Wingnuts Argue Conservatism Being Failed: By The American People

As Mark Kleiman notes, Republicans are waking up to the fact the Romney is losing. So it's time to try and understand why. Collective answer? It's the American People's fault.

John Hinderaker thinks it all those welfare queens in their Cadillacs:

[T]his election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come.

Andy McCarthy argues that conservatism and Randism has been failed:

The people coming of age in our country today have been reared very differently from those who were just beginning to take the wheel in the early 1980s. They have marinated in an unapologetically progressive system that prizes group discipline and narrative over free will and critical thought.

Richard Fernandez argues the American People are "Smart Women" making "Foolish Choices:"

A radio talk show host characterized President Obama’s DNC convention address as the “boyfriend speech”. She compared his pleading with the screed those deadbeat suitors give they realize they are about to dumped and who promise to bring back the magic. [...] Any reasonable girl would show him the door. But as readers probably know and much to the surprise of John Hinderaker of Powerline, the “boyfriend” speech very often works. There’s a better than average chance in real life that the girl will not only forget about the IOUs, broken promises and BS — she’ll come busting out the gate after him. [...]

Unfortunately [...] this sort of charm — the kind that keeps ladies coming back to their boyfriends after they’ve been bamboozled, betrayed and generally given short shrift, is either something you are born with or not. President Obama, whatever his faults, has got lots of this charm. As Charles Krauthammer put it anyone who thinks everyone eventually sees through this smarminess should remember that the public’s idea of a caring person is still Bill Clinton. Well, there’s always 2016.

Mark Kleiman points and laughs:

From Denial to Anger: wingnuts v. the American people

I’m always happy to see people dealing with reality, even if they do so badly. So it’s good to see a faction of the right-wing commentariat pivot from pretending that Clint Eastwood gave a great speech and the Democrats had a bad convention – while explaining that the polling results showing otherwise are rigged – to trying to figure out why their guy is losing an election they thought was a tap-in, and still think should by rights be a tap-in. They’ve moved on from Denial to Anger. [...]

The basic problem is with the voters. Neither of them proposes the Brechtian solution of dissolving the electorate and choosing a new one, but it’s not clear why not.

The American People are not worthy of Ayn Rand, Republicans and conservatism appears to be the argument. For once, I agree with them. We do not deserve that.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | "60 Minutes": Death of Bin Laden >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Vote themselves money (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:14:10 AM EST
    Ha!  What are they supposed to vote themselves, penury and deprivation?  They usually do that anyway.  Just like all the less than rich Repubs who are constantly voting against their own economic self-interest.  Hinderaker and his buds are just pissed the poor can actually vote at all.  Where is he criticizing the "Randian" capitalists for voting themselves so much of that damned federal money?  Can't they just free market their own money into existence?  Oh wait, the constitution and all. Rats.

    Are you better off . . .? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:17:26 AM EST
    The 1% are better off, (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:57:11 AM EST
    having received 93% of the benefits of the last three years economic rebound, which seems to have devolved mostly to holders of equity.

    I'm just off n/t (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    Well, speaking for myself only, I know ... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:20:43 PM EST
    ... that I'd certainly be better off without the wingnuts.

    Hah! They blocked the Death Tax, didn't they! (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:52:30 AM EST
    Now when Granny dies after the health care system has extracted every remaining penny of her penury, you won't pay a dime in taxes on the first ten million dollars of her yard-sale sized estate.

    All (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:40:59 AM EST
    I care about is that no matter who wins, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and God is assured of at least another four years.

    Yeah, but whose God? (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    "I distrust those who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
    -- Susan B. Anthony, suffragette and humanitarian (1820-1906)

    Mine, or yours -- or worse still, theirs?


    The wacko winger Xtian god, of course (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:50:24 PM EST
    The one that only cares for Jerusalem and Israel after the Armageddon.

    Maureen (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    Dowd riffs on a memorable quote from Obama's speech on Thusday:

    So you see, the election four years ago wasn't about me," President Obama explained. "It was about you. My fellow citizens, you were the change.

    We were the change.

    Don't like it that the patriot act and the war in afghanistan and indefinite detention without charge or trial are still with us? Don't like Geithner or high unemployment or Gitmo? That's not the issue.
    The issue was change.

    And we were the change.
    We're the ones that we were waiting for and here we are.

    Yeah, the Chump Change. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 10:34:40 AM EST
    Macho man and the daddy party. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    I just ran across this quote from James Carville. Something he offered on CNN the night of the convention.

    ... what I'm struck by is the muscular tone and attitude in both the vice president and president tonight. This is not the mommy party on show here. This is the daddy party."

    Ours is the daddy party.
    Not the mommy party.

    But I want mommy.
    What do I do now?

    Hate that dichotomy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 01:07:31 PM EST
    Sometimes mommy is the tough one.

    Carville (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    just can't escape his sexism, can he?  I mean, I am assuming he is saying the Dems are now tough, right?  Oh, vomit.  I would prefer my kind of mommy, myself.

    Don't worry, be happy (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    Help is on its way.

    At the rate the labor force is shrinking (-581,000 in August) unemployment will be "0" before Obama leaves office in 2016.


    So what's the GOP--the crazy uncle (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 01:00:08 PM EST

    When I hear about a "daddy party"... (none / 0) (#21)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    ...I can't help but think that it's some sort of variation on Tom of Finland's fetish illustrations. I don't think they want to go there.

    That's (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    is the place where I think Carville is headed.

    I was going to ask you, ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    ... "Who's Tom of Finland?" But now, given your allusions to fetishism, I don't think I really want to go there, either.

    Tom of Finland? I plead the fifth. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 07:58:59 AM EST
    The PEOPLE can vote themselves money???? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    So he is decrying the people doing what corporations have been doing (with campaign contributions) for years???

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    these people all just need to have their own reality TV show, where they are each jobless from the outset, have two to four years college experience, no or overpriced private healthcare, and see how they like it.  We'll give them each one preexisting condition, have their age be valued at about 43, have them be at least a bit behind on house payments or credit cards.  We'll see who rises to stratospheric success without government help.  And we'll have to put them on an island with no phone access, just so that they can't call mommy and daddy to cash in some wealth for them and get them back on their feet.  We'll call it The Knucklehead.  Ratings will be great.

    That reminds me of the story ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    ... of what the late Betty Farrington, the Territory of Hawaii's Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, told the Honolulu media on Election Day in 1954, when it became obvious from the returns that the Democrats had swept the GOP from power in the islands, and she was out of a job:

    "The people of Hawaii have failed the Party of Lincoln, and are not worthy of us."

    Why would Americans be excited... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by redwolf on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    about George W Bush the 3ed when we've already got George W Bush the 2ed running the country? We're going to be jobless and living off food stamps with either candidate. The never ending war in Afghanistan will continue and wall street will keep on stealing everything they can under either president.  Both parties are totally corrupt.

    On a September Sunday of low humidity, (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    blue skies and cool breezes, I'm just going to have to sum up my reaction to the conservative crazy with two words: F-that.

    And then enjoy what's left of the day.

    Tomorrow, I'm sure the conservative little tyrant/senior partner whose office is around the corner from me will be stomping his feet and whining like your least favorite three year-old; it's always a toss-up whether to engage - and thus prolong the pain - or just let the tantrum burn out...lately, I just get up and close the door because I know nothing I say will change his mind.  Last week, he was ranting about Bill Clinton and the jobs numbers; one of the liberal partners told him (1) "you're just jealous," and (2) "I don't recall your ranting about the job losses under Bush."  That kind of shut him up, but I know he will have been re-fueled by this whole craptastic argument that it's the people's fault, the teat-sucking, lazy-ass people's fault, that his beloved wingnut ideas aren't taking hold.

    As I said, F-that.

    I'm gonna put the finishing touches on dinner, and go sit outside and enjoy the gorgeous evening!

    I know exactly what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    There is a 'forced fun' work happy hour this week that I am just dreading. I couldn't keep up with all the BS if I tried.

    In 2000 when Bush was appointed POTUS I tried to console myself with the idea that at least the idiots would be happy and shut the eff up for while, but of course that did not happen. He was such a disaster they were constantly in aggressive defense mode, in the fear that if they shut up and listened for a while they would have to realize how bad it was.  I'm sure it will be the same if Romney wins. There is just no stopping it.


    There is stopping (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    it mostly. The way to stop it is if we had a bunch of Bill Clintons going around explaining to everybody why their ideas are so bad. Eventually they would shut up.

    I'm trying...one facebook post at a time! (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:41:44 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    I've found that most people want affirmation not information on facebook so I've had more fun poking fun at conservatives than actually changing minds.

    So true (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    I post fact filled rebuttals when my sister posts some lame wingnuterry, but the responses are not encouraging.

    Please, ruffian (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    Don't confuse her with the facts.  She won't believe you, and if she thinks about it too much, her brain will explode.

    It always boils down to (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:48:53 AM EST
    'Well I just don't like Obama'

    Not much left when all the rational arguments are gone.


    Bear in mind that the 'rational ' arguments (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:51:17 AM EST
    are along the lines of the Kenyan socialist who did a government takeover of healthcare. You refute every bit of that and...well, I just don't like him anyway.

    And I throw in the liberal critiques (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 06:52:53 AM EST
    of him for good measure, to enhance his 'moderateness', since she and her friends always claim to be open minded moderates. HA!

    Oh, my (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 06:31:57 PM EST
    heavens Anne. I guess since all wingnuts exclusively get all their information from talk radio I guess they are all just like little moonies repeating all the talking points. You could find the nutters her in GA saying the EXACT same thing. It's almost like you can predict everything they are going to say.

    Well, I'd offer that there were a number ... (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:27:26 PM EST
    ... of voters in 2000 who were doing the same damned thing, i.e., thinking with their little heads," when they chose to focus inordinately on Bill Clinton's sex life in their political decision making, rather than upon the job he actually did as president.

    In my honest opinion, they were both immature and foolish. If the election of 2000 was close enough for Republicans to snatch it in the manner they did, it's because of stupid voters with mommy & daddy issues, who were too self-absorbed in their own quasi-religious sexual hang-ups to think rationally.

    And speaking for myself only, I'd say that from your comment, it sounds like you're still thinking with your "little head." I, for one, could not possibly care any less about other people's private lives -- and I'd really like to keep it that way, thank you.

    If you have a problem with other people's sex lives, that's strictly your problem. So, please get over yourself, and don't project your own personal hang-ups on everyone else -- or blame others for them, either.

    Is the election really about the economy? (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 10:13:25 PM EST
    Conventional wisdom says that it is, however if one considers the fact that many of the states where the election is being contested most fiercely are states with lower unemployment rates than most, the answer should be "No".
    Iowa 5.3%
    New Hampshire 5.4%
    Virginia 5.9%
    Missouri 7.2%
    Ohio 7.2%
    Wisconsin 7.3%

    It is quite possible that the economy is only a marginal issue while the dominant issue is one of "values". Republican values are different from Democratic values and polls are only a reflection of this fact. I would not expect Rhode Island to vote for Romney even if the unemployment rate is 10.8% and Nebraska to vote for Obama with an unemployment rate of 4%. Our values based political identification was less frozen in an earlier era.
    What do you think?

    Paul Ryan: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    That's just wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    A (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    big bowl of wrong.

    God I'm so tired of it (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    Kleiman almost makes sense discussing the stages of denial..something researched and science based, but then insists that the solution exists in something "Brechtian" which is fiction based.  The Fountainhead and Atlas are being betrayed along with the sort of musical The Caucasian Chalk Circle?

    These are the same guys always hating on the NEA, but without the support of the NEA they wouldn't have anything they call "facts".

    They have lost it, all of them, completely

    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LeaNder on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    Neither of them proposes the Brechtian solution of dissolving the electorate and choosing a new one, but it's not clear why not.

    I am not sure, Militarytacy, if I would consider a musical based on the Caucasian Chalk Circle especially Brechtian. who tells me they didn't retur to the biblical sources of the tale, much more than Brecht did. And who wrote the music?

    Do you have The rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny vaguely in mind. That would work, with a little help of Kurt Weill.

    Show us the way to the next whiskey bar
    Dont ask why


    oh Moon of Alabama, we now must say good-bye ...


    I would (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    prefer a Kafkaesque solution:

    Let both parties metamorphose into giant insects and fly away.


    Joe Walsh tells Sandra Fluke ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    ... to "get a job".

    Perfectly understandale, given that's ... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:31:28 PM EST
    ... what his ex-wife was telling him for over a decade when he was stiffing his own kids on child support payments.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#32)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    That was the first thought ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:32:54 PM EST
    ... that ran through my head.  It should be the first question he's asked the next time he's in front of a reporter.

    lol, my first thought reading joe walsh... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 06:34:56 PM EST
    ...was "why does a guitar player for the eagles care about sandra fluke? is he a winger?"

    FYI, THAT Joe Walsh has ... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    ... endorsed Tammy Duckworth's candidacy:

    "I'm the real Joe Walsh, and I'm proud to back a real American success story -- Tammy Duckworth. Tammy's story, her service to our nation and her continued commitment to working families (like the one I come from!) have convinced me that she's the right choice for Congress."

    He's also performed in a fundraising concert for her campaign.

    And for the record, Congressman Joe Walsh's given name is William Joseph Walsh.


    Perfect (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:45:23 PM EST
    Wonder when he started going by 'Joe'? Maybe he kept being confused with 49ers coach Bill Walsh? That could be bad in Chicago.

    Me, too (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 06:36:24 PM EST
    Except that I went with the James Gang.

    Hee hee - don't need the ladies crying cuz (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:43:36 PM EST
    the story's sad....

    I don't (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    even know where to begin with this stuff conservatives are spouting. I guess I'll just have to defer to Mike Lofgren on all this.

    So (none / 0) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 04:22:34 PM EST
    "the People" failed conservatism.

    Sounds very much like a late German dictator who said the people had failed him.

    As (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 11:35:52 PM EST
     they were foraging through the rubble that was once their homes for crushed rats for supper.

    Had they listened to "The Leader," defeating the Russians in the East, and the Allies in the West......simultaneously, would've been a breeze.


    Obama (none / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:14:24 PM EST
    had four public campaign events in Florida this Saturday and Sunday, and Bill Clinton is coming to Miami Tuesday and to Orlando Wednesday.

    There's been lots of local news coverage of the events.

    So far no Romney or Ryan sightings in the state. I look forward to the next couple state polls. Rumor has it Ryan is holed up in Oregon practicing for his debate. Are they already trying to hide him away?

    Ryan has a fundraiser in Portland (none / 0) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:17:10 PM EST
    tomorrow. He arrived yesterday, and yes, we have been told he is preparing for his debate next month.

    Fundraisers (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:40:06 PM EST
    don't win votes. I do find it humorous that they sent him to Oregon. I believe he's had one public event in the last six days and that was in Nevada.

    I am (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:58:40 PM EST
    beginning to think that R/R have decided that they're going to put their all into the debates because there's nothing they can do right now to move the numbers.

    preparing for debate? (none / 0) (#60)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 10:46:57 PM EST
    I doubt it.  I think they are raising as much money as possible 1. to flood the airwaves with their lying commercials, because people will believe them if they are repeated enough,and 2. then to make sure they have the people available to protest id's to keep people from voting and 3. then to mess with the electronic voting machines.  Lots of money is probably going into those computer programs.  Okay, that is my conspiracy theory post for the week.  

    Newest Ohio poll (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    PPP (which has a slight Dem bias according to Nate Silver) has Obama up by 5.

    Here is the funniest question of the poll:

    Who is more responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden, Romney or Obama?
    38% of Ohio Republicans say Obama
    15% of Ohio Republicans say Romney
    the rest were unsure

    omg (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:12:29 PM EST
    Nothing else to say about that.

    That's not funny... (none / 0) (#62)
    by unitron on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:58:23 AM EST
    ...that's frightening.

    And to think that people who don't instantly know the answer to that and instantly see that it's almost a trick question will nevertheless be allowed to vote.

    Maybe it's time to bring back literacy tests.

    Or sanity tests.


    why should the election be a "cakewalk" (none / 0) (#64)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 02:42:51 AM EST
    for the republican party? who ever gave them that foolish notion? no guys, your party sucks, its agenda sucks, it's history in power sucks and, basically, you suck.

    conservatives are, generally, ugly people, with ugly spirits, pressing an ugly plan for the american people. this explains why you're losing, badly. sure, there's a certain (small) percentage of the voting populace that gets into the whole "ugly conservative" thing, but the key word is "small". as in tiny, perhaps 10%. these people hate themselves and their pitiful lives so much, they have a desperate need to make everyone else hate themselves and their pitiful lives just as much as they do their's. the other 90% actually kind of like themselves, and their lives, so it's a really hard sell. hence, the attempts to stem the tide of rising voters, most of whom reject outright the "conservative philosophy", and will most likely vote democratic, unless the republicans can just keep them from voting at all.

    and that, my friends, is why romney-ryan, et al is losing so badly, people just don't like them, and for good reason, they aren't very likeable.

    It might be different... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:04:12 AM EST
    ... if they actually wanted to conserve anything, like the U.S. Constitution.  But noooo...

    If you think the Republican Party (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    really thought that unseating the incumbent would be a "cake walk," well, I think you ought to think again...

    Site violator (nt) (none / 0) (#70)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 10:02:59 AM EST