Friday, January 20, 2012

From the HQ

Andrew Breitbart is reported as having said he reads the Ace of Spades Headquarters (permalinked in my side bar), but that he only reads the comments.

This, from prolific and long-time poster 'Vic' is a prime example why.  I'm posting it here because I believe that it deserves its own post somewhere:

We are left with zip dog shit for candidates. Year after year after year under the stagnated BS Republican Party primary rules we get stuck with shitty candidates. The primaries are preloaded with almost ALL blue States all the way up to the damn Super Tuesday date. This is why we get stuck with lackluster, its my turn “moderates”. Yet there are some here who keep saying this is all wingnut “conspiracy theory”. I throw the bullshit flag on that. Once is OK, twice may be a coincidence, three times is enemy action. Decades worth is Party design.

We are now left with Mutt Romney who they are still saying is the designated winner although he has only won one Primary in virtually his own home State and it appears he will NOT win SC despite all the MFM hoopala. He hasn’t got a conservative bone in his body. He is not electable because he will split the Party and likely result in a third Party run. The base hates him yet if he does win it will be the same damn way McShitty won. A plurality of about 30%.

Then there is Eye of Newt. More baggage than an overloaded airport train headed for a wide body 747. He has a couple of finger bones that may be conservative.

Coming up third will probably be Santorum (at least in SC). He is arguably more conservative than Gingrich (maybe) but he so alienated his own State so bad he was routed in his last election attempt. His stress on anti-gay and on social con issues is so hard that he is virtually unelectable in any tight State like VA. The same way Mutt will cause conservatives to stay at home, he will cause some fiscal cons who don’t give a shit for social ideas to stay at home. If he would keep his mouth shut on this score he would be a lot better off. Swing into that shit AFTER the election dumb ass. Do like the Dems do, run to the center and then after election go hard right social con.

Fourth is Crazy Racist Uncle. Not a chance of getting elected anywhere but he has a following of loud and obnoxious pot heads and skin heads.

This is what our Republican Party primary rules has given us. This and endless fucking bullshit debates hosted by the MFM designed not to allow the candidates to debate, but to pose “gotcha” questions, stir up controversy for ratings, and just generally damage the Republican party. Hell, the ONLY reason Newt has climbed out of the gutter is by attacking the debate assholes. Is this how we want to pick candidates; seriously?

All you Mutt-Mashers can bitch about this all you want, but I am about fed up with the Republican Party. They are not just the Party of Stupid, they are the Party of semi-Democrats. I am about to agree with Glenn Beck, there is not much difference between them but degree of how far left they want to go. Whether it is big government socialism for the Republicans or bigger government communism for the Democrats. Either damn way we are going off the cliff.


  1. I like the idea of discussing ace of spades comments on you blog. It's very "meta". I agree that there are a ton of interesting people that post there 9yourself included).

  2. I love reading Vic's comments.

    I am bothered though by the idea that social issues are completely separate from fiscal ones, as his comment about Santorum implies. Ideally, our beliefs about all issues should flow from a coherent belief about people (the value of the human person and human behavior). So social issues should compliment the fiscal ones because they all come from the same underlying philosophy. I don't agree with everything Santorum advocates- and, sadly, I was a Perry supporter so you can't accuse me of being on Santorum's bandwagon- but if you listen to him explain his ideas you can easily see how he gets from point x on the social spectrum to point y on the fiscal one to point z on the defense one. I wish I could say that about all our candidates. I would also point out something that Ace himself has acknowledged on more than one occasion: the folks who claim to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal are often not very trustworthy on the former. I have no idea why that is but if had to guess I would think it stems from a lack of coherent philosophy about people.

    1. While I absolute agree with you, in theory, the fact is there are many people who are fiscally conservative, and socially libertarian (if not actively liberal). Santorum turns them off.

      Then there are people like myself. I may not be a 10th Amendment absolutist, but I'm big on the 10th A, and Rick Santorum is almost antithetical to it. He believes that the Federal Government has much more power to set policies which I believe should be left to the states.

      Enough so that I have a very hard time supporting him- even outside the fact his candidacy is likely going nowhere.

    2. You're right, of course. I just think it's a shame that so many folks think of those things as completely separate when they shouldn't be.