« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Are You a Fool?

By: Tbone (Diary)  |  October 18th, 2011 at 01:39 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Here is what I want in a GOP nominee.

1. Proven ability to win elections in tough environments against worthy opponents and raise the money it takes to do that.

2. Executive decision making experience like that of a governor in a major, politically diverse state.

3. Proven conservative credentials both socially and fiscally.

4. Maturity and wisdom that comes from making mistakes and demonstrably learning from them.

5. A faith in my God.

6. A demonstrable understanding of the role of our military in preserving our freedom and extending freedom to others willing to accept it.

7. A respect for this Country and enthusiasm for US exceptionalism.

8. A past that is an open book and reflects a common experience with the majority of Americans.

Now there is one thing I don’t require and that is the ability to answer gotcha questions from snotnose liberals and halfassed opponents in contrived settings without looking like he believes the questioner is an idiot.

Now, there are those of you who rate the last more important than the 8. You are fools.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • earlgrey

    probalby not for the reason you cited.

    I’d like to see our candidates and republicans in general pick up a sword and not a shield when these stupid questions are levied at them. Attack them at their premise. Don’t answer a gotcha question without first re-framing the question to suit your answer.

    I really liked your item#4.

  • westcoastpatriette

    without knowing where he stands. (A very admirable quality.)

    The only thing missing from your list I would inject into number seven so it would include a demonstrable respect for the U.S. Constitution and the principles of federalism.

  • YnotNOW

    will still admit to concern about the “ability to answer gotcha questions from snotnose liberals and halfassed opponents” does play into your Point #1, in that ability to perform in debate (against Obama) and in the public view (largely controlled by the snotnosed liberals of the MSM) is a significant part in the “win elections in tough environments” arena.

    • Tbone

      how their debates worked out for them.

  • benjaminz

    “5. A faith in my God.”

    I hope that wouldn’t exclude Jews, not to mention Muslims, Mormons and members of other faiths.

    -Benjamin Zacharias

    • jackdaniels11

      There is no point in splitting hairs on theological points. As long as a candidate’s God is: (1) benevolent, (2) all-powerful, and (3) the creator of the universe, that qualifies as “the same God”.

      I’d hate to see anyone try and invite divisiveness on this point. Only the most immature people put up walls between themselves and everyone who disagrees with their religious views.

      • acat

        This could get .. heated

        Mew

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          The Spagnolo Rule is “We are going to end any theological discussions that distract from candidate messages before they even start.

          We’ve already hashed the “Are Mormons Christians… and the Why its OK to be a bigot towards a Mormon candidate that becomes a nominee in a theoretical outcome of events that haven’t taken place yet…” and what did we learn? We learned that people are either capable of being enlightened, or they are not. The rest of it is an exercise in futility.

          Can I get an Amen!?

          • Aaron Gardner

            Even the most enlightened fail I suppose.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I was using quotes to frame where those discussions led…

            I think I’ve been quite clear that I don’t believe Christians that refuse Mormons the right to call themselves Christians are bigots… and neither do I believe people that won’t vote for Mitt because they can’t accept his theological ideals are bigots… I agree with the theological beliefs… but Mitt’s political positions are incorrect to me.

            And… inadvertently your suggestion may be correct, as some that go around assuming that they’re enlightening others by calling them bigots is a massive failure in tact.

            I think there is a fine line between voting against a candidate due to religious differences, rather than voting for someone else as a preferred candidate due to religious differences… Jeffress is of the latter… there are others that are of the former… and they’ll go so far as to announce in advance of a hypothetical Romney nomination that they’d just as soon vote against Romney by write-in or 3rd party, or simply not vote for him.

            You can’t deny the “non-pejorative” of “bigot” in the context of the simple dictionary definition fits the description of the latter. Just the same as Jeffress’ statement made sense to this Mormon when he suggested that “Cult” to him was a “non-pejorative” term to categorize a “non-Christian” faith from a Baptist Minister’s persepctive. And even if there are folks out there that disagree with my “non-pejorative” use of the word “bigot” in the voting context, I still would never advocate that they should be denied any right to believe what they believe or vote what they should vote. Nor do I have any furthered interest in attempting to have theological debates to convince them what I would deem an erroneous sense of logic.

            Right or wrong on the “Are Mormons Christian?” question, I don’t care to hash that… Jeffress himself was clear… He’d hypothetically vote for a “competent non-Christian” over a “Christian that takes unbiblical positions”. And as such… in my mind he is not a religiously bigoted voter.

            The point of the Spagnolo Rule would be to not distract from candidates by re-opening a theological or theosophical debate… that clearly won’t be solved by politics or definitions that are arbitrarily defined by opposing views. But hey if you don’t like the context of the Spagnolo rule … don’t accept the proposal.

          • Aaron Gardner

            And I am consistent in objecting to it. Your expanded recounting of your rule was no where near the limited version I responded to above.

            So take it for what it is worth.

          • westcoastpatriette

            …

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I am happy to take your advice. I don’t come to Redstate to make enemies. I will call things as I see them. However if you’re suggesting civility by cautious abdication of non-pejorative terms then I believe either a definition of the context “throw around” would apply to other terms such as idiot, moron, fool, and cult as this case may require… and any other enumerated list of non pejorative terms that may be misconstrued as uncivil by minds missing discernment and context of meaning.

            I respect your opinions and agree with you most of the time, so FWIW, consider your counsel received.

      • radicalrighty

        (4) Lets us have as many wifes under our roof as we want.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      nt.

      • acat

        Here’s a starter kit.

        Mew

        (available here: at thinkgeek

        • SoulEspresso

          Why should we settle for the lesser evil?

    • Tbone

      Bob Stoops?

      • acat

        Bob Dobbs.

        More on Bob Dobbs? Try The Church of the SubGenius (wikipedia)

        Mew

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          I’d forgotten all about Bob!

          Man, this visage caused a whole bunch of nerve synapses in my brain to implode…

      • Uma Richie

        Aqua Buddha.

  • thundercatkp

    9. Actually decide what issues they stand for before they make decisions.

    10 Ability to stand behind and up for issues they believe in and not flip flop even some call them out on their stand.

    As for: I agree

    “Now there is one thing I don?t require and that is the ability to answer gotcha questions from snotnose liberals and halfassed opponents in contrived settings without looking like he believes the questioner is an idiot.

    Now, there are those of you who rate the last more important than the 8. You are fools”

    I think the look they give the questioner is a natural reaction to anyone would give to an idiotic foolish off-the-wall question. This is one of my pet peeves and probably why candidates flip flop so often. To many people want an answer to ever stupid question ask. That’s one reason I like Perry…I love it when he looked at Bachmann with that..’What???’ look and said ?If you?re saying I can be bought off for $5,000, I?m offended,? I wish he had added with a devilish grin and a wink…’rented..maybe but that’s per hour…we’ll talk’.

    Karen

  • acat

    And the one or two I’d put in a different order .. so what? It’s close enough for government work.

    Mew

  • wacowboy

    Electing a presidential candidate is NOT American Idol or X Factor.

    in addition these debates with 8 or however many people on stage are nothing but a crap-shoot.

    I’d rather choose a candidate who is solidly on the Right in principle and policy than somebody who is a smooth talker.

    W was not good in debates but won two national elections because he stood by his principles and policies (some of which most conservatives disagree with). People always saw the same man, one who was respectful, who loved America, and who would do what he felt was right even if it was unpopular. Those kind of things win elections, not debates.

  • johnconradarens

    Gotcha questions from snot-nosed reporters will make up the vast majority of communication any Conservative president will encounter, should they win.

    I think it is crucial that our candidate be able to communicate effectively in such circumstances. Much of Bush’s undoing (a man, by the way, that fits the criteria you’ve established, Mr. T.,) was that he was remarkably unable to do this. He always seemed flat-footed, and unprepared, and that’s a sign, in my opinion, of not being passionate about what you believe. Either you believe it, or you don’t.

    Would you respect a pastor who was likewise unable to communicate with the “snot-nosed” (i.e., unbelieving) in the audience? Pastors, like Politicians, are in the leadership business. They wouldn’t be much good at persuasion. Also, Governors are distinctly different as leaders from Presidents. Governors (I am not one of these guys that thinks being a governor is an automatic plus in the presidential sweepstakes) typically only have to persuade members of their own legislature, and seldom must convince the state population at large. The setting is both too intimate, and too “macro” at the same time, usually. Presidents, however, must often go the well of pubic opinion, and that includes snot-nosed reporters with gotcha questions.

  • Tbone

    you will have to find another quick wit to support. Might I suggest Dennis Miller? I would be glad to explain the inside jokes to you.

    BTW, if I recall, GWB beat Al Gore and John Kerry thereby saving the Supreme Court from being solidly liberal.

    As such, only a fool would compare Perry to Bush in an attempt to establish a negative. Not wanting to appear a fool again, perhaps you should refrain from such stupidity in the future.

  • beach91

    but it seemed to me Bush’s problem was that he would NOT communicate in defense of his policies. It wasn’t that he could not communicate well as I recall. After all he did win TWO elections. It just that is seemed he let the lame street media drag it all down. And YES I am blaming the media because they framed the debate.

  • Tbone

    Oh, sorry, my dyslexia acting up.

  • benjaminz

    Now I cannot help but see “dairy” each time too.

  • lastgopinillinois

    Item #1 on my list is that he be a constitutional conservative and be respectful of States rights rather than someone who favors one-size-fits-all federal approaches.

  • aesthete

    because Kerry was so patently awful and Democrats were arrogant jerkoffs who didn’t even bother to hide it. They made a half-effort to hide their arrogance and stupidity in ’08, and Obama wasn’t as blatantly offensive as a candidate as Kerry was, which was why they pulled it off. Good luck with them doing the same in 2012, though.

  • beach91

    n/t

  • lastgopinillinois

    your item #3 probably was meant to cover what I desired most as stated above. So scratch my previous comment.

  • aesthete

    not to milk that pun.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    …just trying to add a little bit of mootivation.

  • johnconradarens

    I made no mention of the man, and wasn’t even thinking of him when I was writing it. I assume your diary entry was similarly non-specific, as well, otherwise it might as well be titled, “These are the qualities I like about Rick Perry, and if you don’t agree, You are a Fool”.

    Being a “quick wit” is quite different from being able to communicate effective and persuasively, by the way. As the grand arbiter of who is foolish and who is not, I assume, though, that you already know this. For example, Richard Pryor was a quick wit; Richard Cheney communicated persuasively. Such people are more ubiquitous than you seem aware of. Jim DeMint, Bob McDonnell, Jon Kasich, Mike Bennett, Ted Cruz, John Bolton, Marco Rubio, etc…

    By the way, I think there are several GOP Presidential candidates that are quite effective at thinking and communicating on their feet, and that I find quite impressive in that regard. And, since you’ve brought him up, Rick Perry isn’t one of them, at least that I’ve witnessed. Newt Gingich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain are. I’m not that familiar with Governor Perry, so maybe he’s got the articulate ability to speak in passionate complete sentences tucked away inside of him, but, even after last night’s debate, I still haven’t seen it.

    So, yes, I do foresee a future during a Perry Presidency in which he is constantly back on his heels, desperately trying to communicate conservative principles, and then falling back on tongue-tied and tired liberal tropes about not having a heart if you don’t agree with him.

    But, of course, I’m a fool. And fools, by definition, say foolish things.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    What is it about the anonymity of the internet that induces otherwise civil people to pick up a metaphorical hatchet, and start calling people ON OUR SIDE “fools”, “stupid”, “morons”, “idiots” and so on?

    I am fairly sanguine that there will be some perfectly rational excuse for calling people names (i.e.: “If someone says something stupid, then I reserve the right to call them that!! as powertothepeople is fond of barking), but how anyone can perform the mental and rhetorical gymnastics required to rationalize it, especially on a website that strives to inform and educate, is beyond my ken,

    I know I change my mind all the time when I’M called a fool…

  • Tbone

    yes you have.

  • johnconradarens

    …look it up.

  • Tbone

    nt

  • Tbone

    often.

    Well, anyone who would support Romney is a fool, at best.

    Anyone who would support Cain is an ignorant fool, at best.

    And anyone who would support “On the Good Ship Lollypop” Bachmann is a summa cum laude fool.

  • SoulEspresso

    Nt

  • boonerdan

    I have to admit that I was once “fooled” and fully admit it was my own fault. I bought the “party line” crap of the 2008 GOP ticket and voted for John McAmnesty. With that said, it was an enlightening experience and a mistake I will NEVER make again.

    Right now, there are only two candidates that I can say unequivocally that I will NEVER vote for. They are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. If faced with the same dilemma again, I will simply write my own name in. So far, I am pretty sure I can support my own views and ideas.

  • wacowboy

    there isn’t much difference between Obama and Kerry personality wise. Both are fake, arrogant, “I’m the smartest one in the room” kind of people. Obama’s actual record is one big blunder.

    the only way democrats with elections is if two things happen: republicans screw up, and democrats act like quasi-conservatives.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Affirmative Action. And diversity.