When’s the last time a losing candidate became an elder statesman of his party? I’d say Carter*. There were many before him, but I can’t think of one since. Perhaps it’s because more recent losers have had nothing of value to say, or because their parties have ignored their advice when they did.

*Arguably not even Carter – he’s become quite the elder statesman, but “of the” Democratic Party? Perhaps not.

How to contemn 47 percent of Americans less privileged and beautiful than his family?

The Romneys (any of them) are in no way beautiful. Romney himself looks just like the American Eagle from the muppets. And Ann’s a bag. All of them look unfinished, as if they need sanding.

I’m trying to think of a moment, any moment, when Romney was at his best, most inspirational, when it was possible to think “he could be a great president”. Maybe when he threatened to kill Big Bird? There must be sumthin.

I deeply appreciate Wills putting Goldwater into the proper context. As a true conservative, he outgrew much of what the left objected to about his presidential campaign. By the ’80s he was routinely vilified by the new, profoundly unconservative Southern-fried right. He didn’t become an elder statesman for the simple reason that the Republicans stopped being real conservatives and didn’t want him speaking truth to demogogues.

There’s nothing wrong with conservatism. The GOP should check it out.

Fucking car elevator. Fuck that Morman has-been twat.

Barry Goldwater said what he thought – and he did actually think. I did not by any means always agree with him, but I always respected him and knew that he was as honest as anyone can be.

I cannot imagine anyone saying the same of Mittens.

Sam the Eagle libel!
Did the Mittbot do anything to help Wayne & Wanda in their career? No, he did not.
Those lovestruck kids would be nowhere without Sam. NOWHERE!
And yes, you are all weirdos.
…

And listening just now to Guy Raz on NPR Weekend give Joe Lieberman a farewell media tongue-bath, reminds me that Mittbot’s well deserved loss wasn’t the only good thing about this election.
Good riddance, Droopy Dog!
Ya putz…

all you sad sacks who did the hippy slap for the entirety of this election aren’t exactly dripping in ‘honor’

Hi, I’m Mitt Romney and I’d like to talk to you about reverse mortgages.

Now that Obama’s won Florida, Romney’s humiliation is complete. I’m reflecting on the incredibly historic nature of this election, how the Democrats ran the table in the Senate, took some of the worst yahoos out of the House and retained the Presidency. Beyond that, state majorities recognized that marijuana smoking is awill be treated as a health, not a legal, issue. Gay men and lesbians can marry. 30 million more people will have health care through affordable insurance.

And the turnout to vote was mind-boggling. I’m proud that I live in a nation where people will wait in line 8 hours to cast a ballot.

Center-right country, my ass.

Finally, there are signs that a sane majority in this country are taking charge and will shape policy (hopefully) through the next generation.

Mitt’s, and the GOP’s, contribution to that change is instrumental only in that a majority of the electorate rejected them convincingly, absolutely, completely. Romney richly deserves his rapid fade into utter obscurity.

Chi moi?

This is why Mitt was so shocked that he lost:

“But Mephistopheles PROMISED!”

Somewhere in the annals of Tbogg comments I wrote that “Mitt Romney has Bob Dole written all over him” and thus I knew he would ultimately lose. Today on Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me the conservative P.J. O’Rourke called him a terrible candidate and said that he was “Bob Dole without the pizazz” and it’s true, I was being unfair to Bob Dole. Also in that Bob Dole had convictions, you know, a soul, and didn’t pander them away at every opportunity.

O’Rourke was funny actually, as he can be sometimes, saying that he couldn’t imagine a Republican like Romney who doesn’t drink,”Don’t you people realize what the world looks like to a Republican? I need a drink right now!”

At the very end however his “predictions for Obama’s second term” joke was “Obama will reread Econ 101 and apologize to Paul Ryan”, thus reverting to idiocy and the inability to let go of proselytizng with inane Republican talking points even in shame, defeat, and supposedly telling a joke.

What did Mitt Romney stand for? First he stood for fraud. He stood for exploitation and treating citizens as chattel. He stood for wars both cold and hot. He stood for sponsorship and fear mongering. He stood for one group of people living off another in a cannibalistic way. He could not take power without misrepresentation and massive propaganda. He stood for pollution. But it’s not just the billion spent on an election but the trillion spent every year on in the advertising industry that promotes the ideology.

His group blatantly tried to suppress speech and was friendly to racism and labeling everything possible as terrorism. His party of money and power has been unmasked and now the fight begins because once unmasked it must fight for its survival. They are not backing away from seeing exploitation as virtue or from a greed-makes-right approach. They still fight for means of wealth acquisition that are socially destructive or useless, this is freedom to them. When they talk about innovation they mean fraud. We are looking at tyranny being deposed and it will get more hysterical and more desperate. If it loses more power it also faces just incarceration for past serious wrong doing. It’s a cornered tiger problem and it’s a cancer.

I guess it is worth mentioning that Jill Stein managed a whopping .3% nationally, but CRUSHED it in her home state racking up .6% . Maybe with a good wind behind her she can reaching the promised land of 1% in 2016.

Reach for the stars, kids…

I grew up in the 60′s and I know hippies!

You sir are no Hippy.

It was your moronic, path of least resistance ideology that was getting slapped around.

Any soul is worth selling but not any soul is worth buying so you can take the offer as a compliment.

Apologies to W. S. Burroughs.

At the end, Mitt stood for drinking your own Kool-Aid and thinking that a majority of voters had also managed to choke it down. He wasn’t just wrong, he was willfully blind to how wrong he was. Sure, he had plenty of help in that failure but a leader is supposed to see past that. He failed as a leader by following sycophants and toadies who were paid to tell him how great he was.

The Rs are now in the deep end of the pond.. And the water is rising. I have no idea where Jill Stein is in that pond. Hope she doesn’t drown. But I hear she is conducting seminars. At local Mickey da.

I thought I heard them coming up the walk, but thought ,nah, not after the election.

Sweet Joseph Smith in a Hover-round!
I am breathlessly awaiting a soon to be “classic” TBogg post in which our intrepid B-Hound walker spots Mitt striding less than purposefully accross the sands of that stretch of beach in black socks, wing-tips, suit (or probably kakhis) and mutters to self about how the “help” won’t have Mitt to kick around anymore.

I’m also looking forward to the litany of Mitt from the “help” who worked the “campaign.” There’s gold inthem there tales!

Republicans = Romney wasn’t pure enough!

Libertarians and Greens = America wasn’t pure enough!

Democrats = Everybody got enough Purell?

In CA…

Jill Stein Plus Roseanne Barr: 1.0
Gary Johnson Plus Some-George-Wallace-Party-Dude: 1.4

Edit: Plus, updated vote totals currently have Obama with more than 2 million votes over Mittens. This is interesting to me because I have a relative who, when the election was called for Obama and “vote totals” still “showed” a 1.6 million edge for Mittens, posted a “We Were Robbed” FB post – I asked him how sure he was that the three West Coast states wouldn’t make up that difference. Turns out CA more than made up that difference by itself.

Here’s the sad thing about O’Rourke: 40 something years ago he was the editor of the local “underground” newspaper in my town. A more unabashed hippie leftist you could not imagine — and he was funnier then than he is now. I still have copies . . . .

Gay men and lesbians can marry.

Each other?

Never to hear that dreadful Lieberman voice again…

Heh, when I reread that I said to myself, “whaaa?”

@LeftCoastTom: PJ wrote the funniest thing I ever read-a guide to the proper etiquette when partaking of “granulated money.” “Most people like to smoke a couple thousand cigarettes when they’re snorting coke.” Maybe it’s on the intertoobz somewhere.

I’m itching to go smoke herb on his beach.

Dole was also the last Repub presidential candidate to select a semi-decent human being as his running mate.

2 million? dude, put down the bowl. it’s over 3 million now. :)

mitt acts like he doesn’t like healthcare mandates, you guys act like you don’t mind drones.. tomato, tomahhto yo

Best I heard describing Mitt(what the fuck kind of name is that?)was a comment on him as he and egg visited the Michigan statehouse and stood looking at a portrait of his dad. Something about the empty chamber and the larger than life portrait being a metaphor of how he wasn’t even a shadow of his father(you had to be there…)This puts Mitt to bed. Of course, I’d now like to see him investigated for tax evasion as well as some light shed on the avoidance techniques being used by the uberwealthy and maybe shut down> Hmmm? How about that?

Politician “professional courtesy” will preclude any tax evasiony investigations.

My not ‘mind(ing)’ drones is not an act as I have explained multiple times, but thanks for playing.

I meant CA alone, not nationally.

sorry i really don’t need to pick this scab anymore it just looks like both sides subverting what they believe in to win an election.

it just looks like both sides subverting what they believe in to win an election.

What an odd way to respond to someone telling you he doesn’t believe what you said he believes.

Just for the record: I don’t like drones. Didn’t like the indiscriminate bombing that killed thousands of civilians in Iraq, either. In terms of numbers of innocents slaughtered: advantage drones.
No one showed up for Jill Stein or Roseanne, and it looks like most true believers just stayed home and sulked this one out. Too bad: a 9-million voter spread instead of a 3-million voter spread would have created a massive landslide this time and lent support to Obama as he tries to beat the visigoths and the news media and stick a tax increase on the wealthy. Sadly, he’ll have to do this without much help.

Ah, very good. Forgive my misread.

i’m quite butt-hurt obviously

wow shit on progressives then blame us for low turnout. well played!

you guys act like you don’t mind drones

The welcome mat is always out for you….

Though Goldwater was a factor in the Southern strategy of Nixon, he was no racist, and no fanatic of any stripe. He was an acidulous critic of the religious right and a strong advocate for women’s rights (like abortion). He had backbone.

Really? No, REALLY?

Not how I ever saw him, my parents ever saw him.

But hey, it’s history and even the present is subject to revisionism if yer the writer.

*facepalm*

But the greater loss, the real loss, is the loss of honor.

Lying to everyone every time you speak has a way of doing that to a person.

As for the bolded question, the answer is ‘nothing’.

Travy, I’m so glad your purity showed the way “like a shaft of gold when all around is dark”; i.e. the purest bat piss.

And how could we ever leave out of consideration the loser of just 4 years ago, John “Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain, on this special day of honor?

Who has worked so hard to hone ever higher levels of unprincipled travesty in the Senate?

You’re the only one who thinks pouting in a corner is “honorable”. Your concept of “honor” is it’s only reward. You need to be talking to the empty chair that you see as “honor”, not still trying to sell that useless piece of junk to us. The same with your personal definition of “progressivism.” If yours is the only “progressivism”, I’ll find another title.

I’m trying to think of ANY Republican president or presidential candidate who became “an elder statesman.” Gerry Ford is about as close as I can get.

Ike left office and kept a very low profile.

Nixon, of course, resigned in disgrace and stayed in the private sector until the last couple years of his life.

Reagan used his ex-president status to charge huge speaking fees until his senility completely overcame him.

George H.W. Bush left office and exerted all of his efforts on behalf of the Carlyle Group and enriching himself and his cronies.

George W. Bush left office disgraced and has spent most of his time trying not to choke on pretzels.

Some months ago, writing on my shitty little blog, I noted in regards to Mitt that money can’t buy you love, but it can insulate you from the people who don’t love you, if only you’ll let it. This in response to the unseemly spectacle of a quarter-billionaire going to Mississippi and offering paens to “cheesy grits” (they’re CHEESE grits, not “cheesy” grits – the only thing cheesy was the shameless pandering) and mangled, inauthentic renderings of “y’all” to groups he hoped to convince that he was one of them, a fellow Wal-Mart shopper. I said at the time that there had to be something mentally wrong with someone who would forego relaxing at his seaside mansion with his grandkids, all of whom will be insulated for life by his great wealth, in favor of debasing himself to backwoods bufords while staying in crappy motels and eating shitty road food for years on end.

And of course it turns out I was right. At the time, though, I hadn’t yet reached the conclusion that wealth hoarding is every bit as much of a mental illness as the other type of hoarding, but we saw that on display in Mitten’s character (or what passes for it) as well – a guy with a quarter-billion dollars (estimated in some quarters to be much more) who doesn’t work and not only thinks he’s overtaxed but also takes advantage of barely-legal and not-at-all-legal dodges to get out of paying even the pitifully low rate he’s asked to pay…not only is a quarter-billion “not enough” for him, the insane freedoms a fortune of this size allow him aren’t enough, either. No, the only thing that would satisfy would be to once and for all be able to lord it over all of us, his inferiors, from an office of high prestige.

Fuck him. Crazy I can forgive, because I think anyone who runs for the office has to have a touch of it. That’s not what was driving him, though. He was motivated, as he has been his entire life, by greed. And if there’s anything that even approaches the deliciousness of the results on Tuesday, not just for the presidential race, but also for the Senate races and the state ballot initiatives, it was how completely Romney was blindsided by the defeat. Sure, part of the reason he didn’t see it coming is that he relied on predictions from the same media liars he relied on to turn out his voters. But the other reason? It was because he thought it, like his great wealth, was owed to him, and that all he was required to do was what he’s been doing his entire life – take the shortcut, tell the lie, not edge too far over the line into illegality – and he would be given what was rightfully his.

Not this time, shitbird. Good riddance to foul rubbish.

I don’t see anything remotely progressive in what you do. Perhaps you could more accurately describe what you are, and especially what you do, as merely “obstructive.”

In Norse mythology, Ratatosk, the Squirrel of Discord, runs up and down the tree of life endlessly repeating lies and malicious gossip and innuendo, as you have done here, in an effort to subvert cooperative effort, thus permitting evil to succeed.

That’s you, and don’t you forget it.

Marry me, Jenn [swoon].

I don’t come here often enough to have seen a convincing argument for the use of drones, so if you don’t mind explaining again, I’d love to hear one.

Note to the Sparkle Pony Watch; this is not a set-up for an anti-Obama rant, but a genuine policy question.

“But Mephistopheles PROMISED!”

Indeed. It was no accident Rove named his SuperPAC “Crossroads.”

wow shit on progressives then blame us for low turnout. well played!

Who was it whining about staying home from the election in order to make an oh-so-eloquent point?

I wasn’t in the ‘oh boy, free beer & fried chicken for evabuddy!’ crowd when Obama won in ’08. I’m too jaded, politically, to believe that a politician, any one of them, can be the most wonderfulest occurence evar.

But I do believe that politicians can descend into depths of deception and mendacity that can only be topped by the next crooked rat-bastard candidate. Is Mitt! the low-water mark for American politics? I hope so, but, being a realist, probably not.

I took smug comfort in Mitt!’s rout. I look forward to ’14, to see if the mid-terms will turn up more competent politicians, or more & better assholes.

Progressive?

Do you have a dictionary and have you ever used it?

What progress have you and your ilk ever made? What have the Jill Steins of this world ever accomplished politically?

You are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to torturing the English language.

And I have never seen a convincing argument against drones. What’s your point?

Do you have to see convincing arguments for the use of every weapons system ever deployed? I’m sure that people like travy would object if the US was only using pointed sticks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It’s not the weapons that matter but the “how and the why” they are used that matters.

But the “Jill Stein” wing of the Progressive movement doesn’t want to go there, because that would mean that they would have to acknowledge that the World is a messy and complex place; that no single person can right every wrong; that change is an incremental process.

It’s much easier to pretend that nothing ever happened before Obama took over, that it’s all his fault that the world is the way that it is today and that he is a “Poopy Head” for using Drones.

Suddenly I’m reminded of that little newsreel scene from Citizen Kane where we see an old Charles Foster Kane at a cornerstone-laying ceremony. He looks uncomfortable, he holds up a trowel of mortar and spills it on himself, he gets in the way of the actual workmen who are forced to push their way around him.

I know that it’s sadly necessary for American political candidates, however wealthy and however long it’s been since they had any other job than lawyering and politicking, to pretend as though they’re jes’ po’ folks who eat hot dogs and mow their lawns every weekend. I thought it couldn’t get any more grotesque than when George W. Bush did it but somehow Mitt Romney managed to beat him.

Oh, well. Now that Romney’s political career is finished maybe he can piss off to his own version of Xanadu, hire someone to ghost-write his memoirs and drink his Sprite while his wife works on a jigsaw puzzle in the corner.

Do you have to see convincing arguments for the use of every weapons system ever deployed?

No, just the ones which might actually be doing more harm than good to the West’s long term goals. Not sure what this has to do with travy or Jill Stein. Or you for that matter. Just wondering whether anyone has a solid argument for them, other than the usual bollocks you just served up.

I don’t come here often enough to have seen a convincing argument for the use of drones, so if you don’t mind explaining again, I’d love to hear one.

Ah, nothing like asking others to do your work for you!

The archives are free. No subscription required.

Not sure what you mean by archives, unless you mean the search facility at the top right, which allows me to wade through pages upon pages of the usual crap. It did come up with this from TBogg;

a system of drones devoted to taking out terrorists and terrorist training camps is infinitely preferable to boots on the ground and more American military deaths

which is a statement of preference assuming only the two options, so there is that. Having picked that out of the “archives”, I guess I can take it as definitive.

just the ones which might actually be doing more harm than good to the West’s long term goals

Well, that’s an interesting conditional you bring along. And perhaps more interesting than your challenge that others to come up with arguments against when they don’t have your particular insight.
Why don’t YOU spell out your arguments for why they (among all possible other weapons) do more harm than good? As you say..a genuine policy question.

a statement of preference assuming only the two options, so there is that.

Actually, it doesn’t, merely comparing the preferences of this and the previous administration.

It then falls to you to suggest a more useful option, but I’m betting that your only suggestion is “do nothing.”

Go ahead, make me a liar, and be constructive in your contribution.

Why don’t YOU spell out your arguments for why they (among all possible other weapons) do more harm than good?

I don’t have a particular insight, and I don’t know that they do more harm than good. The most convincing argument for the drones is articles like this. It is more than three years old, and I don’t know (but will keep looking) whether those perceptions have changed.

But it would be nice to hear from Americans who support their use, why they do, apart from the usual “life is messy” weak tea. I’m not pointing fingers, just asking a question.

Chris, I have no desire to make you a liar. You’re a good guy, and we’ve always got on well in past exchanges (under my other nym), but you’re a bit hasty here.

Remember that article that told us about how Romney changed the rules in his “Family Olympics” so he wouldn’t have to lose?

Remember how that article also told us about the Romney the Patriarch requiring attendance at the Retreat each year from all and sundry (if I was a daughter-in-law, I’d have been secretly packing the Paxil, lemme tellya), and that there were Family Meeting sessions on each of the five nights, one each for each son, in which the entire family, DILs included, was encouraged, if not required, to critique his behavior, his family leadership and his job performance?

Sounds ever so jolly.

What I’m trying to point out here is that Mitt has had everything his way. Always. His family obeys him. His company obeys him. Everyone obeys him. He has been able to change or skirt the rules or get away with outrageous things all his life.

No wonder he was dumbfounded when the American electorate did not obey him.

As I was pondering your challenge, huntlabron @57 and aldole @62 came along with responses that summarized my feelings, and with a succinctness that I wouldn’t have shown. Unless you wish to make an argument from a purely pacifist viewpoint – a very difficult but respectable stance, IMO – then, as huntlabron notes, you have to make ugly and messy decisions that respond to the messy and frequently ugly world we live in.

Not that this will apply to you necessarily, Inappropriateresponse, but I do wish that the Dronebama-is-no-better-than-BushCheneyMittensHitlerStalin crowd would at least demonstrate some sincerity and dedication to The Cause by taking a few moments to explain the basis for their complaints. Hell, even a link or two would be welcome – not to rense.com or other conspiracy sites, please, especially when Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and many other generally under-exposed but perfectly functional and eloquent leftie Obama critics are out there. Why Hell’s Bells, one can sit in his/her underwear at home doing that – no need to go out and protest, or get arrested/tazed/gassed, or other such messy thing.

As it is, I’m beginning to think that the hit-&-run Purity Ponies that show up here are like the old grump who is upset at the party next door, so they show up in their jammies to take a piss in the punch bowl. (That’ll show us!)

I shall now demonstrate how to do such a thing, AND as an added bonus, it shall be (looks up, notices it already is) in keeping with the tedious and verbose nature of so many of my comments…
…….

I’ve included (below) a link and rough paraphrasing of an interview I heard this morning in which the use of drones was a major topic. Even the interviewee, Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen, doesn’t totally rule out the use of drones (I bolded the relative bits below), even as he harshly criticizes their frequent and ill-considered use.

— — — — — — –

On this morning’s NPR Sunday Morning Edition, there was an interview by host Rachel Martin of Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen. There is no transcript – maybe they’ll put one up later – but the audio is now online, and you can listen to it online via the link in the post for that interview (6:51).

The interview notes that there is no sign that the U.S. drone campaign in Yemen will let up. Johnsen noted the history of this drone campaign in Yemen – it came in response to the Yemeni/al-Qaeda-backed attempted airliner Christmas Day bombing (aka Underwear Bombing) in 2009. Apparently, the Obama Administration’s idea is that if the U.S. can carry out enough drone attacks in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in Yemen won’t be able to mount another U.S. attack. Johnsen thinks this effort has been not only unsuccessful, but counterproductive, noting that al-Qaeda in Yemen had 200-300 members at the time of that 2009 bombing attempt, and has well over 1000 members three years later, with their determination to mount another domestic U.S. attack unabated.

Johnsen puts himself in the place of U.S. military planners, thinking they are achieving success as they cross names off a list of human targets after each “successful” drone attack. Johnsen notes that this is flawed thinking: these drone attacks do NOT make us safer, since these people are replaced with new volunteers, and they get smarter each time (improved tactics & technology). Furthermore, the U.S. drone attacks aren’t just killing members of al-Qaeda, but killing women, children and tribesmen, thereby radicalizing the general Yemeni populace, and pushing them into the arms of al-Qaeda, resulting in excellent recruitment of membership in, and alliances with al-Qaeda. In other words, Johnsen thinks the U.S. policy in Yemen is unwise (his term of understatement). “There’s a place for drones in U.S. strategy in Yemen,… the problem, I think, is that drones are a part of the solution,… but the Obama Administration is using them as the totality of the solution.”

So what are the alternatives? In the U.S., Johnsen notes that the unspoken assumption is that we can “win this” on our own. Johnsen says that it’s the Yemeni’s themselves who have to win this. With each drone strike that kills innocents, we are undercutting those who would otherwise be our allies in Yemen in the campaign against al-Qaeda. And Johnsen related a particularly grim example of this, noting the case of an anti-al-Qaeda Yemeni cleric who sermonized against acts of terrorism, noting that they are anti-Islamic. Unfortunately, that cleric was later killed… in a U.S. drone strike.

Interesting, meepmeep09. Thanks for that.

Greg Johnsen feels: There’s a place for drones in U.S. strategy in Yemen,… the problem, I think, is that drones are a part of the solution,… but the Obama Administration is using them as the totality of the solution.

I don’t think that it’s fair to cal this a “totality”, inasmuch as US policy has also included military aid to Yemen, rejected the idea of American “boots on the ground,” and there’s bound to be the usual load of “advisors”, “training forces”, Yemeni talks (where allowed by the historically isolationist Yemenis), and of course, there’ll be some CIA spooks creeping around.

Also, I’m not sure that Johnsen has accurately characterized the reason for a supposed increase in al-Quaeda membership in the Arabian Peninsula, which affiliate Ansar al-Sharia, has, in light the most recent upheaval, taken up political interest in the drafting of a new Constitution and increased participation in the government, so I don’t know how many of these supposed “new al-Quaeda recruits” are simply taking up sides in a Yemeni political conflict, rather than a terrorist ideology that screws with America.

I just don’t know. “Weak tea” though it may seem to commenter inappropriateresponse, it’s most definitely a messy thing Yemen’s got going right now (which of course makes it a perfect place for al-Quaeda to hang out).

Okay, that’s three time (or more!) that I wrote “al-Quaeda.” Sorry, force of habit, will somebody please buy these guys a vowel!

In the meantime: al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, dammit!

Post 69 is always an intellectual danger zone, for obvious reasons.

Here’s another travy classic

condescension was my intent dear. and just a little internets advice, don’t start no shit, there won’t be no shit.

So lil’ tyke travy starts more shit, runs and hides. What a pussy.

Interesting, you definitely have an opinion in this reply

No, just the ones which might actually be doing more harm than good to the West’s long term goals.

But in your comment #64 you repudiate yourself

I don’t have a particular insight, and I don’t know that they do more harm than good.

Typical bullshit debater’s trick. You pose a question to seek information (while pretending to not have agenda), wait for a reply, then trot out your agenda. And if you can’t counter the rebuttal then you go back to pretending you have no agenda.

If you think my reply was bollocks, then please explain why? Was it because I didn’t go along with your attempt to frame the debate on your terms?

I’ll pose some questions to you, why are drones special? If the US were using F-16′s in place of the drones would that be better or worse?

Do you think that the Arab world has forgotten what happened from 2003 – 2009 and that if the US would just stop using Drones (in 2012) then everybody would just kiss and make up?

My point above was why are you so concerned about tactics and ignore policy/strategy.

I gave you my opinion on why I thought that was so. That in reality people who claim to be concerned about the drones don’t really care about that issue. They use it as a pretext for flogging their simplistic world view.

Yes, yes, yes. All those R “strategists” who think they just didn’t get their message across…miss the point that actually, Mitt put across his message every time he opened his mouth, and you have summarized that message well.

He is used to being “he who must be obeyed.” He is a “CEO”…what is their chief characteristic? If people don’t do what they tell them to do, they FIRE them! Good CEO’s don’t want yes men around them, but I think we can put Mitt safely in the category of preferring the yes men. And also, his yes men are always…MEN. yes, note the dearth of women in his entire prior career. That’s why he needed the “binders of women” — he hadn’t met competent women in his career, cause he stuck to the areas of business where men are way dominant, and he didn’t hire any.
He is stuck in the ’50′s. And he has no ethics…if the Bain business model and actual history of destroying businesses while getting rich on fees didn’t tell us enough, that “changing the rules” of the family sports so he could win should have been the final nail.

I have long thought the leveraged buyout model was the essence of evil, and a major cause of the destruction of our manufacturing base and of competition in this country, as the players in one industry are reduced to a handful by LBO…and private equity is just a slightly tweaked version of LBO.
Maybe we can start to think about whether this form “business model” should even be allowed now that the world has got a glimpse into it through Mitt.

That said, given Romeny’s desperation moves to campaign right through election day in places like Pennsylvania, I’m not sure he was as dumbfounded as the campaign would have us believe. But I hope he was. It’s what he deserved.

guns, some people here are smart, some are funny, some are insightful and and some are clever. you are none of these things. shooo

“drones” is shorter than “blowing up familes” for our discussion purposes. but you don’t realize we’ve beaten this dead horse for a year. this isn’t just about drones, it’s about slapping hippies until they behave and the hippies huffing unicorn farts. as noted above, search is your friend

“drones” is shorter than “blowing up familes” for our my discussion purposes…

FTFY

Why drones? Probably because every other nation that’s tried boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan has lost and lost big.

The bigger question is: Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Might it have less to do with terror threats and more to do with keeping China out of a place with largely-untouched stores of all sorts of nifty minerals and other below-the-ground goodies, particularly those considered essential to running a modern society?

Do you understand what “might” means?

What agenda do I have? I don’t want a rebuttal, because I don’t honestly know whether drones are achieving anything positive. I was asking TBogg why he supports drone attacks. Your reply had nothing to do with my question, which wasn’t even directed at you.

I suppose when you’re a bag of hammers, everything looks like a sparkle pony nail.

Oh snap!

Shit travy, you really should up your game!

I mean, you’re failing your own commenting standards miserably (smart, funny, insightful, clever).

Standards.bitches.get some.

travy is no Robert Alexander Dumas.

(search, as noted above, travy, is your friend)

So I gotta ask, now that you are well informed on this subject. Would we be better off or worse off if we used F-18s rather than drones?

Most good writers would insert the word “might”, like you did, for dramatic effect or to emphasize the point they were trying to make. Sorry for assuming that you are a good writer, I won’t do that again.

FYI, your replies at #’s 59, 61, 64 & 79 all seem to beg for rebuttals, but since I’ve stopped assuming that you are a good writer, I can see now that I was reading more into your statements than was really there.

Also, I thought your agenda was that you were trying to put Tbogg on the defensive by demanding that he justify the use of Drones and that you would then follow up with some clever line of attack on that justification, all leading up to some brilliant insight, by you, on the subject. Again, I’m apparently giving you too much credit.

Finally, this is a public forum, everybody gets to play in the sandbox. If you want a private conversation with Tbogg then send him an e-mail.

x2

I asked about F-16′s, but why should the Air Force have all the fun.

No, actually you’ve made it very clear in the past that Drones mean …

Obama blowing up families.

And you’ve made it clear in the past that you won’t discuss the Tens of Thousands of families that were blown-up before Obama ever took office, because that undermines you basic, overly simplistic assumption that there is no difference between Obama and Bush.

As I have said above, you are no Hippy and you are no Progressive. You lack the maturity and the empathy to be either.

The only information in this thread was from meepmeep09′s post about the Yemeni drones, and the link I provided to a (pro-drone) Pakistani study of the Waziristan situation. F-18s would be worse than drones, but what on earth does that have to do with the question I asked? It’s almost as though some of you are looking for an argument. Gasp. Must be a dearth of progressives since last Tuesday.

Sorry, this was a reply to inappropriate … at 79.

I might as well add that I just knew you were going to hide behind the word “might” in that reply when I responded at 73. That’s why I left it in the quote I pulled from your prior response.

Christ, I would never claim to be a good writer, but it’s great that you’re providing lessons for free.

everybody gets to play in the sandbox

Of course! And I get to tell you I didn’t ask you the question! Give and take, sunshine. Makes the world, and silly subthreads, go round.

hide behind the word “might”

Well of course that’s what I was doing. Your ability to sniff out hidden agendas is only matched by the quality of your writing tips.

So you are now commander in chief. It has been reported there is a terrorist cell going to strike in the US. And our spy satellite has them in sight. You have at your disposal F-16s, missile batteries at sea, seal team six, the 82d airborne and a fleet of drones. We report, you decide. What will it be?

I’ll pose some questions to you, why are drones special? If the US were using F-16′s in place of the drones would that be better or worse?

I know the question wasn’t asked of me, but I think I’ve got an answer nevertheless.

It’s the evocative nomenclature. “Drone” is a term derived from science fiction and inevitably brings to mind the killer robots of the Terminator movies, which makes it seem like an unconscionable escalation of stealth bomber era warmongering, instead of of what it actually is:

A big RC model airplane with a video camera strapped to it, and sometimes a missile.

It doesn’t help to have the “Predator” nomenclature applied to it as well, but well, that our army for ya, for them it’s kinda sexy I guess, and I can’t do anything about that. Look at some of the nomenclature for other tools in the arsenal to get an idea. Seem to like insect references (Stinger comes to mind), by the way.

But a UAV (which is what non-hysterics call “drones”) is a big RC model airplane and, by any other name is a big RC model airplane.

This is a de-escalation, believe me, inappropiateresponse.

The bigger question is: Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place?

“In the first place” would refer to Dubya’s invasion in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, in response to to the existing Afghanistan Taliban government’s inability to produce bin Laden on demand. By way of reminder, the Taliban was dispatched, and another government installed.

In the process, the country was descended into chaos: infrastucture like power and water purification plants were needlessly bombed, in what was sort of a Bush trademark, rendering the situation Obama inherited– a rogue state of warring tribes with no clear authority.

Our presence in Afghanistan now is quite different– part of a NATO mission to rebuild the damage done. Can’t wait to leave, believe me, but also can’t in good conscience leave the country as fucked over as Dubya left it.

I’m really tired of explaining that this is not Obama’s war; it’s Dubya’s. We’re just trying to undo the damage done by the little dolt, and get the hell out.

It’s almost as though some of you are looking for an argument.

Well, yeah, most definitely, and you’re not providing one; that’s the problem. FYI, here’s how MW-10 defines “argument:”

1: (obsolete) : an outward sign : indication

3
a : the act or process of arguing : argumentation
b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

What’d you’d think “argument” meant?

you’re not providing one

That’s because I don’t want to provide one! I was asking TBogg a question. Jesus, there’s some really high grade neutronium around here, along with the creative writing lessons and motive divination.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, yeah.

Looks like Tom isn’t going to bother to answer, Innie. May have something to do with the transparently passive-aggressive tone and insincerity of your commenting.

Sorry we couldn’t help.

This may be a dead thread by now, but I think people here are being a bit harsh toward you. I believe you are being sincere, although you were definitely provocative with the italicized “might” in your second post. Having said that, I don’t think you are going to get the discussion you want here, because as you know this blog is a well known lightning rod for leftists would rather hold all democrats in contempt than take a seat at the table. That may or may not include you. I’d give you the benefit of the doubt.

I call BS.

Despite your protestations that you have no agenda, and the lie that “I don’t come here often enough …”. You have been posting fairly regularly at this site for the last couple of months.

Long enough that your attempt at playing dumb about “Drones”, and that we are just a bunch of bullies picking on a poor little innocent seeking knowledge rings hollow.

In the past, your comments have followed a predictable pattern and your POV has been well established.

Cut the crap, if you have something to say then say it and quit playing sophomoric games.

The glib thing to say is “Yeow, that’s gonna leave a mark!”, but the truth is it won’t – not on Romney, or his ultra-privileged offspring, or any of the other true faithful. They emerged from their Fox New bubble for maybe 45 minutes last Tuesday, just long enough to get stung badly by reality, and now they’ve slipped back into the bubble. It’s always someone else’s fault.

When I read Innie’s initial comment I immediately thought ‘bullshit’ (given Innie’s comments on other TBloggs) but sometimes it’s just fun to play along…

Yes, I was on the same page as you when he first chimed in, but he was refusing to go anywhere with the thread and the playing dumb schtick got old.

I’m sure he had a great script to follow if only we had allowed him to frame the discussion.