The Czar is running behind here.
First, thanks to EC who spotted a typo (but missed several others) in an essay that was subsequently corrected.
Second, RA writes in:
Excellent analysis on the GOP master tactitians.
Might I add that many of these (plus a few others) were the very same ones that were doing the Romney cramdown on us during the primary season. So Rove, Krauthammer, and the gang were “analyzing” the very result that they had preselected for us in the first place. Not that Romney wasn’t necessarily the best choice out of the gaggle, but that group habitually insulted those of us who weren’t convinced of that. Ann Coulter can especially go away any time now, please — vicious condescension in trumpeting the wrong idea is not attractive in a lady (loosely speaking).
This gang is all too willing to tell us that those icky Tea Party favored primary candidates are the wrong choice because they can’t win or are too divisive on those nasty social issues. Of course until they win — in which case the master tactitians are the first in line to jump on the band wagon (see the cases of Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, etc. etc.). Of course, when a bad TP-ish candidate loses, they rub our noses in it.
Time for new faces. Your plan is a good one.
The Czar thinks you are right all across the board, here. Mandarin is quite fond of Coulter, but the Czar agrees her days ended with the Clinton presidency; further, the Czar was never quite happy with her throat-crammed religious views. As you put it, some of her religious notions were vicious and condescending, let alone her political vantage. And while Krauthammer is rarely wrong, he sure was this time for exactly the reasons you state: confirmation bias.
By the way, as long as youre so eloquently agreeing with me, please continue to write in!
Also, Island Dweller is itching to say something:
After another chat with my associate with gut-level access to the Beast, our observation/question for you is this: It seems the layoffs and employee category shifts (full- to part-time) are beginning as advertised. The wealthy are beginning to liquidate some assets they now own to avoid taxes. The stock market bobsled is starting its downward slide and forgot its brakeman (the guy steering is high on something, as well). Those states (OH/PA) that put DL over the top have gained big on umemployment. 78K more people filed for food stamps since the election.
We haven’t seen the first-time unemployment filings since these layoffs began, that will really start to show in December. I’ve noted a few voices in the liberal media beginning to ask questions about this circumstance. Observation: A lot of liberal angst has been directed against conservatives and Tea Party adherents re: some kind of revolt or “secession” movement. What we are wondering is what are the chances the revolt or violence could instead start with Dear Leader’s voter base when their bennies dry up? They’re the majority who’ll be affected. We believe them to be the bigger risk. Question: How bad will these stats have to be before the State Media begins to report dissatifaction with Dear Leader? Will there have to be rioting in the streets (blamed on GWB) before they do?
Island Dweller and Esteemed Associate
Well, the left is already blaming all of this on George Bush and/or John Boehner and/or racism.
As far as violence, though, Victor Davis Hanson reminds us we are already seeing it, in the form of serious threats against people voting the wrong way, bullets fired into campaign headquarters, and someone literally setting herself on fire to scare voters away from Romney.
Tea Party? Conservatives? Republicans? Not a whole lot of historical violence there; the only violence associated with the current Tea Party was some random African-American guy the SEIU targeted and beat up in order to create the illusion of violent racism. The only violence associated with conservatives has been Jared Loughner, who turned out to be a left-leaning whackjob.
As our commiserator IowaHawk might say: when violence comes to America, it will enter from the left side of the academic parking lot.
The reason to doubt violence coming from the Right is that there is no need for it. Conservatives tend to vote problems out of office, starve them out, or let them destroy themselves. We arent so short of ideas that we have to resort to thuggery to express a point. We simply work around the problem and let it gag on its own hate.
But as we saw in the 1960s and 1970s, violence can happen. It just doesnt start with us except on rare, individual cases of a questionable nature.