[mccookgazette.com] A Few Clouds ~ 88°F  
High: 89°F ~ Low: 57°F
Thursday, July 31, 2014

Observations on the Iowa Caucus

Posted Wednesday, January 4, 2012, at 1:37 PM

Mitt Romney not surprisingly won the Iowa Caucus last night. What was surprising by most involved was the late surge by Rick Santorum. For most of the lead up to the first election of 2012 he had stayed in the single digits in national as well as state polls. However, when one looks closer the surge by Santorum is not all that surprising. The conservative base of the Republican Party is still looking for the "not-Romney" candidate. Santorum will not, however, be that candidate. Next week is the New Hampshire primary and Romney is expected to take that by a large margin. The next primary after that is South Carolina. Despite his poor showing in Iowa, South Carolina is still in play for Newt Gingrich. So the prospects for Santorum are still weak.

The surprise out of the election last night for me was Ron Paul's relative poor performance. Yes he came in third and only lost by a few percentage points, it should be noted, however (as it has been on this site several times) that caucuses are tailor made for Paul. So for him to come in third is a disappoint (or should be) for him and his supporters.

The biggest losers in the results last night were without a doubt Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Both candidates had strong openings to start out the campaign and then both flamed out. Bachmann won the Aimes Iowa Straw Poll, but as I noted here at the time, the Straw Poll is not a very good predicter. Due to her abysmal performance last night she decided today to drop out of the race. The other candidate that seems to be on life support for the race is Rick Perry. He finished ahead of Bachmann but his flame-out has been so amazing it leaves most political analysts simply scratching their heads. He has vowed to stay in the race through South Carolina. If he doesn't win there or at the very least come in a very close second his campaign is done.

That leaves Huntsman, the only moderate in the race. He couldn't even garner 1,000 votes and yet he is staying in. Interestingly enough he is the only candidate (other than Romney who has stayed steady throughout) that has yet to have a surge. If the TEA Party wing of the Republican Party stays home due to a lack of candidates to their liking, Huntsman stands a chance. If not his campaign is dead in the water.

Despite the closeness of the caucus last night I still believe as I have from the beginning that Romney is the front runner and will go on to win the nomination.

If his speech last night is any indication of the general race will be, the Obama camp has got to be absolutely giddy at those prospects. From his lies about what Obama has accomplished compared to what he promised is nothing but fodder. The best line from Romney was his talk about repealing Obamacare, which if you have not been paying attention, is nothing more than a federal version of Romneycare.

Handicapping the general election right now I still have to stay that Obama's chances to win re-election are extremely good. The Republican Party just does not have a candidate that they can get behind.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Iowa is a liberal to libertarian state. I would have expected it to come down to Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, maybe even Jon Huntsman. When Rick Santorum, whom I support, did as well as he did, it was a great surprise. A very pleasant surprise.

As for who has the heart and soul of conservatism, it isn't Newt Gingrich. Michelle Bachmann was close, but her tendency to get in the last words was costly to her. Rick Perry could be, but now I have to say it is with Rick Santorum.

I can guarantee you the TEA Party will not sit at home.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 5:39 PM

What the close vote tells me, is that the republican party doesn't have a STRONG candidate. This leads me to believe that whoever wins will have a steep uphill battle against Obama. I see this election going much like 2004 only a flip flop of parties.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 10:35 PM

President Barack Obama has very very little Republican support. At best, he may have only 50% of the Democrat vote. What we have here is a very clear black line separating the ideology between Obama and the Republican party. There should be no blurring in this election.

With Rick Santorum, there will be no moderation in his stances, conservatives will like this. Mitt Romney might moderate a little, which may or may not attract moderate voters, which there are few judging by the poor performance of the moderate candidate Jon Huntsman.

Now that American have seen and experienced liberal policies at work, this should be a great year for the Conservatives. Real Conservatives, that is.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 5:44 AM

Obama isn't worried about the the republican vote. Just like the republicans aren't worried about the democrat vote. Its the independent vote that decides elections. This is where not having a strong canidate hurts the republicans. I think for republicans to have a decent chance is with Romney because of his lack of pure conservatism. This causes him to be alittle more towards the center which is what attracts the independents. This is what also won Obama the election in 08.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 10:28 AM

Chunky

Take a closer look in that crystal ball of yours and let us know what it has to say about Scott Walker being recalled.

My take on the Iowa results indicate a party that is not satisfied with any of the current candidates. If Santorum survives the vetting process and the attack ads by the other candidates, he may temporarily continue his rise in popularity.

His stance on banning the use of contraceptives may be the highest hurdle for him to overcome - a very large percentage of the women of reproductive age in this country (98%) have used or are currently using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy or to control monthly cycle issues. How does this fit in with what you would consider to be Real Conservative values?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-...

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 10:53 AM

Interesting article Geezer. I figured the numbers were high, but not quite that high.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 1:21 PM

Geezer,

If you went back carefully reread you article from the Guttmacher Institute, you would find that the 98% number you erroneously quoted above, actually read 98% of sexually active women of reproductive age. Not the 98% of women of reproductive age as you quoted.

As an evangelical Christian, it is always preferable to have our young men and women wait until marriage to begin sexual activity, some will fail. We as evangelical parents spend a lot of time explaining to our sons and daughters why sex outside the marriage can be damaging to the the healthy concepts of love and marriage. Not to mention, their own sexual health. Again, some fail. Conservatism tell us to take care of ourselves, in this case, not being pregnant outside of marriage. While sexual abstinence if preferred for non-married people, not all believe in this, so we have contraception. It fits in the conservative viewpoint.

It is my take Rick Santorum's opposition to birth control lies with his Catholic faith. As far as banning birth control, it appears his viewpoint is that of a state's rights issue, not a national ban. I agree with him.

As for Scott Walker, I believe the recall effort will die, but let the people of Wisconsin vote.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 3:25 PM

This conversation is exactly my point about mixing religion with politics. It sould be the persons choice. Not outlawed because a religious group disagrees with it.

You make it sound like because it is made easily availble and legal that it makes it tempting for people to use it rather then practice abstinence. Either people are going to abstain from sex or they will not. Making responsible/safe sex easier for people to practice isn't a bad thing. In fact it is a responsible thing to do.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 3:37 PM

calsonl,

I must say I do not understand your above rant at all. Please try to stay coherent. There are no cross references at all to any of our discussion that even remotely makes sense.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 3:44 PM

1st

"It is my take Rick Santorum's opposition to birth control lies with his Catholic faith. As far as banning birth control, it appears his viewpoint is that of a state's rights issue, not a national ban. I agree with him."

This conversation is exactly my point about mixing religion with politics. It sould be the persons choice. Not outlawed because a religious group disagrees with it.

Should have added it being on the state or national level.

2nd

You make it sound like because it is made easily availble and legal that it makes it tempting for people to use it rather then practice abstinence. Either people are going to abstain from sex or they will not. Making responsible/safe sex easier for people to practice isn't a bad thing. In fact it is a responsible thing to do

Starting this with YOU isn't what I meant. It sould have been properly worded as "those against contreceptives"

Sorry about the confusion. I sould try to avoid conversation off internet while trying to make a post on the internet.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 4:11 PM

Chunky

I guess I must be misinterpreting the quote from page 7 of the article which states:

There are approximately 62 million women of reproductive age in the United States, and virtually all of them will use a contraceptive method other than natural family planning at some point in their lives. Even among married Catholic women, only 3% practice natural family planning, while a majority uses contraceptives that the Church hierarchy routinely denounces.

I don't see it as a Federal Issue, a State Issue, or a Religious Issue -- I see it as an individual choice issue. I understand your view as a Christian; I just don't understand how that view can be projected onto others not sharing your religious beliefs.

Thanks for the discussion.

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 4:44 PM

Chunky I would LOVE to know where you are coming up with your mythical 50% support for Obama among Democrats. I can't find it in a single place. Please enlighten us.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 5:10 PM

By the end of January (and perhaps sooner with the South Carolina primary) Santorum will be just another candidate that rose quickly and fell just as quickly.

Unless someone new comes into the field, this race is Romney's to lose.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 5:12 PM

To be more concise the biggest group that Obama is going to struggle with for votes this November will be from progressives/liberals. I know, I know it has been so fervently ground into the dirt on this website that Obama is a flaming liberal (which he is now) so he should get this group with ease.

The actual facts here is that progressives/liberals are not happy with Obama. If he can't get them to the polls in November he may struggle to win.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 5:30 PM

wow granmajo back after a long break with the gloves off. This could be an interesting year on this site. Hope you had a great holiday season.

Also I really didn't see a liberal bias towards his breakdown of the caucus. Maybe I missed something.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 5:41 PM

Geezer,

My religious beliefs on contraception? Didn't you read it up above? I said sexual abstinence is the best method, not only for birth control, but also for preservation of ones self worth. If that can't be done, then use contraception. My kids know it and understand it. Why can't you?

Michael,

I use the magical 50% benchmark as a tool to measure political viability. President Barack Obama is the lone Democrat candidate. He needs a solid 50% Democrat base to even be taken seriously. His base consists of the 25% moderate-liberal Democrat, and the 25% moderate conservative Democrat. The 25% far-left Democrats will probably vote Green Party, and the 25% conservative Democrat will more than likely vote Republican. If that were the case, team Obama wouldn't be running scared.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 7:02 PM

Good to have you back Michael, to much right wing bullsh-t is a little to much to handle, as is left wing bias, but I'm sure you mean well.

I was listening to the Armstrong and Getty radio show here in the bay area, and even though they are right wing most of the time, they are funny to say the least and most of the time , can see and report both sides of the story, which is crucial. I know you are a history teacher and can confirm this, John Adams once said a man that does not read the news paper is uninformed, and a man that reads the news paper is misinformed. I for one do not read the newspaper, judge me if you chose. With this said, before the new year at 10:00 AM was a financial show, afterwords the new format was Rush Limbaugh at 9:00AM who took credit for the late surge by Rick Santorum. Is this in your opinion or your readers of your blog bogus or what?

I'm hoping I stayed on topic and can be understood, Jack Daniel's is in control at this moment.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 8:14 PM

Chunky

You better get some sleep - your comments are a little on the cranky side tonight.

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 9:20 PM

Grandmajo everything went great. Kids had a great time. Santa treated them well.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 9:56 PM

QUOTE "The Republican Party just does not have a candidate that they can get behind." UNQUOTE

Yet. Maybe you've missed it, Mike, but the POINT to Primaries is to decide which candidate we want to get behind. K? lol

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 8:06 AM

Oh, and by the way, thanks for defining "DONE" for us. To a conservative, that means we aren't going to do it again, ever. To a lib, I guess that means until temptation strikes again. ROFL

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 8:07 AM

Keda, Rush takes credit for anything anytime he feels that he is losing some of the spotlight. Of course his claim is a bogus one.

Unlike the other "not-Romneys" Santorum just happened to surge at the right time. If he finishes in the back of the pack in New Hampshire and South Carolina his surge will be the shortest lived of the rest.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 8:25 AM

In other words CPB you made up the percentage points and backed up the 50% with more made up percentage points, where you basically claim that Obama will not get a single vote from the far left or conservative side. It's a bold claim but I guess when you make up the numbers you can make any claim you want.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 8:28 AM

grandmajo as much as your protest about what I write about there is a simple solution. Stop reading my blogs it will help keep your blood pressure down a bit.

But what they hey keep on with the attacks. I enjoy watching you spew on my liberal bias when all I was doing was giving a non-conservative reaction to the Iowa caucus.

Do you have anything to add to the debate or are you just going to counter everything I say with "liberal bias!" Either way welcome.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 8:31 AM

Mike,

Chunk's numbers are clearly make-believe. That the Dems are split evenly into equal quarters amongst subgroups is the height of silliness.

Even more hysterical are his labels for the Democratic party subgroups. Moderate-liberal? Moderate-conservative? Are you just making this stuff up?

Also, 25% of liberal democrats voting Green would be wildly unprecedented. The most Nader could muster is around 5-10% of the lib-Dems. According to exit polls taken in during the 2008 election, liberal Democrats constituted 22% of the US voter turnout and of that 22%, 89% of liberals favored the candidate of the Democratic Party.

That leaves 11% that may have voted Green...or independent, write-in, or another fringe party for that matter.

Where Chunk is pulling these numbers from, I think we can all guess.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 9:10 AM

I see Mike's blog as a counter to Sam's. Don't you think balance is nice to have. I personally do.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 11:27 AM

Mike, the results in Iowa tell me something different than you write.

Santorum got 25%, Paul got 21% and I cannot remember where Perry and Bachman finished. BUT combined they got 75% of the vote. They are all conservatives. The conservative vote was split up between them.

Mitt Romney is the liberal Republican in the race. Because of this the media is loving him. He's not much to the right of President Obama. If he gets the nomination, then voters get to choose between Marxist Obama and Liberal Romney.

This is what we Republicans had in 2008. McCain was a big-government, left-center candidate. Our choices were a left leaner and a Marxist.

Give us a conservative candidate, please. It's clearly what we want.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 9:58 PM

Obama is not even in the vicinity of Marxism. That is foolish.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 2:31 AM

Boomer

I don't agree with your Marxism comparison, but I did read an article on options some Conservatives are evaluating. It is along your line of thinking so I thought you would be interested.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 5:43 AM

Boomer

Here is an article that gives the results of three South Carolina polls. Two of them show Santorum popularity increasing at a greater rate than Romney, although Romney still remains in the overall lead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 6:06 AM

I think this is where I would kindly tell the church leaders to back down and do what they should be best doing, teaching. The primaries is the democratic part of our elections system. Once the nominee is selected, the representative republic part takes over.

South Carolina is still 2 weeks away and as recent history has shown, a lot of wild things can happen.

Vote Rick Santorum!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 7:12 AM

Boomer I would almost agree with your assessment except for some errors in your judgement. Paul is not a conservative so his 21% cannot be put into the conservative numbers camp. Neither is Newt Gingrich. If you are truly talking about the conservatives in the race you can only talk about Santorum, Perry (when he isn't busy taking government money), and Bachmann and the only accounts for 38%.

In the end the numbers still support my theory of the "not-Romney" vote. 75% of the voters voted for someone other than Romney.

The fact that you still insist on calling Obama a Marxist continues to show that you no little of what Marxism even is. Just to clear you probably have Marxism and Communism mixed up again. In either case Obama doesn't fit into either mold.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 5:35 PM

Who has more unwise comebacks, Brett Favre or Michael Hendricks. Mike, you can provide some enjoyable posts that elicit interesting comments but please don't whine about mistreatment in the future. You have no excuses because you know what you are getting into.

-- Posted by BuffRoam on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 10:41 PM

Yes, vote Santorum...that way Obama won't have to spend even a third of his campaign fund to take 2012 in a landslide.

Romney stands an outside shot. Santorum would need be something like the son of god himself to beat Obama.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 1:58 AM

In that can Benevolus better get tebow on the campaign.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 11:26 AM

HA! Maybe Tebow can get on as Santorum's campaign manager. He will have plenty of time after starting his last NFL game today.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 2:36 PM

I find at least half of this whole thread to remind me of a bunch of vegans arguing which cut of beef is better to eat.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 5:44 PM

Thought maybe some of you readers would enjoy looking at some photo's of the recent snow storm to hit Southeast Alaska on Jan. 6. Some areas have now received over 20 feet of snow. Some of The roofs are collapsing and road crews are running out of room to push the snow.

http://www.adn.com/2012/01/06/2249732/ja...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTaZFTG8...!

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 6:45 PM

Well how about that, the Broncos win again.

-- Posted by Fundin on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 7:13 PM

Tim Tebow put up a very poor defensive showing, leading to Denver's embarrassing loss. Good thing this is his last game. Benevolus, you sir are a master of the game.!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 7:42 PM

I have been right more often about Tebow and the Broncos than I have been wrong, but I do stand corrected. This was Tebow's second to last game...after next week he can help Santorum with his doomed presidential bid.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 8:36 AM

Here is a link for you Tebow fans.

http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/01...

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 11:02 AM

Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Sounds exactly like the class-warfare speeches given daily by Barrack Obama.

Yet, Michael thinks Obama is not a Marxist.

Living proof that a Masters degree in History trumps common sense, eh?

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 11:25 AM

Michael, seriously, you say Ron Paul is not a conservative? I know he is a professed libertarian, but then so am I. I am also a conservative, as is Dr. Paul.

Conservative and libertarian are not mutually exclusive clubs.

Last time I checked Newt Gingrich was supposed to be a conservative, although that is variable in my opinion. Did he not put together the Contract with America, that was a conservative manifesto?

Mitt Romney is the only left-center Republican candidate running for president. It's no surprise he's the darling of the mainstream media. In one of the debates he got 10 minutes of the air time while Ron Paul (the most conservative candidate) got 89 seconds. It's obvious who they are pushing and why.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 3:19 PM

Reagan redistributed lots of wealth, Boomer. He proudly supported the EITC and called it the greatest welfare assistance in history. Effectively it was this legislation that led to 475 Americans receiving money from the feds during tax time.

Now, clearly this is a practice that seems to be supported by Marxist logic, so by your reasoning, we can call Reagan a Marxist.

This is of course foolish. And thinking Obama is Marxist is every bit as dumb.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 4:01 PM

*47%

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 4:02 PM

Ben - What then is Obama?

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 7:06 PM

Wallis,

Not to take away from Benevolus' brilliant upcoming answer. Obama is a community agitator, nothing more, and nothing less.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 7:51 PM

Yes it really sucks that we live in a world where our president has to spend so much on a trip because of all the secerity he needs. Plus having to haul all the equipment and other things needed to still perform his job while on vacation. Darn the guy for celebrating holidays like everyone else does.

I guess he should have taken that 4mil and bailed out a banker.

All I could find is estimates between 40-100mil because it isn't disclosed. so roughly 110k-275k per day on normal days. Not to mention the cost rises when you have a president with live in children because of the extra movement.

Although it is a high cost, it is just a fact that our leaders, especially the president, are a high cost position for the tax payer.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM

Well Obama is certainly more than a community agitator, he is president, so we have to throw out Chunky's ridiculous quip.

And your question Wallis requires a bit of conjecture. I assume that when you ask "what is Obama" you are asking me where I think he aligns politically. If this isn't the intent of your question then please forgive my misunderstanding.

I would argue that Obama is a fairly difficult president to pigeonhole actually. Labels can highly efficient and tempting as a result of their easiness, but I think for every liberal policy signed into law by Obama you can point to, I can point to laws that have been centrist or even right of center. In fact, there are interesting comparisons out there between Bush, Obama, and even Reagan. I would hardly call Obama conservative, but for a great many Democrats, he is more conservative than they hoped for.

If Marxism is a doctrine to the left of liberal-Democrats (which I would argue it is), and most liberal-Democrats are appalled at how far to the right Obama is, defending that Obama is a Marxist seems silly.

I'd say he is more of a centrist Democrat. Check the link below for a brief description of what that is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 4:17 PM

No, community agitator most accurately describes Obama. It is the only thing he can, with any honesty, put on his resume. All he has accomplished in his term is pitting one group of Americans against another. Look at the news journals for proof. That and that alone, will be his finger print on the history of America.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 6:46 PM

hmmmmmmm

1. Made the call the got Osama.

2. Healthcare reform (even if not popular with the right)

3. Multiple high ranking terrorists taken out.

4. Death of don't ask don't tell.

5. Role is ousting Gadafi.

6. Could be argued that his policies saved us from a depression Bush had us headed for.

7. Bailouts (auto, home, wall street, etc.)

8. Nobel Prize

9. Try after try at compromise with no support from the right.

Those are just a few of the things that pop up in mind right off the bat. There are many more. The only thing he agitates is the far right and any Dem president would do that.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 9:53 PM

Weeell Chunky, he is at least one better than you then. Blog agitator is subordinate to community agitator.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 11:36 PM

"Chunky, don't forget, he is also a devoted vacationer! I see that the bill for his latest family adventure in Hawaii is $4,000,000.00! One hell of a vacation while the unemployment rate is still too damn high!!!"

The $3.6M tab is horrendous. All the security and limos etc they need just to go to hawaii is really rediculous.

However, At the end of Bushs term unemployment was ~7.5%. It's currently around what, 8.5%?

Its not good, but it could have certainly been a lot worse with the downhill slide G.W. left us with.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:49 AM

If you think 3.6 million is offensive bberry, get a load of this...

"So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/1...

"During Bush's two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush's ranch flights."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 11:27 AM

Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.

Will Rogers

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 5:35 PM

bberry,

Oh yeah, I forgot. And let's not forget the big elaborate parties Michelle likes to throw.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 9:00 PM

Haha, I love your ignorance of the past Republican presidents Chunk. It's kind of adorable actually.

You seem to be willing to accept that Republican presidents and their wives have spent similar amounts (and more even!) on vacations, protecton, shin-digs, etc., but whine incessantly about Democratic presidents doing the same.

Funny stuff.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 11:09 AM

Ben,

While both are high, if 77 flights cost $20M, I think it still has an edge over 1 vacation for $3.6M.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 12:47 PM

Benevolus,

Let me get you caught up on current events. President Barack Hussein Obama won the Presidential election of 2008, and took office in January of 2009. He promised "Hope and Change", as well a THE most transparent administration in history. Has any of this happened yet?

Why is it the leftists/liberals live in the pre-2009 era. Is there nothing to discuss about what's happening today? Or how the events of today affect our future? That's why the election of 2012 is so important.

I am far from willing to accept Republicans extravagance. My voting record proves it.

Yep, funny stuff indeed.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 2:50 PM

"That's why the election of 2012 is so important."

Appears to me that Romney is going to get the nomination. Plan on Obama for another 4 years.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM

those who forget the past are condemed to repeat it chunky.

Obamas vacation was weeks ago, you need to get caught up on current events.

wow, what a great out, thanks chunky

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 6:00 PM

Boomer apparently you weave and bob out of conservative classifications of conservatives as well as you do with liberals, which isn't all that well.

Ron Paul's stated record in his beliefs on the American military and it's role in the rest of the world (which is actually not having a role) excludes him from the rank of the "most conservative" in this field.

The only real chance that Paul has in this election is to run as a third party candidate and hope that enough liberals are blinded by his rhetoric concerning wars that they vote for him.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 6:14 PM

Wallis it's really simple. Obama is a moderate Democrat. It is really silly though that you would ask that question, because you won't accept the answer. You have deluded yourself so much with untruths, lies, and distortions regarding Obama's actual record that you can't mentally accept him as anything other than Marxist/liberal/Socialist/Communist.

It is rather odd to be lectured by another poster on here about how liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive, yet people (including yourself) continually consider Obama all of those distinctions above which are actually separate.

So my question to you Wallis, is: Why ask a question that you know you won't accept a real answer to (unless that answer is one you believe)?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 6:17 PM

"The only real chance that Paul has in this election is to run as a third party candidate and hope that enough liberals are blinded by his rhetoric concerning wars that they vote for him."

You realise Ron Paul is a liberterian right?

I think he'd probably have a better shot at getting Tea Party support than Romney does.

As far as Romney,you should read his views on moving military funding to 4 or 5% GDP and then try to strong arm other countries with it.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 7:33 PM

Chunky,

You seem kinda bunged up talking about the past...history is sorta sucky when it works against your current complaints. But rest easy, Chunky, because given the numbers above Obama is taking fewer vacations and using AF1 less than previous presidents. So, these kinds of expenditures are moving in the right direction (i.e., decreasing).

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 14, 2012, at 8:28 AM

Mike - I believe that over the last 2 years Obama has behaved like a moderate Democrat.

I expect that in this next election the Republicans will gain control of the House and Senate and Obama will remain President.

This isn't a bad outcome. I also think the Market is reflective of this as I am changing my opinion and have raised my price target for the S&P 500 to the 1400-1500 area and in a month or so we may actually begin a bull campaign.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 14, 2012, at 8:57 AM

Wallis,

I agree with you. Although to be honest I would be intrigued by a Ron Paul nomination by the GOP. I suspect Romney has it nearly locked up at this point though, and I don't see a great deal of a difference between Romney and Obama in terms of policy.

Regarding the market, I have a question for you....I have been watching the potash industry for sometime (POT and MOS in particular). Do you know much about the potash? Stocks are cheap right now and all the forecasts I have been reading indicate a precipitous spike in the next 6-12 months. Thoughts?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 14, 2012, at 9:19 AM

POT and MOS have a lot of potential. Both stocks are still in downtrends. I think that those particular stocks (MOS more) were severely damaged over the last 4 years and once traction is had a nice run up could occur. Please recall that MOS was once a $160 stock and now it is $50ish.

POT could drop to $32 in this cycle. I would be a buyer at $32 for POT. MOS actually gave my system 2 out of 3 buy signals last week. I mention that because I need 3 out of 3 before I could recommend to someone else to buy something but if I loved an industry I would be a buyer. I have not focused on this group in a while. I was long MOS 5-7 years ago.

As an aside lately I only buy stocks in the oil and gas industry and triple levered S&P ETF's and 3x Silver priced ETF's. BUT since I have looked over MOS this morning I am going to follow it. Thanks for the question.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 14, 2012, at 11:14 AM

Michael, it is my belief that Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are what makes him the "most conservative" Republican in the race.

He is a noninterventionist. (as opposed to the isolationist mark place on him by the lame stream media--he wants to trade with other nations, but not attack them militarily) He says we should bring our troops home and downsize our military. I agree. Our military spending is 40% of the military spending of the WORLD. Nobody even comes close to what we spend as a nation. I was in the Army 40+ years ago, and I saw first hand the immense waste involved. I also saw that we were accomplishing less than nothing. Many of the nations we have troops stationed in, would like to see us leave. (remember the Phillipines worked for years to get us out of there, and France kicking us out.) We have to bribe nations with foreign aid to let us have these foreign military bases. We are not really wanted there or necessary.

Take a look at Switzerland. They have avoided war for centuries by avoiding entangling alliances--like the ones that have dragged us into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. Every military-aged man in Switzerland is trained as part of the militia and keeps a full-auto M16 at his home. This is the sort of military defense envisioned by our nation's founders--a second amendment militia. Nobody is going to attack us here; we're all armed (even you are I'll bet).

We are supposed to have a declaration of war by Congress BEFORE going to war. But our recent presidents have taken our troops to war all over the globe without authority. Kosovo, Angola, Bosnia, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, Grenada, Panama, Argentina (Falklands), Somalia, Liberia, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Nigeria, Uganda, Pakistan, and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...

I realize sometimes it was just "military advisors" like President Kennedy sent to Viet Nam in the beginning, lol. Some of them were even UN sponsored events--more entangling alliances. The UN is like the global NCAA of War--their first tournament was the Korean War, remember?

Now the powers that be are ginning up support for attacking Iran because they allegedly have "weapons of mass destruction" (remember Iraq?). Which is the only nation on the planet to have used nuclear weapon? As a history major you surely know this one. Doesn't North Korea have nukes (which we helped them build) as well? Is that our next destination after Iran, to be followed by Pakistan?

It's a self-perpetuating circle. The military spends and trains, we find excuses to send them all over the place, they scare us into supporting military interventions, they request more funds due to the need, we send them more places, the defense contractors get rich, and the poor taxpayer has no say in it. He just gets the bills and the body bags.

Conservatism, as in less government, more freedom and less tax. As opposed to liberalism with more government, less freedom, and more tax. The military-industrial complex has taken over both parties. You should not be amazed that Obama's policies have been the same as Bush's! Most of our policians are bought and paid for.

You are too young to recall the saying from the antiwar movement of the 1960s. "What if they gave a war, and we didn't go?"

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Jan 16, 2012, at 11:32 AM

Michael, this will be my last post here. It's not a very productive use of my time.

I am willing to place a wager with you. I bet the US will attack Iran before the 2012 election. It will make Obama look tough, satisfy the military-industrial complex, and gain him enough so-called conservative votes to put him over the top.

Most likely it will happen in October, an October surprise.

Have a great life, guy.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Jan 16, 2012, at 11:45 AM

Really, attack Iran? I really don't see this happening while Obama is in office let alone to go for the tough guy look.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Jan 16, 2012, at 4:13 PM

And if we were to declare war on Iran, I suspect that one major difference would be that unlike the war in Iraq, we would not be acting unilaterally. Nearly every major world power is involved in economic/political sanctions against Iran for the actions of her leader in the pursuit of nuclear power. Moreover, I could see the recent lessons of US involvement in Libya coming to bear were we to involve ourselves militarily in Iran. That is to say, we were wise to take a diminished leadership role in Libya, and any effort to keep nuclear power out of the hands of the Iranians would be well-served by an equal distribution of the military burden across the world's most powerful nations. I doubt that lesson is lost on Obama.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 16, 2012, at 5:07 PM

Ah, Benevolus. Your history of the Iraq War is severely deficient.

There were 36 nations involved the conflict, and it was part of a United Nations Security Council mandate.

It was not a unilateral action by the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Natio...

The coming conflict with Iran will probably be handled the same way.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 6:54 PM

"Michael, this will be my last post here. It's not a very productive use of my time."

Apparently it isn't just Mike who can't get enough.

Look at the countries involved in the first Gulf War, Boom, then check your link. Countries like Romania offering 250 troops, then pulling them out of a year, while technically multilateral, does not prove your point. Rather it enforces mine.

The US acted against the will of the international community in general. In particular, France, Germany, Russia, China, Spain after (2004), Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Switerland, and the list goes on.

By comparison to the first Gulf War, I stand by the unilateral accusation.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 8:58 PM

Yeah, shame on you Boomer for responding to a post that seems to challenge something you posted earlier. FOR SHAME! Quit standing up for your opinions.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 10:35 PM

Sir D. he did say it wasn't a very productive use of his time. So in a way coming on here again means he was being unproductive. OH NO BOOMER IS BECOMING A LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 10:53 PM

Poor ole Didymus, I guess you can't handle the inherent humor of a conservative poster saying they are done, only to come back and post just over a day later.

Given the crap Michael takes I would think that kind of thing is the height of hilarity around here.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 1:30 AM

Looks like Rick Santorum did win after all!

Vote Rick Santorum!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 5:40 PM

Obama would cut through Santorum like a buzzsaw. Listen to Chunk. A vote for Santorum is as good as a vote for Obama. Vote Romney if you want Obama out.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 7:59 PM

I guess hypocrisy abounds on these boards.

On an unrelated note, why is it that apparent Obama supporters want Republicans to vote for Romney so much?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 9:35 PM

Benevolus,

I guess you are right, I don't see the humor in it. I am curious as to why you would challenge his post then mock him for answering. Are you so insecure that you need to have the last word? From what I can see, Boomer did not give "crap" to Michael for blogging after claiming he was done. Mebbe I am wrong. It seems as your penchant for labeling is showing. Evidentally it is a universal vice not limited to the right or left. Even you hardcore "moderate centrists" can suffer from it.

P.S. Boomer, yeah you shouldnt have done it. Mean spirited D-bags will attempt to mock you for defending your opinion.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 10:37 PM

SWNebr Transplant,

I cannot speak for Obama supporters. But as someone who voted for Obama in 2008 and is now contemplating a vote for another candidate for 2012 (and someone who would like their vote to count), a Romney nomination makes my decision more complicated. A Ron Paul nomination would make that decision even more interesting.

A Santorum nomination simplifies everything as I would head straight to Obama. That's where I am coming from with my response Chunky.

Sir Didymus,

Hmm....how to reply to a whining child...a scolding? Love and understanding? Hmm...let me begin here: we do agree on one thing, you are humorless.

Mean-spirited D-bag, eh? Apparently you were not bitten by the decorum bug. And given the content of your previous commentary, I do have to wonder if the literacy bug avoided you as well. My post was a general extension of bberry's comment and the topic of the Iraq conflict/potential for a war with Iran. If I am addressing a specific poster, I will almost always use their name. Look at this blog and others for confirmation.

That Boomer came back less than 27 hours after saying the blog was a waste of his time, read my post, replied insultingly and predictably (as is his wont), says more about Boomer than it does about me. But your dumb defense of him does make smile.

I also noticed that your response is enormously biased, such that you come of as more than a little hypocritical. Why do you come to the defense of Boomer, but not Michael? They both had made comments of substance after they claimed to be done posting, and they were both subjected to taunts thereafter. Missing is your whining about "mean-spirited dbags" such as grandmajo, SWNebr, et al., who criticized Michael for not sticking to his guns.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 2:36 AM

Benevolus,

LOL, Classic!

You respond to Sir Didymus' lack of decorum by calling him a whining child. Bravo!

Aren't all blogs, or at least the ones here, really just a waste of time? Is there some greater purpose here or is it just something to do while idle? People can waste time however they feel as far as I'm concerned.

"I also noticed that your response is enormously biased, such that you come of as more than a little hypocritical" Can't this also be said of most comments around here, your's included? I know I have some hypocrisy at times, at least I'm honest about it.

"If I am addressing a specific poster, I will almost always use their name. Look at this blog and others for confirmation." Yes you usually seem to address posters by name but not always and clearly not in this case. I'm not sure why you got defensive about it. Are you trying to say you were not mocking Boomer when you quoted him and made comment?

Critizing Michael for his hypocrisy is a bit of a hobby of mine, I usually get a lot of practice. My favorite targets are hypocrits who can see the hypocrisy in others but not themselves.

So are you saying you are equally or more of a Romney supporter than Obama?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 11:15 AM

SWNebr,

First, I draw a distinction between "D-bag" and "whining child". The former is a much less socially acceptable term. Second, I don't think I have ever made any claims as to my own decorous speech. Though I do try not to attack and call names unprovoked. Pointing out that Didymus's use of "D-bag" lacked decorum makes no such claim to the contrary either. It is a simple observation. Though I do see that you got a kick out of the post. So while your response is predictable and meaningless, at least you aren't without humor.

"Is there some greater purpose here or is it just something to do while idle?"

I don't know that I would call blogs a waste of time. I can certainly see some higher purposes; if nothing else, trying out political ideas publicly and having them criticized by others forces a person to either find better support for their position or to consider abandoning their argument.

"Can't this also be said of most comments around here, your's included?"

Being honest about hypocrisy doesn't make it more forgivable. But sure, I think most people have been hypocritical in their lives.

"but not always and clearly not in this case. I'm not sure why you got defensive about it. Are you trying to say you were not mocking Boomer when you quoted him and made comment?"

It is the case actually. I have very rarely made a comment to a person without naming them. You have the preceding completely wrong. My response in question is the one directly following bberry's comment:

"Really, attack Iran? I really don't see this happening while Obama is in office let alone to go for the tough guy look."

--Posted by bberry on Mon, Jan 16, 2012, at 4:13 PM

bberry was replying to Boomer it seems, and my post following his was a general amendment to bberry and a comment to the board, not to Boomer per se (hence, I didn't use his name). Boomer took my comment as a comment to him (perhaps understandably) and decided to break his decree. He began is post with an insult and it was at this point that I made a fairly obvious comparison to Michael.

A comparison, by the way, that was not mean, nor unfair.

"Critizing [sic] Michael for his hypocrisy is a bit of a hobby of mine"

It is good that you get a kick out of criticizing Michael. I do see the allure. I enjoyed criticizing Boomer, and subsequently Didymus and now you. We at least seem to have this in common.

"So are you saying you are equally or more of a Romney supporter than Obama?"

No. I am saying that Obama has not earned my vote for 2012, but he may get it anyway if there isn't at least a somewhat compelling alternative. Romney at least gives me something to think about.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 12:19 PM

a point on the candidates: I have made up my mind to vote Romney. I like some of Gingrich and Santorums positions but I feel they are too rigid. I am enough of a realist to understand that there has to be some compromise and I think Romney will be most willing to compromise for the good of America. That doesnt mean he has to compromise on everything just to get bi-partisan support. I like some of Ron Pauls fiscal ideas; to me, the rest of his platform is an absolute joke. You cant be an isolationist in a world economy.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 12:37 PM

I hear you doodle, though Paul's foreign policy and social 'leave you to live in peace' ideology does have a certain appeal. What I like about Romney in particular is that despite the questionable practice of buying up small companies, tinkering with them (including firing their employees), then selling them off for huge profits, he is the only candidate with serious executive experience. He is moderate enough in terms of social and domestic policy as to not be too worrisome and he can raise the sort of money that stands a chance in the race.

The bottom line for me is that I generally mistrust CEOs in leaderhip positions, but perhaps if ever we have needed a CEO in charge of the country, now is the time.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 3:41 PM

Benevolus I stumbled across an article that I think you might like. It is an interesting look at Obama. It is probably one of the most centered articles I have read. Hope you enjoy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sat, Jan 21, 2012, at 9:25 AM

You are right carlson, that was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing it. I especially liked/agree with this passage:

"All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That's not enough, but it's far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama's big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn't."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 21, 2012, at 2:28 PM

Glad you liked it. That is the kind of non partisan look at things that i try to stress on here. I am sure sooner or later their will be a rip on the article in here calling it liberal media. But from what I saw I thought it was very centered in thought.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sat, Jan 21, 2012, at 4:17 PM

TERRIBLE LIBERAL MEDIA ARTICLE!!!!!!

You're welcome.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Jan 21, 2012, at 8:00 PM

LOL Thanks

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sat, Jan 21, 2012, at 11:26 PM

Isn't it interesting that for four years one of the main complaints coming from the right has been about an off the cuff remark comment from then Senator Obama about wanting to fundamentally change America (for the better, this part of his comment is almost always purposefully left off). Yet, Newt Gingrich, who just convincingly won South Carolina has said that he wants to fundamentally change America. Rick Perry, when he dropped out of the race, when endorsing Gingrich listed that reason as one of his main reasons for endorsing Newt.

Oh how I love politics where memory is short and hypocrisy is never at a minimum.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 11:24 AM

It is also highly interesting that Newt Gingrich led the attempts to throw President Clinton out of office over his sex life (though they tried, very badly, to disguise the impeachment efforts over his dealings with Whitewater) yet now he believes any questions about his sex life are completely out of bounds. Hypocrisy, thy name is Newt.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM

Michael,

The more you rail against hypocrisy, the more your's is apparent.

BTW congratulations on your graduation.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 11:54 AM

Benevolus,

I am sorry your delicate sense of decorum was offended. I will herefore endevor to use insults like "mouth breathing dung beetles" (that insult seems very "rich" to me) when defending the right to expression. I like that you seem to try and shame me by stating that this would Make Michael smile. I should hope so. Michael should be able to voice his opinion. Of course, I can voice my opinion as well. Trying to shut down opposition is generally considered a barrier to communication and growth. True, I poked fun at Michael when he said he was done...again. But, I am not going to mock him for posting his opinions. I might mock his opinions, but not his right to do so.

Oh wait. Perhaps my roomate put in the D-bag statement! That works, right? Or....Hey, I didn't name you as a D-Bag so obviously I wasn't referring to you. Yeah, thats the ticket!

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 2:59 PM

Michael,

I thought Pres. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. That is more for a lie than the original deed, right? I did not know those were sexual offenses! Man! Some people must have crazy ideas about sex.

This wouldn't be a hint of revisionist history is it? I thought Historians frowned on that.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 3:05 PM

Sir Didymus,

Are you feeling okay? Your post doesn't make any sense. You seem to be trying to communicate something but it is complete lost on me.

If you go back there was nothing "D-baggy" about what I wrote to Boomer. I wasn't even insulting. In fact, I went on to engage his response and offer a counter-argument.

What you are so bunged up about, I do not know. But while you are acting like a child, I do get a kick out of your emotional reactions. They please me.

"Mouth breathing dung beetles"...that's a good one, I will have to remember that.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 3:48 PM

Benevolus,

Is your "roomate" on again? I merely quoted something you posted a while back. I realize it is hard to keep track of your prevarications. Incidentally it was a favorite insult of an earlier poster that ALSO was drawn to the McCook Gazette by water rights issues. Strange that. See, you might work with labels and categories of areas and people. But some folks deal with behaviors. Behavior betrays thinking.

I am amused that you pretend that you haven't thought of your own insult. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, etc. etc.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 7:20 PM

Sir Didymus,

You have gone all to pieces. You have lfys in your eyes. Your departure from reality is enjoyable though, even if I do not understand much of what you are saying. It appears that I am under your skin. Good.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:25 AM

*flys

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:27 AM

It's funny, I would think someone who is a moderate centrist wouldn't enjoy upsetting people.

Benevolus,

Just from reading the posts, I'm not sure where Sir Didymus went to pieces. Can you point that out? Was it when he pointed out that you are now either pretending to not remember comments you have posted earlier or honestly don't remember posting them? Or is it his hypothesis that your roommate again hijacked your computer? Do you remember when that happened?

From your recent posts, I'm tempted to think your roommate has permanently taken control of your computer, because any facade of fairness has appeared to have fled your comments. Now you only seem to want to critize [sic] ;) people or mock them or try to upset them. What changed?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:38 AM

SWNebr,

"It's funny, I would think someone who is a moderate centrist wouldn't enjoy upsetting people."

Why? I would argue the contrary. Being in the center gives you a much broader range of people to upset. And given that you have acknowledged how much delight can be derived from criticizing Michael, I am certain you can understand where I am coming from. But I do not think I have ever been unfair.

Regarding Sir Didymus, it is clear that he is trying to make some sort of strange and ill-founded accusation, but I have no idea what it is. And the further along he goes, the more unhinged he sounds. Which is fine with me, because it really is entertaining to read.

Here is the bottom line friend, I haven't been unfair to anyone; not in the least. If you think I have I would like you to point out where. I would suggest to you that I try to post thoughtful responses, and where I have been unduly attacked I have responded in kind.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 11:26 AM

Benevolus,

Not that I am trying to speak for Sir Didymus, but I don't think you've answered my question.

"Regarding Sir Didymus, it is clear that he is trying to make some sort of strange and ill-founded accusation, but I have no idea what it is."

Is the fact that you have previously used the expression "mouth breathing dung beetles" but now appear to have forgotten doing so that is ill founded?

Or is it the fact that you said your roommate previously posted in your name the ill-founded part?

Funny thing about notions of fairness, everyone thinks they have been fair whether they have or not. I'm sure Sam and Michael think thier positions and comments are fair as well.

You mention that you have been unduly attacked, was my pointing out your lack of decorum an undue attack? Or was it my questioning of you quoting a line from a poster but then saying that your apparent response to it was not indeed a response because you usually begin by using that poster's name? Which was the undue attack that signalled that I should be critized ;) for your enjoyment?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 3:04 PM

SWNebr,

Just so you know, because I can tell you are quite preoccupied with my conversation with Didymus, when I said that Didymus was falling to pieces, I was reacting to this passage...

"Incidentally it was a favorite insult of an earlier poster that ALSO was drawn to the McCook Gazette by water rights issues. Strange that. See, you might work with labels and categories of areas and people. But some folks deal with behaviors. Behavior betrays thinking."

But because I have a great spirit of generosity, I will also indulge your concerns...

1) I don't believe that I have forgotten anything. Take another look at the post you are questioning, but this time do so with a little more humor in your heart. I think you will find the last line more enjoyable. Maybe even envision one of those winky emoticons at the end, like ;)

More importantly, as I recall, I offered the insult in question as a hypothetical example of a personal attack, which is to say, I insulted nobody. The exchange in question is in Sam's blog: "Drinking the Orange Kool-Aid" should you chose to reference it yourself.

2) It was unfortunate that my roommate decided to use my handle to mock conservative posters. I apologized for that and said it would not happen again. And it hasn't.

"Funny thing about notions of fairness..."

So I will take it that you were unable to find examples of me being unfair?

"Which was the undue attack that signalled [sic] that I should be critized ;) for your enjoyment?"

You seem to have a modicum of intelligence SWNebr, so I shouldn't have to explain to you the difference between a critique and an attack. I said "unduly attacked" which you acknowledge above, and I also said I have criticized you, which you likewise acknowledged...so you actually go so far as to note, then ignore the difference.

Shame. I believe that critiquing arguments is the point of this exercise. I have not attacked you though. There is a difference.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 3:51 PM

Whee!

Benevolus,

"1) I don't believe that I have forgotten anything"

Perhaps you can understand that when you said: "that's a good one, I will have to remember that" that a reasonable, objective person might take your saying that you will have to remember as an indication that you do not remember. After all, you didn't say "I shall continue to remember" or anything else that would indicate that you indeed recalled the term.

"So I will take it that you were unable to find examples of me being unfair?"

Your response evades my point. I didn't know I was required to find examples of you being unfair. However, if I must, here is one from the same post. You unfairly indicated that I made a typographical error when you quoted me. :P

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:28 PM

Benevolus,

Oops I forgot; did I say or imply that you "attacked" me? I hope you aren't ignoring the differences between two terms. ;)

Do you disagree with my comment on fairness and perception?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:32 PM

Benevolus,

Well, I will admit you did get under my skin for a bit. As I said, I don't like it when people try to limit others right to express their opinion. But, with later posts you have shown yourself to be either 1) a liar, or 2) a fool. I tend to not let either of those types bother me.

As to the rest of it? I merely pointed out some similarities between your own moderate centrist self and a past moderate centrist poster. Perhaps you are not they, I sure don't know. I could point out a few more similarities, but I don't believe I have to.

I am suprised to hear you say I am humorless. You make me laugh quite often. Other posters do as well. I guess if I don't laugh in the way you approve of I must not have a sense of humor. Oh woe is me.

Your attempt to spin this around has caused me to experience a great deal of mirth. Feel free to attempt other ways of belittling those that disagree or challenge you. The whole 'Didymus is a crazy talking crazy man', while weak, made me smile.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:17 PM

SWNebr,

"Perhaps you can understand that when you said: "that's a good one, I will have to remember that" that a reasonable, objective person might take your saying that you will have to remember as an indication that you do not remember."

I would expect a reasonable person who wasn't so clearly enamored with himself to get the humor in the response. Clearly I have overestimated this capacity in you.

"Your response evades my point."

You didn't make a point. That I detected anyway. And no, pointing out your consistent mispelling of criticize doesn't constitute unfairness. Just good fun. Grow up, buddy, it will help us all.

Didymus,

Excellent! I am glad we see eye to eye now. Why, I couldn't imagine a world in which you thought ill of me. I do not think I could bear it.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 12:33 AM

Benevolus,

Testy, testy...

You got me, sometimes I type too quickly and my ham hands make me misstroke. Bravo!! I am properly shamed. Actually I was referring to your notation on signalled which is an accepted spelling. But I forgot, you never are mistaken or wrong.

When you type something in plain language it just looks like you meant to say it. Trying to spin it now just looks disingenuous and petty.

I don't know how you missed the point of my comment on notions of fairness, if I was petty, as you are recently showing yourself to be, I might say something disparaging about your ability to understand written communication or your lack of intelligence or sense of humor.

However, let me spell it out just in case anyone reading has at most, a modicum of intelligence or is so enamoured with himself that he can't think new thoughts: The point is, pay attention know, everyone thinks himself fair. He will not admit when he has been unfair because he cannot see it. So, with all of your protestations that you have been fair, it would be pointless to indicate if you haven't been, you would deflect and ignore just as you have been doing lately.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 8:40 AM

SWNebr,

Good morning. You are wrong. Let's try this again. Now put on your sense of humor pants and reread the following:

"Mouth breathing dung beetles"...that's a good one, I will have to remember that."

There. Now we can move forward.

"...you would deflect and ignore just as you have been doing lately."

Nothing then, huh? Unfounded accusations it is then. I rest my case.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 8:56 AM

Benevolus,

I'm not sure how you think this is enough to rest your case on.

""Mouth breathing dung beetles"...that's a good one, I will have to remember that."

There. Now we can move forward."

I think this provides further support to my point about you implying you didn't remember using that term. I'm happy to move on, but I don't see how you think my position is unfounded. You said that you would need to remember something indicating that you did NOT remember it. When I pointed that out you tried to say that when your words indicated that you did not remember saying they really should be interpreted as that you did remember.

However, I am willing to admit I may be wrong if what your sentence was meant to say was that you did not remember that that comment is "a good one" not that you don't remember saying it. Is that what it meant?

Ignoring: You say I had no point about fairness, when I clarified, you still ignore so that you can suffer "unfounded accusations" Further when corrected about which incorrect notation you used, no comment from you. Foundation established.

Ignoring: you have

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 10:17 AM

SWNebr,

Clearly I was kidding. If you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that that is true, then I am done defending myself. Hence, I rest my case.

As to the rest of your post...Huh?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 12:21 PM

Benevolus,

I guess it is no use trying to explain anything to you since you already know it all, too bad.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 2:24 PM

SWNebr,

I have reread your 1017am post a few times, and I think I am starting to understand the latter half of your reply. You are trying to communicate (I suspect) that you believe your response to my challenge is valid.

The discussion in question, in short...

You: Your facade of fairness has vanished.

Me: I have not been unfair, but if you think I have point out where.

You: ...

Me: So you can't point out where?

You: Everyone thinks they are fair.

Me: So you couldn't find where I was unfair?

You: I didn't realize I was supposed to point out where...but now that I must, pointing out my misspellings isn't fair

Me: You consistently misspell criticize, it was fair to point that out.

You; Everyone thinks they are fair. Do you disagree?

Me: Still no examples...unfounded accusations it is

You: You are ignoring my point

It seems, SWNebr, that we are talking past each other. Let's try this again...

No is my answer to your question about fairness. People can be objective in assessing if they have been fair or not, and I am willing to be just that.

If you and Didymus believe that my response to Boomer was unfair, mean, "D-baggy", please explain how. If you believe that I have been unfair elsewhere, please explain how. Without such explanations, there is no foundation upon which to build a criticism of my being unfair in my responses. Do you agree?

It is not enough to say my facade of fairness has vanished without pointing out SUBSTANTIVE examples of how. By analogy, imagine if thats how our legal system worked.

Me: SW, you are guilty of violating the law

You: What law?

Me: Everyone breaks the law at some point, they just don't admit it. But you are still guilty.

You: But how am I guilty? Do you have evidence?

Me: You're ignoring my point.

Gotta do better than that my friend.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 2:32 PM

Benevolus,

When I spoke of your failing facade I meant fair as in free from bias not fair as in legitimate or warranted especially when applied to the fairness or unfairness of your attacks or critizations ;)sorry for any confusion. Sometimes ambiguity can cloud issues.

Again the unfair, as in not legitimate, critization ;) I indicated off the cuff was not pointing out I misstroke when typing criticize but for illegitimately ascribing a misspelling of signalled. I've made this point before and you appear to continue to ignore it by coming back to my mistyping of criticize twice when it was inapplicable.

DARN YOU MULTIPLE MEANINGS!!!!! ;)

I don't think I need to point out that your facade of fairness has fled, you do it regularly. To point it out would be waste of my time. Res Ipsa Loquitur as Michael might say although to be honest he would probably mess up the Latin.

I didn't say anything about your response to Boomer other than that you did respond to Boomer, thank you for finally admitting that and ending your sham explanation. What I found funny is that in chastising Sir Didymus for his lack of decorum you were yourself indecorous. Still amuses me. Your response to this was essentially "well I wasn't as indecorous as him, so I must be being fair".

"No is my answer to your question about fairness. People can be objective in assessing if they have been fair or not, and I am willing to be just that."

So is your answer that you think you are fair?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 3:31 PM

SWNebr,

I am not sure what what you mean by "finally admitting." If you bother to review the conversation my original reply was an amendment to bberry's comment, and a general commentary to the board. You cannot know what my intentions were, so arguing that you do is nothing but silly speculation.

The response I referred to above was the one proceeding Boomer's reply to me. You can tell that I was responding to him cause I used his name. Res ipsa loquitur.

"..."well I wasn't as indecorous as him, so I must be being fair"."

Maybe you and I just think of fairness differently. See, where I am concerned, when someone resorts to offensive name calling like "D-bag", the range of fair responses becomes broader.

"So is your answer that you think you are fair?"

My answer is that I try to be. I don't think I have been unfair, so please point out contrary examples.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 4:58 PM

Benevolus,

I've pointed out a small example two or three times now and you refuse to acknowledge it. Thank you for confirming my point about notions of fairness.

"Maybe you and I just think of fairness differently ..." We must, I think fairness is an inherent quality while your words indicate that you seem to think it is situational and varies depending upon who or what you are being "fair" towards.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 7:47 PM

SWNebr,

Wait, now you think that fairness is an inherent quality, yet you apologized because you were referring to a different kind of fairness than I was, ending your thought with the fact that fairness has different meanings!?

Wow. That is an amazing flip-flop.

In fact, fairness is absolutely contextual, and whether you NOW want to believe it or not, people conceive of fairness and unfairness differently. What is fair in one case may be entirely unfair in another seemingly similar case. This is not even controversial, nor is it refutable, and yet you refuse to see...

Amongst the blind, a one-eyed man is king.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 9:51 PM

Benevolus,

I don't think name calling is ever fair, I'm not sure how you think can justify it as being fair when you do it but not when others do.

Again thank you for supporting my original comment on people's notions of fairness and how people tend to think they are fair whether they are or not.

Nanny-Nanny Boo-boo ;)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 4:14 PM

Benevolus,

Oops I forgot to add before I submitted.

Thank you for your flattering last line poke. I'm glad that you think I am someone to be envied but really don't dwell on it too much or let it ruin your life. ;)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 4:20 PM

SWNebr,

A couple of questions:

If someone attacks you physically and you fight back to defend yourself, is that fair? If someone commits a crime, and the state punishes that person on behalf of society for that crime, is that fair?

A couple of thoughts:

1) You have called Michael names. Which by your reasoning makes you a) unfair, and thus, b) unqualified to comment on my fairness. I say this because you seem to believe that if I am indecorous I cannot validly comment on Didymus's lack of decorum...you call names, which you argue is always unfair, and yet you offer commentary on my fairness. You fail to hold yourself to your own standards. Therefore, your accusations of fairness have no basis and remain unfounded.

2) But because I am unwilling to be nearly so rigid and myopic (blind?) as you, I will let you off the hook. Take note: Just because (for the sake of this argument probably) you don't think name calling is ever fair, that doesn't mean it isn't. Your thinking is simply limited in this matter.

Regarding the last line you mention. That you fail to see the paradox of your own argument says more about your vision than it does mine.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 4:39 PM

By the way, SWNebr, you accused me of being unfair. I replied that I disagreed. I have not commented on anyone else's fairness. And so the statement, "I'm not sure how you think [you] can justify it as being fair when you do it but not when others do," is by definition a strawman argument.

Nanny-nanny...Boo-boo.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 4:56 PM

Benevolus,

I try to avoid situations where people would physically attack me. As for punishment according to some people yes, the criminal would probably say no. He probably thought his actions were fair.

1) a) Yes b) Why would that make me unqualified? I didn't say that I never call names or that no one should, just that it is not "fair" to do so. Let me clue you in on something...Life's not fair.

I can offer whatever commentary I want, remember I don't pretend I'm not a hypocrite. But just because I'm not perfect doesn't mean that I can't point out when others aren't either. I must not be as enamored with myself as you believe. Other than commenting later that I don't think name calling is fair I only made one accusation of unfairness that I can recall. When you incorrectly indicated my spelling was in error. Funny you've never noticed it after all the times I've commented on it.

2) Yes we've already observed that you know everything, are without err and your thinking is unlimited therefore we all are unworthy in your sight. You let your feelings be known regularly.

Which last line? I made two posts to which you might be referring. (personally I'm hoping you're addressing my nanny-nanny boo-boo)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 8:40 PM

Benevolus,

I'm sorry, I don't know where we got sidetracked. When did I accuse you of being unfair? The first I remember is you challenging me to point out that you had been unfair and I mentioned an example when you unfairly indicated I made a misspelling, which you have never refuted or responded to in any way.

Was it fair in your opinion for Sir Didymus to imply that you are a "D-Bag"? You said you respond to undue attacks unduly. Yet later you seemed to indicate to me that you are being fair when you name call because of the context. How do you know that those attacking you are doing so unduly? Isn't it fair to them to do so?

I'm beginning to feel a little like Emperor Palpatine here, the more you struggle against my comments about notions of fairness the more you become ensared. Every time you point out that you are fair and objective you reinforce my point. Honestly I'm surprised you keep doing it.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 8:50 PM

SWNebr,

"But just because I'm not perfect doesn't mean that I can't point out when others aren't either."

That is what I said above regarding decorum. You are right about one thing, you certainly can be recklessly hypocritical. But thanks for the vindication, buddy.

"Why would that make me unqualified?"

It's called logic, try and follow along...

You criticized me, saying that since I have been indecorous I cannot validly comment on Didymus's lack of decorum...YET you call names, which you argue is always unfair, and yet you offer commentary on my fairness. This is the same thing you criticized me for.

Once again, the point is that you fail to hold yourself to your own standards. Therefore, your accusations of fairness have no basis and remain unfounded.I am happy to add hypocritical too since you already described yourself as such.

"I'm sorry, I don't know where we got sidetracked. When did I accuse you of being unfair?"

You wrote:

"...any facade of fairness has appeared to have fled your comments. Now you only seem to want to critize [sic] ;) people or mock them or try to upset them. What changed?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:38 AM

If a facade of fairness flees (nice alliteration, eh?) then what is left if not unfairness?

"You said you respond to undue attacks unduly"

That is certainly not what I said. I suppose that the argumentative laziness you are offering also comes with delusional visions of your opponent ensnaring himself.

"Every time you point out that you are fair and objective you reinforce my point. Honestly I'm surprised you keep doing it."

Your point is invalid. Also, it is laughably hypocritical, but the hilarity of your arguments aside, you cannot even make a point about fairness and objectivity because you have already argued that people simply THINK they are fair and objective when they really are not!

Ergo, you have no idea if your being fair/objective or not right now! However, you did establish that I know all, and so I can assure you that you are being neither fair, nor objective.

Check and mate. Good game though.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 9:35 PM

Benevolus,

Since you brought up your friend the straw man, let's look at one of your straw man arguments from your last post.

"You criticized me, saying that since I have been indecorous I cannot validly comment on Didymus's lack of decorum"

I said no such thing, you are distorting what I said in an attempt to argue against a statement I never, classic straw man. I merely pointed out that your calling names was indecorous, I didn't say you couldn't comment on anyone's comments because of it.

"YET you call names, which you argue is always unfair, and yet you offer commentary on my fairness. This is the same thing you criticized me for."

Straw man #2, I didn't critize;) you for being unfair, I pointed out that you see yourself as being fair when calling names. I admitted that I am unfair when I do, as I've said, I'm guilty of hypocrisy at times, but at least I'm honest about it.

"'You said you respond to undue attacks unduly'

That is certainly not what I said."

False statement. See above:"where I have been unduly attacked I have responded in kind."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 11:26 AM

You said that when you are unduly attacked you respond with undue attacks. Don't blame me if you can't remember what you said.

"you cannot even make a point about fairness and objectivity because you have already argued that people simply THINK they are fair and objective when they really are not"

I think I must have been giving you too much credit before. This is all I have ever argued, I don't know why you didn't figure it out before. Unless you just like arguing against staw men. YOU THINK YOU ARE FAIR AND OBJECTIVE. It was my contention that people do, all of your following statements just confirm my point. Even when you are shown to be unfair you still do not see it and try to justify your behavior or ignore it. I have painfully labored to get you to acknowledge that you unfairly indicated I made a mispelling yet after about 6 references you still try to change what I'm saying for your straw man arguments.

You are right about at least one thing in your post though. When I spoke of your fleeing facade of fairness, I thought I later explained that I meant that you were showing bias. You have reinforced that notion. I guess now when you mock people we all know that it is coming from you and your unbiased mind and not your roomate. But I imagine you can convice yourself that this is "fair" as well.

But you are right I wasn't clear when I said that and I apologize.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 11:37 AM

SWNebr,

"I said no such thing, you are distorting what I said in an attempt to argue against a statement I never, classic straw man."

Yet you wrote:

"Benevolus,

LOL, Classic!

You respond to Sir Didymus' lack of decorum by calling him a whining child. Bravo!"

Wrong again. Don't blame me if you can't remember what you said.

"I didn't critize;) you for being unfair, I pointed out that you see yourself as being fair when calling names."

Are you high? Read your sentence again...what comes after the comma DIRECTLY contradicts the what comes before. You claim didn't criticize, yet you then proceed in the same sentence to admit that you responded critically. Wow. Talk about giving someone too much credit!

"Even when you are shown to be unfair you still do not see it and try to justify your behavior or ignore it."

You cannot possibly know if I am being unfair or not in your world of blindness to one's own fairness. You have no metric for fairness because according to your weak argument, nobody knows if they are being fair or not. You have absolutely no idea if the statement above is a fair criticism of me, you cannot even know if its objective because you have painted yourself into anargumentative corner.

For the record, I disagree with you whole heartedly. Most people are not like you, most people can judge accurately when they are being fair or not. I include myself among them.

But here is the bottom line....

You persist in arguing that I have been somehow unfair, and yet you can provide me with NO credible answers as how. Until I am offered some substantial evidence (not just easily defeated hypothetical drivel) of my being unfair, there is no reason for me to take any of your arguments as remotely honest, valid, constructively critical, or anything else that implies I should take them seriously.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 3:17 PM

Hmmm... Another interesting Datum. "straw man argument" that was a favorite cry of a past poster as well....

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Jan 28, 2012, at 5:45 PM

Yawn

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 28, 2012, at 6:39 PM

Score 3 more for Rick Santorum!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:19 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

Elections Matter
(13 ~ 3:31 PM, Dec 22)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)

Keep Them Close
(6 ~ 1:08 PM, Oct 17)

I .... Disagree
(10 ~ 11:33 PM, Sep 30)