than sign is eaten by the HTML.

    Sorry

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    OK, you really got me confused..

    You are saying that Democrat = Center Right???

    But you are correct.. I shouldn't have used the Democrat label to describe Left Wing terrorists..

    On the other hand, isn't Bill Ayers a Democrat???

    And he is a terrorist, so.....

    Anyways, your definitions are really fascinating.. :D

    Michale
    191

  30. [30] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    actually, Michale, I can find no reference that shows that Ayers is a registered Democrat. Do you?

    Most people in his position (former radicals) aren't.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    OK, you really got me confused..

    You are saying that Democrat = Center Right???

    But you are correct.. I shouldn't have used the Democrat label to describe Left Wing terrorists..

    On the other hand, isn't Bill Ayers a Democrat???

    And he is a terrorist, so.....

    Anyways, your definitions are really fascinating.. :D

    Michale
    192

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    DF

    Didn't 'ya know all Democrats are terrorists. Or communists. Or socialists. Or gays. Or illegal aliens. Or radicals. Or liberals. Or lazy. Or black.

    It's the name calling game. It's what you do when the only thing you can claim credit for over the last 12 years is 2 wars and a crashed economy.

    :)

    Oh, I forgot. And it's all Obama's fault.

    -David

  33. [33] 
    dsws wrote:

    The less than sign followed by the greater than sign is eaten by the HTML.

    Democrat <> Left.

    That's written as Democrat &lt;&gt; Left. However, I consider myself both left and a Democrat.

    On the other hand, it doesn't shake my affiliation at all to note that the Democratic party of 1947 included the same unpleasant elements of the Solid South as the Republican Party of 2002 -- notably Strom Thurmond, who began the large-scale party switch by running as a Dixiecrat. Jimmy Carter completed it, by energizing what's now the theocratic component of the Republican Party. The pentecostal fringe of American religion had previously regarded government as too this-worldly to be a suitable target for takeover.

    The Democratic party is a political aggregation I'm part of: it's not who I am. I can be proud or ashamed of various things my country did, even in its distant past, because psychologically it's my country enough to support that sentiment.

    In 1919 my country disastrously bungled its role in the treaty process following the so-called Great War. (My understanding is that, compared to the thirty years war or various others, it was very limited: civilian deaths didn't grossly outnumber casualties among combatants, and hardly anyone even tried to commit genocide.) As an American, I bear some share of the onus.

    In 1923 the Democrats of that era successfully blocked an anti-lynching bill from becoming law. Shame on them, and a shameful episode in my heritage as an American -- but not as a Democrat. Being a Democrat is a tactical position, not a part of my roots.

  34. [34] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm thinking my prediction of a New Year's Day implosion belongs in the "no Newtsplosion" category: the candidate-of-the-week club will just pick a new mascot on (or about) that date. He won't even do anything on that date that really ought to matter; rather, right-wingers who didn't like him two weeks ago (or two years ago, either) will be reminded why they didn't like him. I don't know how they'll be reminded. Even when it happens, it still won't make much sense to me.

    As such, I'm obliged to explicitly include the statement that no, he won't be the nominee.

    Of course, this is just a guess I picked so as to be in the running for the big bag o quatloos. I don't claim to have any clue.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Didn't 'ya know all Democrats are terrorists. Or communists. Or socialists. Or gays. Or illegal aliens. Or radicals. Or liberals. Or lazy. Or black.

    Yes, and all Republicans are terrorists. Or racists. Or greedy. Or homophobic. Or xenophobic. etc etc etc.

    It works both ways, David. Even amongst many Weigantians...

    Present company excepted, of course. :D

    Oh yes.. I also forgot.

    It's all Bush's fault..

    It's impossible for you to deny the accuracy of the comparison. :D

    Michale...
    194

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, ya'all got to ask yerselves one simple question...

    If the GOP candidate field is so weak and flawed and there ain't a real leader of the bunch.....

    WHY isn't Obama simply stomping the hell out of each and every one of them???

    :D

    Michale.....
    195

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's impossible for you to deny the accuracy of the comparison.

    Denied.

    It wasn't impossible. It was easy. I just did it. And you said it was impossible.

    -David

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wasn't impossible. It was easy. I just did it. And you said it was impossible.

    ha ha ha :D

    Allow me to rephrase that to say that it's impossible for you to FACTUALLY deny the accuracy of the comparison..

    Michale
    199

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Allow me to rephrase that to say that it's impossible for you to FACTUALLY deny the accuracy of the comparison.

    I would disagree with that as well. But we've been down this road before again and again and I just don't find it interesting anymore.

    So let's assume for a second that your premise is true: Democrats and Republicans use the same tactics.

    Where does this get us? Nowhere.

    What I would rather argue is that we, ourselves, not Dems and not Republicans, but we here and in the present should get past the name calling.

    I can't control Democrats. I can't control Republicans. But I sure as heck have control over myself.

    This is why I try to avoid the name calling and encourage others to do the same. It's not productive, and, I've found that I'll miss out on some good ideas if I consider others as "enemies".

    At the end of the day, if you ask most people, they want the same things. A job, a happy life, freedom, food, water, shelter. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Not Democrats. Not Republicans. This is why the whole thing sometimes seems silly - like a really bad Miller Lite commercial - "less filling" vs. "great taste" - when the truth of the matter is Miller Lite is just a horrible beer :)

    What interests me are ways in which we can work together. Ways in which we can reform government to get rid of the corruption. Things we can agree on ... like a better beer - Yuengling has recently come to Ohio! - or that money has too much influence over government.

    Mmmm. Better beer. Ok, I'll end on that thought :)

    -David

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    So let's assume for a second that your premise is true: Democrats and Republicans use the same tactics.

    It's not an assumption. It's a statement of fact for which there is overwhelmingly conclusive evidence.

    I would be happy to list it all but, as you say, you don't want to go there..

    What I would rather argue is that we, ourselves, not Dems and not Republicans, but we here and in the present should get past the name calling.

    I agree.. And, for the most part, we do..

    Oh sure, we'all (Love to see the research on THAT little gem!! :D) have our lapses where some here will call Republicans "terrorists" and some here (OK Me.. :D) will call the Left smelly scumbags...

    But, by and large, here in Weigantia, we usually stick with the facts and avoid hysterical hyperbole...

    Not Democrats. Not Republicans. This is why the whole thing sometimes seems silly - like a really bad Miller Lite commercial - "less filling" vs. "great taste" - when the truth of the matter is Miller Lite is just a horrible beer :)

    While my initial reaction is to bristle at the term "horrible beer" (it's like "bad sex".. Ain't no such thing.. :D) I have to relate a personal story...

    Back in the day, my wife and I were very close friends with a couple where the guy was a pilot and had access to an airplane on a weekly basis. We would fly down to this airstrip every Thursday night that had a local bar with karaoke.. I won a free pitcher of Samual Adams beer for being the worst singer in the place.. (A title I still hold to this day, by the way.. :D) Anyways, I never had SA, but I figured, "what the hell, beer is beer!!".... Took a sip and almost died...

    So, long story short (too late!!) I have to agree that there IS "horrible beer"... :D

    Anyways, where were we??

    Yes, I agree.. We should be able to work together.. It just seems all pointless sometimes, when our so-called "leaders" in DC can't even agree that the sky is blue and water is wet...

    Michale
    201

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can we still point out the hypocrisy of the various political ideologies??? :D

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/13/team-obamas-immigration-hypocrisy/

    :D

    Michale
    202

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:
  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Btw- Back to the Newt contest. Not Newt, but close ...

    Can't really argue with the aide's statement..

    As far as I am concerned, most (if not all) organized religions qualify as cults...

    Michale.....
    203

  44. [44] 
    dsws wrote:

    A cult is something you join. A religion is part of your heritage -- usually because some of your ancestors joined a cult, or were forcibly assimilated into a religion. The doctrines may still be as ludicrously implausible as ever, and the practices still as goofy. But the institution has nonetheless changed with time.

    No one can rightly be blamed for their heritage, even though everyone's heritage includes plenty to be ashamed of.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    A cult is something you join. A religion is part of your heritage --

    Good point on the distinction..

    Michale
    205

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As far as I am concerned, most (if not all) organized religions qualify as cults.

    It's a fine line indeed.

    As I'm fond of saying: It's not God I'm afraid of, it's the people who think God's talking to them.

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Michale. 205? I am impressed.

    Since the CW fundraiser appears to be past the $500 mark, I'm sending in my matching grant.

    Thanks to everyone who's contributed! And if you haven't, what are you waiting for?

    Give the gift that keeps on giving, money :)

    -David

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I'm fond of saying: It's not God I'm afraid of, it's the people who think God's talking to them.

    Well said.. One of my favorite sayings:

    "The problem with born-again christians is that they are a bigger pain in the ass the second time around."

    :D

    BTW, Michale. 205? I am impressed.

    I probably picked a few fights I probably wouldn't have.. :D Apologies to those that got picked. :D

    Yea, I am an odd dozen away from last years HiWater mark and still have a few weeks...

    Michale
    208

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nomination for the coming MDDOTW Award...

    "They have attached a poison pill -- literally, colleagues -- because it will kill 8,100 more people more than would have otherwise been killed from pollution,"
    -Senator Barbara Boxer

    Fear-monger much???

    Michale
    209

  50. [50] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm a rather convinced atheist, but I think some of the contempt for religion expressed by militant atheists goes too far.

    "They have attached a poison pill...

    Do you have a neutral source for that? I'm curious about the context, and all I'm finding for that quote are sites echoing the same talking point.

    If it's really a provision that would result in putting more lead and arsenic in the air, what's wrong with the description attributed to Barbara Boxer's?

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws [21] -

    Gingrich is interested in splitting the vote only in NH, that's why he was heaping praise on Huntsman (who is indeed siphoning off NH votes).

    DerFarm [23] -

    You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Heh. Actually, I'm with you -- Michale, you need to upgrade your lefty terrorism references. I would suggest ALF and ELF, and all the monkey wrench gangs from the late 80s and 90s. They're a lot closer, historically.

    DerFarm [27,28] -

    I'd use "!=" even though it's more a computer syntax. Or perhaps insert a space between the < and the >, maybe

    Michale [31] -

    Try Bobby Rush, or Tom Hayden. They both became Democratic politicians. I mean, if you insist on citing 60s radicals...

    Michale [35] -

    I'm old school. It's not all Dubya's fault. In actual fact, it's all Reagan's fault.

    Heh.

    David [39] -

    So, what, isn't Top Hat beer still around? That's what college students in Ohio on a budget drank, back in my day...

    Heh.

    Michale [40] -

    Now that's ironic in the extreme. Samuel Adams (the guy) was a failure as a brewer, just as he failed at every other business enterprise he tried. He did rise to fame as a demogogue, however (which he later parlayed into becoming a "politician"). So your Sam Adams (beer) example was actually a really bad one because Sam Adams (the man) was a hysterical firebrand in real life.

    Heh. Just had to point that out. [You probably wouldn't like the Anchor Steam they have out here in San Francisco, either...]

    dsws [44] -

    I beg to differ. A religion is just a cult that "made it." The only difference between the two is the number of people who are its followers. Mormonism, on sheer membership alone, qualifies as a religion, to me. Worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are still a cult. See how it works? Heh.

    akadjian [46] -

    Reminds me of a bumper sticker: "Jesus, please save me from your followers." But then I've done enough religious tweaking for one day, so I'll just shut up now.

    David/akadjian [47] -

    Woo hoo! Thanks! The green bar continues to inch its way across the logo...

    As for everyone else, we've got less than $400 to go to reach our fundraising goal this year! The goal is indeed in sight! Don't make me get the kittens out again... heh...

    Michale [48] -

    Don't forget, you've got until New Years! I bet you'll hit 400 or 500, personally....

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Do you have a neutral source for that?

    RealClearPolitics is as neutral as they came.. It's the basis for CW's Obama Poll Watch series..

    Ooops Sorry.. Normally I post a link..

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/13/boxer_poison_pill_in_gop_payroll_tax_bill_will_kill_8100_people_for_christmas.html

    My bust

    If it's really a provision that would result in putting more lead and arsenic in the air,

    As far as I can tell, it's a loosening of regulations so as to not inhibit job creation...

    what's wrong with the description attributed to Barbara Boxer's?

    Because it's pure unadulterated fear-mongering bullshit...

    Imagine the outcry if Democrats opposed provisions of The Patriot Act and a Republican said, "Democrats want to kill another three thousand innocent Americans"

    What would the reaction be here???

    Michale
    214

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Try Bobby Rush, or Tom Hayden. They both became Democratic politicians. I mean, if you insist on citing 60s radicals...

    Thanx for the reference...

    My mistake in that particular discussion was equating Left with Democrat..

    But I am in good company.. Most everyone here equates Right with Republicans so.... :D

    Now that's ironic in the extreme. Samuel Adams (the guy) was a failure as a brewer, just as he failed at every other business enterprise he tried. He did rise to fame as a demogogue, however (which he later parlayed into becoming a "politician"). So your Sam Adams (beer) example was actually a really bad one because Sam Adams (the man) was a hysterical firebrand in real life.

    All I know is that it had the consistency and the taste of Auto Transmission Fluid. Dextrose, not Type F. :D

    I beg to differ. A religion is just a cult that "made it." The only difference between the two is the number of people who are its followers. Mormonism, on sheer membership alone, qualifies as a religion, to me. Worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are still a cult. See how it works? Heh.

    Peter: "But Dad, you told me to look into my heart to find my religion."
    Francis: "Yes, real religion! What I saw today wasn't religion, it was just a bunch of sheep, singing songs and listening to ridiculous tall tales."
    Brian: "Actually, that is religion."

    Brian: "Do you really think that splashing "magic water" on Stewie is gonna keep him out of hell?"
    Francis: "Shut your heathen trap, or else you'll be gettin' a taste of me fist!"
    Brian: "That's very christian. 'Believe what I say, or I'll hurt you' ".
    Francis: "Now you're getting it!"

    -Family Guy

    Don't forget, you've got until New Years! I bet you'll hit 400 or 500, personally....

    I am gonna hit 500 even if I have to insult every one of your readers!! TWICE!!! :D

    Just kidding... :D

    I'll do it as I always do it. With maturity and decorum.. :D

    Charlie: "Berta, how have you been washing my underwear?"
    Berta: "Like I do everything else around here: with a song on my lips and love in my heart."
    Charlie: "I'm serious. I got a rash in my, you know, private area."
    Berta: "Private? You get any more traffic down there, you're gonna have to open a Starbucks."

    -Two And A Half Men

    :D

    Michale..
    215

  54. [54] 
    dsws wrote:

    I beg to differ. A religion is just a cult that "made it." The only difference between the two is the number of people who are its followers.

    Why? If 909 people have some goofy beliefs for 27 years and then suddenly don't any more, is that really so different from how it would be if 14.1 million people have some goofy beliefs for 27 years and then suddenly don't any more? On the other hand, suppose a very small movement grows and changes over the course of 170 years, until there are 909 people with about three missionaries spreading their goofy beliefs at any given time. Is it really that different from when a not-all-that-small movement grows and changes over the course of 170 years until there are 14.1 million people with about 50,000 missionaries spreading their goofy beliefs at any given time?

    "Making it" tends to involve both size and duration,* so both definitions yield a fairly similar set of conclusions as to which groups are cults. Jonestown was small and went out of business too soon to become anyone's heritage, so we both say it was a cult; the LDS is big and still going strong, so we both say it's a religion. But why should only size be considered essential? I'm not going so far as to completely say that size doesn't matter,** but the actual dynamics of the phenomenon seem more important to me.

    * Take that out of context if you will.
    ** I don't think I need to remind anyone to take that out of context.

  55. [55] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, what, isn't Top Hat beer still around? That's what college students in Ohio on a budget drank, back in my day...

    Top Hat isn't around any more. You're right though, we used to drink the hell out of it in college. It was awful. About the only thing worse was Kroger had generic cost cutter beer that came in yellow cans which just said "Beer".

    I wish I'd of saved these.

    Anyways, there's lots of good news from Ohio in terms of beer as Christian Moerlein is back and they've brought back Hudy with a new Hudy Amber which is actually good.

    -David

    p.s. After last night's debate, it looks like the Republican establishment is again trying to push Romney.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Top Hat isn't around any more. You're right though, we used to drink the hell out of it in college. It was awful. About the only thing worse was Kroger had generic cost cutter beer that came in yellow cans which just said "Beer".

    The Darma Initiative :D

    Michale
    228

  57. [57] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    You want REALLY BAD BEER? Try Ancient Age 800. A buddy and me once drank a case of the stuff. At the end of this marathon excerise in mid-20's self destruction we turned to each other and said:

    "Damn, that was bad!"

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]