In the run up to the election, I did not express fully my views. Although I had come around to supporting Mitt Romney, I did not like his campaign. He never responded to Obama attacks and never explained how his policies would help the average America. Romney and the Republican Party were aloof to how much disliked they are. Whether they realized it or not, much of the rhetoric of the primaries turned people off. Young people, Single Women and Hispanics were derided and mocked by people like Cain, Santorum, Bachmann and even Romney himself. Instead of promoting National Unity and a inclusive vision, the Republicans Party seem to only care about the concerns Rural and Religious voters and told everyone else to take a hike. To be fair, this was not done intentional, but that is how the rhetoric came across. The result was losing to one of the worst President in American history during an anemic economy.
Since the election, it seems the Republicans are dividing into 3 camps. You have the Establishment led by Karl Rove that believe the Republicans need to turn away from the Tea Party and become Moderate. Then you have so called “The Base” * (see citation below) or purists, which demands purity and has become an exclusive club hostile and derisive of any person or group that does not subscribe to their world view. Then there are the average Republicans which tends to be Center-Right, believes in pragmatic Conservatives solutions, has a Libertarian streak and wants an inclusive Republican Party that appeals and fights for opportunity for all Americans.
The pragmatic Republicans are eager to re-brand and expand the appeal of the Republican Party. We are tired of losing elections due to perception problems and believe better messaging is needed. Mark McNeilly who is currently a professor and a former marketing executive lays a blueprint on how the Republican Party can expand its appeal and reach out to those whom the last 2 decades perceive the Party hostile to them.
The political pundits’ view on the Republican party lately is that it desperately needs to “rebrand” itself. While numerous political writers have explained why the party needs to do this, so far none have actually looked at the rebranding problem as a business would and offered concrete recommendations on the rebranding implementation. My goal is to remedy that here by offering an analysis of and recommendations for the GOP brand, starting with what the brand should stand for and then getting down into the specifics (e.g., logo, tagline, advertising) that flow from that positioning. I’ll do this not from a personal belief standpoint but from the perspective of a brand strategist.
n that brand audit, a smart brand manager, whether running a business brand or a political one, would look at every component of the brand to see what is and is not working. Questions to be asked include “How do voters perceive the party?” “What does the party stand for?” “How does the party’s name and logo either support or detract from the brand?” With that information in hand, the brand manager can either keep things mostly as is, do a minor update of the brand, or execute a major overhaul. That’s the process I will follow here.
For this audit let’s start with the GOP brand’s perceptions and how it performs among different segments. Based on data from a December 2012 CNN/ORC International poll, a December 2012 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, and an election day CNN exit poll it’s clear that the Republican brand is perceived by significant (and growing) segments of the electorate as:
• “Older,” “outdated,” and “out-of-touch” with the changes going on in America.
• Economically as “for the wealthy” and “not for the people.”
• Politically as “too extreme” and “uncompromising.”
• Emotionally as “not caring for people.”Turning to who “bought” the Republican brand in the last presidential election (per Gallup) you find the Republican party did well among men, whites, the religious, married people, those making $35K and over and the 65 and older segment. However, many of these segments (whites, married, religious) are becoming a relatively smaller portion of the electorate.
Meanwhile, the Democrats’ brand, while it has issues, is viewed more positively, is more appealing to growing segments of the voter population, and is seen as more inclusive, especially for the less-fortunate.
[....]
A Republican rebranding starts with a new brand promise. Right now, as its political and thought leaders debate about the party’s future direction, it’s obvious the party does not yet know what it stands for. And even if it did it has no tagline that expresses clearly what the GOP offers to voters.
To develop a strong brand promise, I looked at the history of the party, what I interpret as its core message, and what I believe would work going forward. From that analysis, I propose the GOP brand promise should be “Opportunity for All.” The rationale for “Opportunity” is that America is known as “the land of opportunity.” It’s what virtually all Americans want, the opportunity to live the “American Dream.” It’s also something that leading Republican politicians like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan have been talking about lately. It’s a positive and emotional message. An obvious reason that “for All” makes sense is that the GOP needs to be inclusive to gain more voters.
[....]
On social issues the GOP would promote Federalism–allowing states to experiment with solutions that best solve their problems and decide for themselves the social policies that best fit the needs and beliefs of their citizens. This would take these issues off the national stage and eliminate a big “inhibitor to purchase” by a number of voters.
[....]
The party also needs to ensure all its politicians are media-savvy. Candidates must understand the brand promise and messaging as well as be able to speak about it intelligently and passionately. They must be comfortable going to groups outside the base to carry the message. And in today’s media environment, they need to be telegenic and able to handle tough “gotcha” questions that will inevitably come their way. The old adage, “All politics are local” is not true in the digital age. As Mitt Romney found out when two Senate candidates mishandled the topic of abortion, “All politics are now national.”
I hope everyone read the article before they start attacking this post. Its time for Conservatives to realize that much of the American public feels they are hated by them. Is it a fair view? No, but we do not live in a perfect world. This is an aspect I have noticed about many Conservatives. They dream of an idealized and perfect world, not the world as it exists. Progressives on the other hand, dream of creating a perfect world, but accept the current reality. What they seek to do is alter that reality to create their Utopia. Conservatives on the other hand do not accept reality and dream of utopia, without wanting to alter reality. This is a recipe for disaster and electoral defeats such as 2012.
I know this post will not be popular with people and I accept that. But would you rather a post than tells you everything is fine and once Obama is gone, we will win every election. Or would you rather read a post that tells you reality and gives a blueprint on what is needed to change the current perception of the Republican Party. The truth is we live in an evil and fallen world. Conservatives need to accept this reality and figure out ways to create messages that will appeal to people so that we can improve reality.
If the Republican Party does not change and adapt to the current reality, it will not win that many elections. Calling everyone who did not vote Republican sluts, invaders, moochers and leaches will not endear them to your world view. Many voted for Obama out of fear of the Republican Party. This fear was due to the harsh rhetoric many Republicans spew and the Progressive media amplifying this. The key is to make people stop fearing Republicans and start viewing the Party as a viable alternative. This can be done by better messaging and rejecting hostile rhetoric.
The choice Republicans have is simple, adapt to the 21st Century reality and create a Nationalistic message of opportunity for all Americans. What the Republican party needs are more people like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Pat Toomey, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal. They need less people like Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, John McCain, the Bushes, Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Todd Akins, Sharon Angle and Mike Huckabee. Our choices should not be lame Establishment types or angry loons. A candidate can be Conservatives and electable at the same time. This will not be easy due to the Progressive Media-Entertainment Complex, but it needs to be done. What the Republican party has been doing since 1992 has not been working. It is time for a new course to start winning elections and make this nation prosperous again.
Please read the article!
(Hat Tip: Eaglesoars)
Bonus: Here is an article at National review that speaks of the difficulty in re-branding.
(Update on The Base): Mars writes the following
Oh, I see the imaginary base has risen again. If there was a base there wouldn’t be such disfunction.
There are the elites, aside from them there are literally millions of republicans, each one with their own particular feelings and beliefs. They are not a monolithic base. It is still mostly the hodge podge of conflicting ideas that Reagan managed to bring together under fiscal conservatism.
I agree with his view of this, but some here and other places insist there is a base.
Tags: Mark McNeilly, marketing
I am getting sick of this nobility of defeat” too many have adopted. There is nothing noble about losing.
Republicans need to get media savy and realize the Media is an enemy. Look at how Rubio grabbing water has become a big deal for them.
@ Speranza:
The guy who wrote this article was a Marketing executive. He lays out what Republicans need to do.
@ Speranza:
BTW Mars makes a very good point. There is no base, but others here disagree.
Good post & I buy into a lot of it.
However, whatever the Republican message is it will get
distorted by the meda. How to overcome that?
They made romney & Ryan look like monsters .
Both are decent men trying to do the right thing, but
they were portrayed as the Prince of Darkness & his
demon helper.
@ RIX:
That is the huge problem, the media. Look at how they make a big deal over Rubio getting water. If it had been Obama, they would have said it shows his human side.
That said, Romney;’s biggest mistake was trying to out Santorum, Santorum. He should have ran as what he is, an Eisenhower Republican from the beginning.
The Republicans need to run a series of “Marlboro Man”-type ads:
“Here at the T-par-T Ranch we take care of ourselves, and we take care of our own. We like living free, and we don’t think voters are cattle. We watch out for those rustlers from the Lazy Democrat.”
Rodan wrote:
well the first rule of marketing is positioning… and having said that I agree the Rs have positioned themselves poorly. The good news is that Americans are consumer based and will not be content with choosing between Coke & Pepsi. A third party is all but certain.
people living off the feds should not be allowed to vote…cold, hard truth…if that were so, this discussion would not be taking place…sit on their ass conservatives are going to lose every time to the parasites…the power of the GOP lies with those that would vote republican but just don’t vote at all
But this ongoing self-flagellation doesn’t make sense either. It costs a lot of energy without being able to find solutions and being future oriented.
Guggi wrote:
This article is about what needs to be done. It lays out a blueprint.
@ brookly red:
If the GOP does not adapt, the result will be a 3rd Party. That is why this guy wrote the article.
RIX wrote:
I rarely agree with Rodan
but in this case: who cares, put the gloves off and fight. Both, Romney and Ryan were much to halfhearted. Fight back. They touch you, ok, answer with a punch.
Rodan wrote:
and in that regard, it’s excellent
@ Rodan:
Romney made mistakes, but neither Lincoln or Reagan would have won.
According to the Media, if a Republican revises an opinion he is a
flip flopper & can’t be trusted.
When Obama switches policies, he is evolving & so intellectual.
@ Guggi:
I did not see any ads here in Florida for 3 months. I remember you were asking where was Ryan in September.
What is this “purity” thing some Folks are bitching about??
@ RIX:
Romney never should have tried to outdo Santorum. what pissed me off is how he treated Santorum with kids gloves,, but went nuclear on perry and Gingrich. He should have called out Santorum for his Socialist economic policies.
This guy has it right. I’m going to bring my final post over from the last thread. I think there’s a lot of carryover.
Fight back and get Bill Whittle as an adviser:
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Not being allowed to have a different viewpoint. Too often is someone on the Right has a different opinion, they are silenced and intimidated.
Rodan wrote:
It is already happening, most notably the Tea party but there are others… libertarians, conservatives, nationalists etc. and religion is not just for the right any more. People of faith especially minorities are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the status-quot
a little marketing and message tweaking can go a long way. coke has changed its advertising over the years but the product and the corporation have not changed.
@ Mars:
Well said. What I like about your posts is that you want to solve the problem. Conservatives will never agree 100%, but there are common goals we all can cooperate on.
They need to go around the Media or even make war on them.
the Republicans need to cut through the Media bull.
A big part of the problem is that Obama has made things so bad
that people are scared.
There is a mindset that I either do or will need the government.
They see Obama as passing out more free stuff.
RIX wrote:
couldn’t agree more.
RIX wrote:
I agree…the media is the biggest problem of all…the donks define the GOP via the media, and the truth is lost…how a party deals with that is beyond me…but that’s the heart of the matter
Rodan wrote:
yup, I asked more than one time
To me that is the biggest issue.
McCain found out that they are never really your friend.
Nothing to lose by fighting fire with fire.
here you go…this shit has to stop…
“Sen. John McCain, who had earlier described Hagel’s testimony at his confirmation hearing as one of the worst he had seen, interjected to defend Hagel’s character, indirectly rebuking Cruz.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/12/Epic-Showdown-Cruz-Versus-Levin-Nelson-over-Hagel
Rodan wrote:
A discussion I had with an old friend who happens to be gay got me thinking. Why the hell am I working against someone that I agree with 99% over a 1% issue? I think if the states are allowed to decide the gay marriage issue and protections are put in place to keep from forcing it on churches, then he can do whatever the hell he wants in that area. What’s more important to me is that he doesn’t want to see this country destroyed anymore than I do.
@ Rodan:
It doesn’t, really.
That might work on abortion, but it won’t work on gay marriage or gun control. You can no more have Federalism that violates the Bill of Rights than you can have Federal laws that violate the Bill of Rights. If the Republican Party tries to out-Democrat the Democrats, they will fail, and they won’t even be a substantial minority in the House of Representatives in ten years. This guy totally ignores the fact that the GOP is doing just fine on a State to State basis. They don’t hold the Senate, but it is close enough to where they can affect policy if they choose to. In Governorships and State Houses we are doing better than the Democrats. Instead of selling out our principles to be “more inclusive” (which I notice doesn’t include including Conservatives of Santorum’s stripe), we need to emulate what we are doing on a State basis on the national stage. YOu can chase after the Lena Dunham vote if you want, but you are never going to get it. You’d be better off coming out as being actually principled and standing for something.
Mars wrote:
gayness is not the domain of the feds, period…people need to learn what the role of the feds is…they have lost track
heysoos wrote:
They have to stop defending their opponents character. Liberals of any stripe have no character to defend. We have to start using the tactics of personal destruction the same way they do. If you look at some of the ads run in the early 80′s we weren’t always like this. We were willing to run actual attack ads, instead of these wimp as ads that get called attack ads now.
Oh and hey McCain just to let you know, that wonderful person you talked about in the 08 campaign. Not so wonderful, he really does hate the country and wants to see it remade in the worst way possible. So, good job there talking about how great of a person O is. I’m sure Hagel will turn out to be just as wonderful as time goes on.
heysoos wrote:
The lame stream obamamedia is only the tip of the iceberg. They would not have the power to control the political discourse to the extent that they do if it wasn’t for the fact that half of the electorate is too ignorant (deliberately misinformed) to understand what is in their best interests and act accordingly.
Iron Fist wrote:
You’re not wrong. But, it also isn’t the role of the feds to direct matters of social engineering, for either good or bad.
Turning back to the hands of the states puts it back where it belongs.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
yes, a perfect storm…for years I have been saying that the 1st Amendment is going to have to address the notion that a licensed broadcast business is purposely spewing lies for political benefit…if people behave like cows, they will be treated like cows and fed whatever the boss decides, then they vote…this is a fundamental problem involving free speech and voting rights….a monumental problem that dwarfs whatever the GOP message is
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Unfortunately the media and pop culture are the only way to inform that segment anyway. So its a circular argument. The fact remains, most of the public will eat what is fed to them.
(This is not to say that I think the dems won fairly. I’ve seen even more numbers this week that make it start to look like the numbers of fraudulent votes are majorly high.)
It’s been said that we have to beat them hard enough to break the margin of cheating. I’m beginning to think there is no margin big enough for that.
in other words…we’re hosed
heysoos wrote:
I’d also like an explanation on why the federal government is paying for a network that consistently spews leftist views. Both PBS and NPR have got to go.
(Oh and to head off the “putting big bird out of work” crap, I know Disney attempted to get Sesame Street back when they purchased the other Henson properties, so that argument is crap.)
PBS and NPR either are needed, in which case they will be able to generate enough revenue through licenses products or advertisers, or they are not, in which case they should be allowed to die, and their assets purchased by networks that want them.
Mars wrote:
If that is the case, you should be able to say to him:
“I understand that you want protection for same-sex couples. I agree with you on that. But the history of the gay-rights movement shows that that is not what the movement is seeking. The gay-rights movement is a creation of Communists: of Frank Kameny and Harry Hay after WWII, and of the SDS, the New Left, and the Maoists after Stonewall.
The gay-rights movement agitated—supposedly—against AIDS in the 1980s. But not only did it save nobody by doing so; it condemned tens of thousands of gay people to death by agitating against closing the bath houses and backroom bars. The gay-rights movement has attacked conservative presidents like George Bush despite their doing much to combat AIDS in Africa.
The gay-rights movement has created and pushed the concept of “hate speech,” which makes it impossible to discuss political issues honestly. The gay-rights movement has perfected the politics of personal attack; first against Anita Bryant, later against anyone who has disagreed—merely disagreed—with the agitation for same-sex marriage. The gay-rights movement had succeeded in getting partnership protections in California, but it still pushed for “marriage”—and personally attacked those who disagreed. The gay-rights movement has made it necessary for California to pass a state law protecting religious denominations that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages—protection which should already be considered to exist without question thanks to the First Amendment. This tells you that the gay-rights movement, which was formed with the outspoken objective of destroying marriage and heterosexual society, is a threat to the country as it was conceived.
You want protection for same-sex couples? Fine; I agree with you. I will fight for such protection—as domestic partnerships—side by side with you. But for me to do that you will have to show that you are not part of a movement which was founded for the purpose of destroying the country that you, too, claim to wish to preserve. I agree with you; will you agree with me?”
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Actually I did. He and I mostly agree. He completely understands what the movement is and what they have wanted. The problem is, (largely due to conservative upbringing) he can’t get past the term “marriage”. He was brought up to believe that marriage is the goal of a relationship and can’t get past the idea.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Well said. You are a much more eloquent voice than I at defining why gay marriage is not an issue that can just be left up to the States. Laudable as such a sentiment might be, surely anyone who cares to notice will see that the Left will not be content to leave it there. No, Obama won’t be hapy until he can force a Catholic priest to officiate at a gay marriage in a Catholic Cathedral. And the same goes true for evangelicals, and any other sect/denomination that has moral objections to the homosexual lifestyle.
@ Iron Fist:
I don’t really see Gun Control as a social issue. To me that is a Constitutional Civil Right.
Mars wrote:
Would that he were on this board; I would love to discuss it with him.
Have to disagree with this part. Sorry but he makes it sound like white folk, the religious and me voted FOR the republican being “Older,” “outdated,” and “out-of-touch” with the changes going on in America, being economically as “for the wealthy” and “not for the people.”, politically as “too extreme” and “uncompromising.” and emotionally as “not caring for people.”
We did NOT vote for THAT and I really resent the insinuation.
I just happened to know that the “brand” was a caricature and voted R anyway.
@ RIX:
No kidding. This morning, all the CBS commentators could talk about, after going orgasmic over the Barry Cicero Lie Parade last night, was Rubio’s needing to reach for a water bottle, as if the very act invalidated the entire speech. BTW, Rubio was undaunted and even had a laugh at his own expense afterward by tweeting a photo of a water bottle.
[By the way, I don't know who was in charge of Rubio's "set up" but if it was one of the networks, find the little shit who was in charge of props and fire his ass. If this was a professional group, they know damned well the distance water or anything else needs to be put so that it can be accessed without going out of camera range.]
@ Iron Fist:
Santorum is NOT a Conservative. He is a Progressives who is Socially Conservatives. He should go to the Democrat party where he belongs. Santorum is against Individual Freedom and Free Markets. He’s a Pro-Life/Anti-Gay Marriage version of Obama.
Santorum is a Leftist.
Rodan wrote:
The 2nd amendment is a Constitutional Civil Right… Gun Control is social issue aimed at overturning that right
@ mskelly:
He’s talking about the perception and from a marketing stand point.
We got to slowly start peeling away at the traditional Democratic voters. Those who are not extremists and just vote Democrat because their family has voted Democratic for generations. We need to become what the Democratic Party was in the 1940′s , 50′s and early 60′s -- the Party of the working class.
@ Mars:
One of our goals (if not the main one) has to be finding a way to break the Liberal’s grip on the cycle of control through ignorance and misinformation.
@ brookly red:
To me Gun Control is violating a Civil Right, which is why I do not view it as social issue. If others do, hey we can disagree.
Rodan wrote:
The perception is (and it is an incorrect one) that we are a Party of scolds, curmudgeons, and killjoys.
@ Speranza:
The Republicans did it before. I laugh when people say Group X can’t vote Republican. Does solid South ring a bell? Heck, New England was once Republican. In 20 years, the electoral map and Party coalitions could very well be different.
@ Speranza:
We need to purge the Santorum Progressive wing. Let them go back to the Democrat Party and duke it out with the Secular Progressives about role of Government.
Santorum would have been a perfect New Deal Democrat.
Speranza wrote:
Reagan did it, it can be done again. Somehow we have to get them understanding there is no other issue right now more important than getting the country back on track fiscally. Then we need to have a long talk about rights, what they are and where they come from.
Rodan wrote:
I (as do you) trace the decline of Republicanism in previously competitive districts (Nassau and Suffolk counties) to the 1992 “culture war” convention speech by neo-Fascist Pat Buchanan.
Rodan wrote:
Exactly why I never use the term “gun con-troll” to do so is framing the argument that constitutional rights are negotiable and of course they are not.
@ Mars:
can you ‘peel off’ donk voters faster than they can breed them?
Iron Fist wrote:
I have said before, and I will say again, that I believe the fix is in. The Supreme Court is due to rule on two same-sex marriage cases simultaneously this Spring.
If the First DA/DT Justice writes the opinion, as I believe she will, then the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment will be destroyed from the Supreme Court bench by Progressive fiat. The two cases involve a Second Circuit case regarding a same-sex couple married under New York’s gay-marriage law, that are claiming discrimination under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and a review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that California’s plebiscite to amend the state constitution to exclude same-sex marriage is “unconstitutional.”
I am betting that the First DA/DT Justice will opine that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause—and then, having used a state law to invalidate a federal law (something all but unheard-of), the First DA/DT Justice will use her own ruling on that matter to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s invalidation of the will of the people of California, and hold that they do not have the right to amend their own state constitution.
The latter ruling will destroy the Tenth Amendment. The former ruling will destroy the First Amendment, because it will make same-sex marriage the law of the land as a matter of “civil rights”—and freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion will be dead.
Bet on it.
Mars wrote:
You get no argument from me. I hate it when we automatically write off large swaths of the nation. If it is a liberal state then run a center-liberal republican for senator.
@ Rodan:
I can read.
I get the whole article but in that paragraph he said the ones that voted R bought into that brand -- meaning that’s what we wanted.
Which is a lie.
@ Mars:
Frankly, I say start re-running Sesame Street from the beginning -- they’ve got -- what? 30 years of shows? Hell, there’s nothing new in the alphabet and numbers.
heysoos wrote:
yes… but not faster than the can import them
Rodan wrote:
There is something disgustingly obscene about being a Nude Eel Democrat…
Carolina Girl wrote:
Watching episode 3 of Ripper Street tonight.
Want to party with Catherine Eddowes?
@ Rodan:
New England was Republican when Richard Nixon was the standardbearer. They were still very far Left. You can say what you like, but unless the Republican Party beomes identical to the Democrat Party you won’t win a majority of the votes in New England. And if they become just like the Democrats, they’ll lose the whole South to a new Third Party.
Carolina Girl wrote:
T is for Trillion…
Rodan wrote:
He is a bloodless, pedantic fool.
@ heysoos:
Thank God Ted Cruz has a spine.
@ brookly red:
D is for Deficit.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
a little seaweed, a little wasabi, some soy sauce… bring em on!
Carolina Girl wrote:
S is for Servitude
brookly red wrote:
it’s a losing battle…the gun grab gig is going back to financing the CDC in terns of ‘health’ issues and that tied together with doctors and gun questions…and the DHS has all this unexplained ammo, which reeks of some contorted ‘national security’ tripe…liberals are going to hammer gun control in any manner they can…thus it’s not about the 2nd Amendment, it’s about common sense health and security for all
@ Speranza:
I’ve always seen myself as Polly Nichols’ best friend.
See you at the Ten Bells.
I hate Ash Wednesday…..
….one meal. No meat.
@ brookly red:
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
That’ll be what Obama’s Sesame Street teaches the kids.
@ Mars:
Not surprised that Meghan McCain’s boobs father reverted to being the backstabbing mofo we always knew he was.
heysoos wrote:
I see that as opportunity. Let them Link gun grabbing to obamacare… 2 birds/1 stone.
Carolina Girl wrote:
yup, he’s tossed the gloves and dove right into the brawl…gotta love that if you’d rather fight than get pushed around…unleash the guy, don’t go on a senate record slapping him down…McCain has to go, he’s too passive for the times
Carolina Girl wrote:
A lot of people walking around Manhattan Island looking as if someone put out a cigar on their foreheads.
@ Carolina Girl:
CG—you toil in the vineyards of law, too, do you not? I’m curious as to your take on my #61 above.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Dossing tonight on Dorset Street!
Iron Fist wrote:
and this is different from the public school system because?
Carolina Girl wrote:
If only W. had the temerity to actually once in a while fight back.
Speranza wrote:
NY is not as blue as they would have you think…
@ Mars:
Yup!
heysoos wrote:
They aren’t breeding anymore. At least white liberals. They are dying off faster than replacement rates.
They gain their next generations through recruiting. Thus, the schools and media.
Mars wrote:
Speaking of the gay-rights movement…
Mars wrote:
I’m talking about the fast ghetto pens, the backbone of liberal votes
Carolina Girl wrote:
Yes he does and we need more like him! I loved it when he ripped Schumer a new one. The Left was calling Cruz a bully.
I predict Cruz will be on the Supreme Court one day.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Thought of you while typing that.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
If that happens then we will no longer have a legitimate government in Washington DC.
It will be time for the States to revoke the “Consent of the governed” and call a Constitutional Convention. If that fails, then all bets are off.
heysoos wrote:
At the rate O is driving the illegals out through his bad economy and other factors, they may be drying up too.
@ Iron Fist:
We have always been at war with Oceania!
Mars wrote:
ahhh and immigrants. many people think Hispanic when you say that word but there is a huge wave of Asians coming into the country who have seen what communism is up close and personal. You show me a Korean Presbyterian and I will show you a conservative
brookly red wrote:
There is that.
Mars wrote:
There are plenty of people who will choose the “gay lifestyle” on their own. But if you do not think that the initiatives in schools are intended as grooming and recruitment, you are not paying close enough attention.
Rodan wrote:
/can’t we just nuke em out and be done with it? sheesh.
@ Mars:
Plus Latin America is economically booming. Why come here when you can get a job at home.
The big issue and One Republicans do not have the ball to address is Legal Islamic Immigration. We are giving them preferential treatment and speedy visas.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
The libs are already pushing for a second constitutional convention. All their little comments about how other nations have a fairer constitution and how ours is out of date.
They really want to get this done and over before the uninformed become informed.
Could you imagine a liberal constitution? I think even Marx would be shocked.
Republicans ought to concentrate on Asian immigrants from Southeast Asia and from India as well as middle class Hispanics.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
The gay-rights movement has been trying to hermit-crab its way into the shell of the Civil Rights Movement for over 40 years. With the push for SSM, it has consciously—and utterly mendaciously—attempted to draw false parallels between “marriage equality” and the Supreme Court’s abolition of anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s.
If the First DA/DT Justice writes this Spring’s opinion, that false parallel will be there.
Iron Fist wrote:
There’s no point in winning an election or two if you lose your soul in the process.
@ Mars:
Yet Democrats got 76% of Asians. I am convinced the same problem Republicans have with Hispanic is the same one with Asians. Its a perception problem. There is no way a Chinese Restaurant owner should be voting Democrat.
Rodan wrote:
ahem… http://www.myfoxny.com/story/21136899/struggling-caribbean-islands-selling-citizenship
Carolina Girl wrote:
What about the “New Math”…
(Took me years to recover from that crap.
)
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I need to read the briefs but frankly no, I think SCOTUS will not find that gays have a right to marry. Marriage in our society is strongly defined and has as its ultimate purpose the legitimization of offspring. Gays, despite the silliness of a three-way birth certificate in Florida, cannot in of themselves continue the species. Of course, it won’t get as scientific as that, but no, I think they’ll side with tradition (but what the hell do I know -- I got the Obamacare and Arizona decisions wrong).
If I had to guess (not reading the briefs)….SCOTUS says that Gay Marriage is not a right and laws barring it do not infringe on anyone’s civil rights. Clarence Thomas writes the opinion.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
My younger sisters were taught “sight” reading as opposed to phonetics. To this day they do not enjoy the written word nearly as much as I do.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
that’s pretty idealistic…winning the election is everything, if you play it right, you can live fat forever…don’t think for a second that principle is a major factor regarding service…it’s not service anymore, it’s a business
Iron Fist wrote:
It was Republican even under Reagan. It changed in 1992 when Poppy Bush ran on Murphy Brown and Family Values.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Enjoy losing.
Rodan wrote:
ahhh and there lies a dirty little secret… I am not going to post it but when you guess who controls immigration I am sure you figure it out.
Carolina Girl wrote:
I hope you’re right. But as I see it, there will be four votes for SSM: the First DA/DT Justice, plus Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. That leaves it up to either Kennedy or Roberts as a swing vote.
Rodan,
You needn’t have worried about how this thread would be received. In one form or another everyone seems to agree that the Republicans have a PR problem, exacerbated by some of our leaders who seem to lean a little left or at least want to make themselves acceptable to the democrat voters and especially to minorities.
I think we should back to Ronald Reagan as a model. He held firm to his ideals and projected an optimistic look to the future. His vision of America included everyone and there was not a hint of racism, hate or whatever else the left tried to stick on him. He could work with dems without giving away the store. His vision is accessible to our new crop of leaders if they would just look to the example he set.
Speranza wrote:
I think the Republican Party would like to. But they are afraid that some Conservatives will bolt if that happens.
Carolina Girl wrote:
well that is IF you assume they are not activists…
@ Carolina Girl:
@ brookly red:
If the Supreme Court falls for the false equation of SSM with the anti-miscegenation rulings, they will rule for SSM.
e @ BatGuano:
Opportunity should be the key word!
Rodan wrote:
Bobby Jindal?
personal liberty, smaller govt, state’s rights.
aka: leave me the hell alone.
works every time its tried.
Rodan wrote:
Actually if you run the numbers Bush 1 actually won if not for the spoiler.
Plus it was his reneging on tax policy that did him in, not the family values. In the 80′s the public was still generally in favor of family values.
Go watch the debates if you don’t believe me. Family values didn’t come up once. It was all fiscal. Clinton ran to the right of Bush on fiscal policy. The mayor of munchkinland ran to the right of Bush on fiscal policy too.
@ BatGuano:
Reagan is ancient history…it’s an entirely new paradigm when a shoe shine boy can get elected president…the planets have shifted since his time
Rodan wrote:
Oh, and since you have such a strong focus on music, you should remember who was attacking the music industry on the family values platform at that time. Does the name Tipper Gore ring any bells?
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
you put too much faith in them… I think they are just as corrupt and partisan as the other 2 branches.
@ Speranza:
@ Rodan:
Marco Rubio!
heysoos wrote:
Half the electorate does not even remember him.
Rodan wrote:
Really? I’m an old Republican conservative who understands that America is changing and the needs of our new legal immigrants need to be taken into consideration. An appeal to those come to America to work and better themselves is not offensive to me.
heysoos wrote:
And yet just two years ago when the history channel ran a thing asking the public who the greatest american president was: Reagan won big.
coldwarrior wrote:
I see the States rising… states rights is the next frontier
brookly red wrote:
Not at all; I just know that they have to account for their actions with citations. Perhaps I should have phrased it as, “If they decide for SSM, they will cite to the anti-miscegenation rulings to justify it,” but it comes to the same thing.
Rodan wrote:
I doubt that they would bolt and if they do bleep them!
Mars wrote:
that buchanan speech and bush’s reneging on no new taxes crippled the gop, i watched it hapen up here in real time and at ground zero. we suburbanites dont care about culture war. it goes against our ‘leave us alone’ ideal.
buchanan and the culture warriors destroyed the gop as a brand in the NE suburbs.
Mars wrote:
whatever…if Babe Ruth tried out for the Yankees center fielder, he’d be cut the first day
Mars wrote:
yes and who exactly watches the history channel? Let me give you a hint… they don’t use obamaphones.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/move-obama-ronald-reagan-voted-nation-greatest-president-latest-gallup-poll-article-1.135728
This also says otherwise.
Mars wrote:
If the Liberals can get three-quarters of the States to ratify a Liberal Constitution than we are beyond saving. I believe the fear of the Liberals hijacking a Constitutional Convention are unfounded.
Rodan wrote:
The word “opportunity” can not be over stressed. That is the essence of America.
coldwarrior wrote:
As I mentioned once before, a lot of people when they hear “smaller government” think they are going to lose their social security or medicare. “Efficient government” is a better term. Nobody is against “efficiency” and it cannot be demagogued.
@ Mars:
I was in NY at the time and know many who stopped voting Republcian because Bush was talking about Murphy Brown/family values and not the economy. They went for Perot and some never came back.
What really did the GOP in the Northeast was The Pat Buchanan Speech. Ask Coldwarrior and Speranza the effect that speech had on people they know. The GOP has not recovered from that speech.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
I do not.
heysoos wrote:
but he voted for Obama 4 times in the Bronx alone…
Mars wrote:
Reagan whipped up a nice meal…since then all the cooking methods and ingredients have changed…move ahead
Rodan wrote:
That speech was such a gift to the Democrats that they ought to have sent flowers to Buchanan.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
why not they hijacked everything else? no the constitution is just fine the way it is… what we have is an enforcement issue
Mars wrote:
There have only been three GREAT presidents : Washington, Lincoln and Reagen.
Rodan wrote:
Al Franken isn’t all that bad of a guy…
Speranza wrote:
i dont want efficient bureaucrats enforcing regulations at an ever more efficient pace.
i want less bureaucrats enforcing less regulations.
the oldsters are smart enough to know that their precious ponzi scheme will be safe until they croak. i dont expect to see a dime of what i put in tho.
heysoos wrote:
Babe Ruth was not the fat slob in his early days that the later pictures of him indicate. A good outfielder and base runner and a heckuva pitcher too.
BatGuano wrote:
did you leave out Madison and Polk intentionally?
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
may all your micro-brews be skunky and flat!
coldwarrior wrote:
They (the public) are not seeing it like that. I am saying change the wording. There was a reason why they were able to demagogue Paul Ryan.
Eisenhower was a very underrated president.
Speranza wrote:
his pitching stats alone are Hall worthy…9 out of 10 people have no clue…even when he was fat and slow he was piling up the batting stats…but then he never faced Rodger Clemons or Nolan Ryan
Speranza wrote:
the left gets away with that because we are too spineless to fight back. that ad must have secretly made boehner very happy.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
@ brookly red:
The Left is adept at hijacking things through rules: look at the way they rammed Obamacare through; look at the way the Left took over the Democrats by insisting that the “alternate delegates” to their conventions be seated; look at the way they passed laws which enabled fraudulent voter registrations. If you think that these finely-honed skills will not be brought to bear to ensure a progressive thumb on the scale of a new Constitutional Convention, you are much mistaken.
coldwarrior wrote:
Not to stick on the point, but that’s going to take some efficiency.
Consistency in our judicial system in regards to sentencing and monetary penalties would go a long way.
I understand both your and Speranza’s point, and I don’t think that they’re necessarily exclusive.
Less laws will REQUIRE more efficiency.
heysoos wrote:
Well,perhaps I should have included Polk,the most underrated President of all. Madison was also a fine president as was Jefferson. I was just narrowing it those three because of the magnitude of their achievements.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Not to mention literally millions of fraudulent votes being cast on the nationwide level.
BatGuano wrote:
I knew that, you are far smarter than me…but Polk always raises some eyebrows, in a fun way…he tripled the US zone all the way to China for that matter…the greatest land grab in the history of humans
@ heysoos:
I understand this is McCain’s last term (according to him, I think). McCain always stands on conservatism when he’s up for re-election and then becomes the left’s best friend once the Senate is seated. Perhaps Jan Brewer would consider a Senate run. She’s certainly got the cajones for it.
http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/02/13/obamas-paycheck-fairness-act-fiasco-dumbest-president-ever/
Look, the boy king wants everyone getting the same wage.
Oh and he called for the minimum wage raised to 9 bucks.
Bumr50 wrote:
I am very pro-life to the point that I am uneasy with the death penalty for murder. Having said that if we don’t start hanging some of these SOBs in office we are lost. OK, go ahead, que the hemp rope stuff…
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I’ll go as far as saying it is a concern, but I don’t see it as a strong enough reason for not calling a Constitutional Convention. I see the alternative of an out of control central government as being a lot worse…
Mars wrote:
same as a doctor under obamacare…
Speranza wrote:
Seriously? What did Eisenhower ever do for us? Other than negotiate a truce in Korea, develop the interstate highway system, create NASA and preside over the greatest expansion of wealth in American history.
Carolina Girl wrote:
I won’t diss McCain personally…he seems to be a fine man and patriot…when his politics and mine don’t jibe, I don’t fault him for it…it’s just that his time has passed, but I’d drink beer with him anyday and that’s the highest I’ll ever regard a politician
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Of course the Left would hijack a Constitutional Convention. If they even had to. 51% of the voting populace seems to think “From each according to his measue. To each according to his need” is a perfect plan for running the government. I’d bet that most of the low info voters think that Thomas Jefferson said it, to boot. We do not need another Constitutional Convention. We need to adhere to the Constitution that we have.
Iron Fist wrote:
yup
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Just as criminals on the streets of Chicago do not give a shit about new gun laws, so criminals who draw a paycheck from the federal government to administer its dicta do not give a shit about new “constitutional conventions.”
We either have people working for us who understand the terms of their employing document, or we do not. At present, we do not. It is that which must be addressed. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with our employing document; what is wrong is that we have, for far too long, let the servants run riot.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
What makes you think that they’d pay any more attention to a new Contituton than they do the old one, anyway?
brookly red wrote:
I don’t do “micro-brews”.
I drink real beer imported from Wisconsin.
I like the way Coolidge handled people.
Bumr50 wrote:
efficiency means being able to do a a task more quickly and with less waste. if the bureaucrats can enforce laws more efficiently, they more laws and regs will be enforced. it will be like robo’crat.
we need less regulations, hence smaller. efficient enforcement with this set of regs knee caps the economy even faster.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I only bold when I feel very serious about it…DC has lost their identity, that they serve me…I will never get along, just get by…like handing over the keys to the family car to a drunken teenager…I REFUSE to bow before my employees
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Then the only real alternative to letting the Liberals take over is civil war. The road we are currently on does not lead to a good end.
@ Speranza:
He was so fast, he would be a star today. He was the best at every position he played. No player then or since was as versatile.
BatGuano wrote:
splitters!!!
Mars wrote:
Let’s just raise it to 35 bucks and end poverty once and for all…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
OH sorry, my bad yes real beer and real football comes from Wisconsin
coldwarrior wrote:
I’m listening bro…preach it…I’m extremely sensitive about my personal liberty, get the feds off my back and you have my vote
@ coldwarrior:
Having LESS laws is crucial.
It will be hard.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
35 is still poor in NYC…
I have a comment stuck in moderation hell if a mod here can help out.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
If the only solution is civil war, we might as well save ourselves the expense and useless kabuki theater spectacle of a constitutional convention.
BatGuano wrote:
IIRC he also played a lot of golf…
heysoos wrote:
i am unelectable. hell, my own side would chew me up and spit me out. the left would never even get the chance.
BatGuano wrote:
Mantle worshipped Ruth and emulated his style and game…same result in the end, fat, slow and drunk, but a lights out carreer…but it worked in those days
Mars wrote:
Even at 9 bucks an hour, Oblahblah would be overpaid.
Iron Fist wrote:
And just who is going to enforce the Constitution that we have if no one in the central government gives a damn…
heysoos wrote:
“…is no way to go through baseball signing events, son.”
@ heysoos:
I’m afraid when some voters hear “efficient” or “smaller” government they think, ” Does that mean I don’t get my shit?”
@ brookly red:
Actually, I thought it interesting that the MSM was so frantic about the Dorner standoff yesterday. All I figured was that the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office was taking a leaf from Obama’s book on how one prosecutes terrorists. Unfortunately, a DRONE wasn’t available.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Only in his spare time.
coldwarrior wrote:
if there were a woodland far to the west somewhere, I’d move there..the intent of govt was to protect it’s citizens…we are in an unreal science fiction now where gov subjects us, the very thing that created America in the first place…I’m jaded but hardly defeated
coldwarrior wrote:
Hey I could do it… I will just set heysoos up as “everyman” kinda like Joe the Plumber and answer every question with “would that be good for heysoos?” or “leave fuckin heysoos alone!” … it could work.
Bumr50 wrote:
long is the struggle, hard the fight.
@ brookly red:
You’er half right…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
not that there is anything wrong with that.
Just got home so haven’t read the thread.
Thanks for the h/t -- but may I pass it over to John Hood at NRO
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I see a Constitutional Convention as the last chance to avoid a civil war.
The States working together have the power to force DC Town to change. We the People are shit out of luck…
Carolina Girl wrote:
Obama called them and said Allahdamnit! if one more of my backers tweets to support him I may have to pardon his ass! By order of the prophet burn him right fucking now!
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
funny…Mantle signed autographs like no tomorrow…he stayed late and the kids never went away jilted…many hours and it cut into his drinking time, but he did it…every game he’d face a mob of kids…I remember Jack Morris snubbing me and my boy, too uninterested to deal with the very kids that worshipped him…I could have strangled that punk…times change
@ heysoos:
I appreciate McCain’s service to this country and admire his fortitude, bravery and perseverance in the face of the unspeakable horrors inflicted upon him at the Hanoi Hilton.
He has, unfortunately, been a disaster as a politician.
heysoos wrote:
All there accomplishments were achieved without anabolic steroids.
coldwarrior wrote:
In Ike’s case it was a very good thing…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
True, a Constitutional Convention would avoid a civil war…
by surrendering before a shot was fired.
Don’t Tread on Me.
@ BatGuano:
And Babe Ruth was hitting a dead ball.
Carolina Girl wrote:
I trust that he tried to govern in the way he thought best…sometimes conviction is more valuable then the issue itself…hit and miss John…I wish him no harm, he’s good at renaming buildings and highways
@ brookly red:
So you’re ready to give up now without trying??
heysoos wrote:
Obama is much better… People’s Highway 1, people’s highway 2…
BatGuano wrote:
yup, and a guy like Mantle is the best of the best…he got old, just like you did…he doffed his cap to me at a Comiskey twi-night double header…we connected…dissin the Mick is not cool with me
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
No. I want to conserve what we already have… I am a Conservative… don’t fall for that we can make it better shit.
RIX wrote:
right…a modern ball sinks quicker, turns faster, bobbles around more, much more movement with the modern ball…there was no devastating fork ball back then
Mars wrote:
got it
heysoos wrote:
Never diss the Mick!He had a fried chicken franchise and the slogan he wanted was, “To get a better piece of chicken you’d have to be a rooster.” He was over ruled.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340639/students-told-stop-usa-chant-take-american-flag-bandanas-andrew-johnson
With only eight teams in the league, the pitching
was consistently top flight.
Today most of the 4 & 5 starters would be down in
the minors.
brookly red wrote:
The States created the Federal Government in 1787, only the States can fix it now.
BatGuano wrote:
he was a character and his demise was a sad thing…I remember watching him play first base and could hardly move his knees were so bad..he couldn’t dive, if he did he couldn’t get up…any routine play was a disaster waiting
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Mine comes from Golden, Colorado….
@ heysoos:
Mantle was a natural. That whole Yankee team was great, Maris, White Ford,
Yogi Berra etc.
They ruined a lot of my summers.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
I agree and I support states rights, but if you put anything out there that can be used to wield power the left will hijack it… you are right on principal but when the ball is in the Devil’s court don’t play the game.
@ heysoos:
I remember watching him on tv when I was young. I knew about his knees but I always thought, “I’m watching Mickey Mantle!”
Carolina Girl wrote:
I loved it when Jackson tried to shake down Coors… that was his Waterloo
RIX wrote:
yeah…they were a powerhouse…when the mighty Yankees came to town, games sold out instantly..my baseball beginning were all about those late 50′s teams…a golden goodbye to some famed players that crossed over the golden years…I saw Mantle Berra Mayes Minoso Cash Earnie Banks etc…Rose and the great Philly teams, last of the greats
Carolina Girl wrote:
If that’s the brew I’m thinking of, they bought to old Hamm’s Brewery not far from here.
brookly red wrote:
I’m out to take the damn ball back. Stuff the Liberals…
@ RIX:
IN his first full season Mantle hit 23 hr’s, 87 rbi’s and batted 311. He was 20. Just looked it up.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Pure Rocky Mountain Spring water…..the Light version.
Because it’s the official beer of NASCAR.
author”>Da_Beerfreak wrote:
then don’t play their game…
@ Da_Beerfreak:
a very aggressive defense can get you back in the game…sort of what I have hoped would come out of the GOP…Cruzer comes to mind
Carolina Girl wrote:
Coors is good stuff… we use it to cook spaghetti in
<@ buzzsawmonkey:
Yep. They do have to back it up. And they are on most matters bound to precedent. Of course, bless them, they saw Plessy for what it was.
Marc hill is that annoying pseudo intellectual academic that Bill
O’Reiley has on once in a while.
He personifies what is wrong with higher education.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
The states depend on the federal government. how do we get the ball back?
@ Mars:
My son asked about Ronald Reagan (he was born during the last year of his Presidency). I set up You Tube and played him the speech at the Brandenburg gate. And I watched his eyes water when President Reagan exclaimed: Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!”
heysoos wrote:
yes true… In this case I prefer zone defense. Keep them away from our constitution at all costs. Period.
@ BatGuano:
thanks for that…Mantle was a beast in his prime..he could hit a baseball 450ft just snapping his wrists over…a full swing and the ball was parked on a freeway somewhere…he was awesome
There were some great ballplayers back in the day & Minoso
was one of the best.
BatGuano wrote:
blitz the quarterback!
@ Carolina Girl:
Good for you!
@ brookly red:
it is very much like a football game…same principles apply
He was a gifted athlete and wicked fast.
@ brookly red:
I’m a beer lightweight. I prefer red wine. And living 10 miles from the glorious Napa Valley, I get the GOOD stuff. Cheap. Driving there in the middle of the week (they up the prices a bit on the weekends for the folks backing up Hwy 29 in their Enterprise rental cars with the “Winery Map.”
Carolina Girl wrote:
and that is why we shall overcome. Thank you for you service.
http://patriotoutdoornews.com/5465/olympic-arms-inc-announces-new-york-state-sales-policy-will-no-longer-serve-first-responders
@ brookly red:
My rules.
@ BatGuano:
Thank you. I had to explain to him just what the Berlin Wall stood for, which led him to research it, including the Berlin Airlift. They don’t learn anymore in high school about the oppressive nature of what the USSR actually was.
RIX wrote:
I have a vague memory of a player named Minnie Minoso. Is that the one
Carolina Girl wrote:
more power to you! any time you want to make money re-selling talk to me.
@ Rodan:
After the success of Gulf War I, I heard even the liberal MSM say that Bush would be unbeatable in 1992. Yet, he somehow found a way……
BatGuano wrote:
I have a vague memory of Roger Maris…
@ Carolina Girl:
Again, thank you for educating the next generation Americans.
Carolina Girl wrote:
i was there live for that speech.
@ RIX:
he was a priceless favorite in south Chicago…I saw him play many times
@ brookly red:
Oh listen, if there’s anyone here that likes a particular brand of Napa Valley wine and needs a case shipped to them, let me know.
I recommend ANYTHING from the Mondavi or Beaulieu vineyards. And if you know you’re going to be in the area, get my email from Rodan and I will be happy to give you the tour. No rental car necessary.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
nice thought… but not piratical.
BatGuano wrote:
Not all of them, and it won’t be easy by any stretch of the imagination. And it won’t likely be peaceful either.
BatGuano wrote:
he was of the first wave of players from the Caribbean
@ brookly red:
Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961. That is the record. Fuck any of those steroid enhanced bastards who claim otherwise.
South Chicago? You must be a Sox fan, me too.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Of course not, the kids might come to some uncomfortable comparisons.
That is exactly right.
Carolina Girl wrote:
No but I do know several restaurant-trues that could use a hook up…
BatGuano wrote:
yup…all the records fell in a couple of seasons…another asterix, I have zero use for modern baseball
@ coldwarrior:
That must have been glorious. I still can’t hear it without tearing up.
I thought it fitting that the stupid MSM was caught completely unaware about the outpouring of genuine grief by America when we lost him. CSPAN was giving us 24-hour coverage, and by the time they caught up and started airing it, we found that we were satisfied to stand by as observers without the claptrap coming out of their biased mouths.
The exception of course, the services in California, where we had comment. I turned the volume down and the “missing man” formation over the funeral had me sobbing.
coldwarrior wrote:
Lucky bastard! I envy you so much I want to … do something!
@ RIX:
yup…Nellie Fox forever!
@ BatGuano:
You are all making me blush….thank you.
brookly red wrote:
Piratical is fine when buying a new lawnmower.
@ BatGuano:
the reaction was more or less:
can he say that? is he allowed to say that? did he just say that?
i witnessed the debate between state and the white house over those comments two days before the speech. the telex machines were alight! state insisted he not say it becasue he had no idea what he was talking about and was ignorant of the situation on the ground, the WH told them to shove it,
BatGuano wrote:
I was born in 58, in the Bronx… my farther bought us ice cream from the Good Humor truck every time he hit a home-run. I was a pudgy kid!
One of the most solemn , respectful things that I have
ever seen.
Carolina Girl wrote:
you did good! Quick have some more!11!!
Carolina Girl wrote:
I’m sipping a Woodbridge right now and I’m crazy about BV coastal and especially Rutherford. My wife and intend to be near there in April. I will contact Rodan when the time comes.@ Carolina Girl:
I had dinner with & got drunk with Bill Veck!
There were six other guys, but still………
brookly red wrote:
Maris became famous around catching Ruth…that same season Mantle was right behind him by only a couple of homers…it was just as much a race between them as it was for the title…really cool
heysoos wrote:
awww man we had pizza and ziti and meatballs all summer long
brookly red wrote:
then we started going to Cape Cod for the summer in 62… the kids there were red sox fans… I learned to fight in the summer of 62.
@ brookly red:
Hi Brookly. A belated welcome to the Blogmocracy. I left the other site 3 years ago although I have a sock puppet that still posts there.
BatGuano wrote:
Thanks… I never do soxs. I am who I am.
Drove around last night checking a score of restaurants/watering holes and not one place had the SOTU speech on in a college town
brookly red wrote:
That is very wise and I agree with you. I will kill my EdDantes sock.
BatGuano wrote:
thought you did that last week??
brookly red wrote:
I mean you did say you were going to do so?
@ brookly red:
I outed myself last week but my sock survived. I don’t know how to make it official without “flouncing.”
well if an illegal alien can address congress I guess you can fart in CJs general direction, yes?
BatGuano wrote:
flouncing is over rated…in fact it’s pretty rare
heysoos wrote:
yes most folks just get banned for kissing his ass the wrong way…
BatGuano wrote:
might as well go over there and say something good about CJ and get 100 updings before he figures it out…
@ brookly red:
He’ll never figure it out. I only created it to have a presence there and generate a lot of updings and then skewer him. I just don’t want to put this site in a bad light.
In White Sox lore Minnie is up there with Shoeless Joe.
Iron Fist wrote:
That isn’t all. According to the Constitution, a contract that is made and is valid in any one state is to be recognized as valid in all the rest.
Thus are the machinations of the looniest of the states foisted on all the rest of us.
brookly red wrote:
Yup.
I wasn’t one of them. I got banned way back when for defending Serbs.
coldwarrior wrote:
Truly enviable!
@ Rodan: well i agree with the author 100 percent. Opportunity for all. And looks at Rove. He heads back to his bunker and tries to build a bigger tank.
@ BatGuano:
darn
darkwords wrote:
I would love to see Rove reduced to pitching consumer products on an infomercial.
RIX wrote:
What about Ozzie Guillen?
BatGuano wrote:
I still have a sock there. Have to tread lightly though, waiting for the right time for my big flounce.
Looks like I missed the party as usual.
What did Hussein do when he ran for reelection? Did he “pivot” to the center? Hardly. Gay marriage as an election year issue?
HE knows his base; he knows that the concept of a base is valid and does not imply that all members of his base are the same. May I suggest that some here can learn from him?
A pragmatic politician will have to split differences and give benefits to one group in his base if some benefit given to another part of his base causes annoyance. Mittens was NOT doing any of that. He was saying f-you to all parts of his base. That’s why he lost.
PR is great. Stupid comments that do not please the majority of one’s base are … stupid.
But the problem is not branding, it’s REALITY: Rep candidates for prez have little to offer the base, and this doesn’t change because of quibbles about the concept of “base.”