GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
We knew this would be a primary campaign of contrasts. Each candidate has their own strategy for winning the nomination, which makes it exciting to watch, and we knew each candidate had their own idea of a winning platform as well. For Governor Romney, that platform has been articulated as his now infamous three-legged stool. For Mayor Giuliani, pundits have long suspected he was replacing the social conservative leg with the “electability” leg.
Well, according to AP reports out of North Dakota (where the state Republican Party recently held a dinner and straw poll - more on that later), it looks like the Giuliani campaign is throwing out the stool all together and just going with the electability argument now.
Here’s what Mitt’s son Tagg said at the ND dinner:
“Personally, I think the best way to beat Hillary Clinton is not to water down our values, or to try to act more like Hillary Clinton, or try to blur the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. I think we need a strong Republican.”
In stark contrast, here’s what Kevin Cramer, spokesman for Giuliani said after Tagg’s speech:
“We are here to choose a candidate who can win next November. It does us no good to stand on our beautiful, wonderful principles, and lose to Hillary Clinton.”
Courtesy of the Giuliani campaign themselves, you now have a very clear choice between two political philosophies that couldn’t be more diametrically opposed. (I would suggest this blog I wrote over at RedState as an in-depth look at this topic, long before Rudy Giuliani came into the picture.)
And about that straw poll… North Dakota has been thought to be going solidly to Giuliani up until now - after all, Rudy’s one of the only candidates (if not the only one) who has campaigned in the state and gotten endorsements from the state, and it is the place he hired a campaign director before even having one in South Carolina. But the results of the straw poll showed different results:
This result prompted Jonathan Martin to remark, “I thought [ND] was Rudy country?”.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:24 am
holy Cow Matt.
I’ve long noted that the line here for a lot of Rudy supporters is we should ignore our values and vote who think is electable. It’s a pretty indicting line when someone in the campaign says it.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Mitt’s son went to the dinner? Did Mitt or any of the other candidates attend?
October 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am
But Giuliani is NOT electable! He will lose if nominated.
CCs have said they will not vore, or run a third party if he is nominated.
Sorry, there is no way Giliani will win in that circumstance.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:29 am
this is why we should not nominate rudy. it was throwing principle out the door in 06 that got us kicked out. our number one issue driving us was ’stay in power,’ we shouldn’t mak that mistake again.
if rudy wants to get elected, he should rely on other reasons. he has plenty going for him…kkind of.
who heard biden’s remark about him last night. it has gotten a ton of play in the media.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Kerry was “electable”.
HAH!
October 31st, 2007 at 11:31 am
its not just the third party thing. it is everythign else. rudy has all these skeletons. ther is so much video out there of him doing wierd or mean things. skeletons, skeletons, skeletons…….
October 31st, 2007 at 11:31 am
Jonathan Martin is clueless as usual.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:32 am
Balderdash. You can’t glean anything about the state of the race in ND from a straw poll.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:32 am
Kevin Cramer should be fired.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:33 am
Skeletons! Happy Halloween!
October 31st, 2007 at 11:45 am
If the electability dog won’t hunt in North Dakota, it won’t hunt.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Adam (#8),
Who cares about the state of the race in ND? MattC just put those results up there because RudyBots often trot out how strong Rudy is in ND (which is utterly unimpressive, even if it is true).
But you’re right, the straw poll results in ND are even less meaningless than the “state of the race in ND . . . but not by much.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Metro (#9),
I think you’re right . . . but I hope they promote him to an even more high-profile position so he can keep airing THE TRUTH about the whole Giuliani campaign.
Most RudyBots here would agree with (if they have not directly argued as much . . . including you
I believe) his statement at it’s core “We are here to choose a candidate who can win next November. It does us no good to stand on our beautiful, wonderful principles, and lose to Hillary Clinton.â€? . . . at least in the sence of “social conservative principles, which he is obviously ridiculing.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Romney can’t win against Billary, though. I’m certain about that.
So far he’s been preparing a narrative for the general so that he can say, “I’ve fought Republicans even harder than Sen. Clinton has!” And for that he’ll be portrayed as Mr. Job-Exporting Boardroom Jockey, Son of Privilege, out of touch with Middle America.
For now he can reinvent himself as the reincarnation of the Ronald Reagan conservative that he once disavowed, but that just won’t fly in the general election. Independents will flock to Billary’s well-rehearsed pandering and hedging to escape someone McCain publicly portrayed as a “con artist.”
October 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Jeff Fuller,
Are you crazy? I would NEVER ridicule principles. I’m an extremely principled defender of minimal government and strong foreign policy, and that’s WHY I support Rudy. He’s a man of principle. That’s WHY I’ve supported the Club for Growth to remove the Specters, Chafees and McCains from the GOP.
After all these posts, have you no understanding of what people like me are for?
BTW, Rudy has never ridiculed social conservatism. Where? Don’t confuse Rudy with MetroRepublican.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“For Governor Romney, that platform has been articulated as his now infamous three-legged stool.”
Can someone remind me at what time the three-legged stool that Romney talks about became infamous? Maybe I missed it.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
MarkG:
“Mr. Job-Exporting”
That is twice you’ve made that claim. Again, I challenge you to post from a reliable source where Romney has exported jobs. If you can’t, stop making it.
“Son of Privilege, out of touch with Middle America.”
Sounds like you are somewhat in sympathy with the liberal class-warfare rhetoric. How can anyone ignore all of Romney’s accomplishments or just write them off to pedigree? His family gave him the good tools, education, and principles to be successful. From that, Romney himself made his money. It was not inherited, he did not marry into it.
“Independents will flock to Billary’s well-rehearsed pandering and hedging”
I don’t think so. We’ll just have to see about that. Did you catch any of the liberal debate last night? Hillary was attacked with the fact that 50% of the electorate won’t consider voting for the woman. She is our dream candidate. There is no way Billary will get more than 50% for the vote.
Too many skeletons, too many personal vendettas, too many quid pro quos. This is what will be returning to the white house is she is elected. I think Independents will think twice.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
the more the rest of “average” America finds out about Rudy, his numbers will start dropping.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
That is twice you’ve made that claim. Again, I challenge you to post from a reliable source where Romney has exported jobs. If you can’t, stop making it.
Pete, I’m not claiming it, I’m predicting it. Listen, I horsed around in low-level politics of the German Free Democrats for a time when I was in Germany, and let me tell you, the anticapitalist narrative is as predictable as night following day. And it’s always most vicious against corporate bosses and consultants.
I happen to believe in the work the consultants do to prevent companies from going under, but we’re coming up on a year that will favor the populists building on the public’s economic insecurities by trotting out top CEO salaries as a multiple of blue-collar paychecks. It is too obvious that the well-financed Clinton team will look into the public record to find all companies Romney can be associated with and find someone who lost his/her job and can bawl on camera about how it was those meanie consultants who caused the job to be off-shored.
It’s well known that restructuring and refocusing on a company’s core competences always makes it necessary to outsource certain activities, often by looking abroad. It’s the low-hanging fruit for Democrats to run against Romney, like it or not.
Oh, and let’s not forget the restructuring of the early aughts that essentially dumped corporate pension loads onto the PBGC, often resulting in reduced pensions for retirees. He’ll get slapped for that, too, if there’s any way to link it to Romney. This year will likely be worse than most for CEOs in politics.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
MarkG:
For sure, the liberals will play the class warfare card this election, no doubt. I could not differentiate your opinion from liberal plans in your first post. My bad..
I think Romney could easily paint himself as a provider of jobs and a rescuer or businesses if it came down to that. Romney can counter that he is uniquely qualified to get those jobs back here to the US.
I guess from the liberal point of view, any success from the private sector is a liability when running for public office. That is a shame.
Do you really think we are like Germany now? Gosh, I hope not.. But perhaps we may be leaning more that way.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Do you really think we are like Germany now?
Not yet. But our Dems get full approval from Eurolefties. They think pretty much alike.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
With a little effort, Hillary can be made to look so corrupt, so false, that even the left will flee from her in the general election. Mitt can easily beat Hillary as could Rudy. The goblin bitch from hell will never be President. This is not a good argument from Giuliani, though it’s all he has at this point.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6617.html
Between articles like this, and meeting with Brownback, etc. it would seem that more and more SoCons are starting to move to Rudy.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Regarding Romney’s record as businessman, here is one of the blotches on his record.
In 1992, Bain Capital acquired American Pad & Paper, or Ampad. Through Ampad, Bain bought several other office supply makers, borrowing heavily each time. By 1999, Ampad’s debt reached nearly $400 million, up from $11 million in 1993, according to government filings.
The result: Ampad couldn’t pay its debts and plunged into bankruptcy. Workers lost jobs and stockholders were left with worthless shares.
Bain Capital, however, made money - and lots of it. The firm put just $5 million into the deal, but realized big returns in short order. In 1995, several months after shuttering a plant in Indiana and firing roughly 200 workers, Bain Capital borrowed more money to have Ampad buy yet another company, and pay Bain and its investors more than $60 million - in addition to fees for arranging the deal.
Bain Capital took millions more out of Ampad by charging it $2 million a year in management fees, plus additional fees for each Ampad acquisition. In 1995 alone, Ampad paid Bain at least $7 million. The next year, when Ampad began selling shares on public stock exchanges, Bain Capital grabbed another $2 million fee for arranging the initial public offering - on top of the $45 million to $50 million Bain reaped by selling some of its shares.
Bain Capital didn’t escape Ampad’s eventual bankruptcy unscathed. It held about one-third of Ampad’s shares, which became worthless. But while as many as 185 workers near Buffalo lost jobs in a 1999 plant closing, Bain Capital and its investors ultimately made more than $100 million on the deal.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Both quinnipiac and rasmussen show Rudy beating Hillary. Romney, on the other hand, loses in a landslide. It would be good to win.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
So if Romney gets 38% of the vote against Hillary(quinnipiac), does he win?
October 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Metro #9:“Kevin Cramer should be fired.”
Why? He only stated what so many pro-Rudy people have said in thousands of posts here and elsewhere.
The GOP HAS to be the principled party. We lost sight of that in 2006, and we lost both houses of Congress. During his first term GWB stuck it to the fiscal conservatives, and he almost lost the 2004 election. This was in spite of being the incumbent, and being matched-up against perhaps the weakest, most pathetic major party candidate since McGovern.
Now Rudy and his supporters are asking the SoCons to ignore their principles “because he is so electable” and/or “because he is only candidate who can beat Hillary”.
Why should 2008 be any different from 2004 and 2006?
October 31st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Pablo Zed,
Kennedy demagogued Ampad to pull out the ‘94 senate election at the last minute. Having succeeded with this issue 8 years earlier, they tried it again in 2002. This time Romney was ready for them and he cruised to victory. The fact is that for every job Hillary can point to that was lost where Mitt was involved, he can show 10 that he created. The mass quantity of job creation that Mitt has generated can be a major winning issue.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Was this a poll, or a straw poll? If it is a poll of the voting universe, then it’s a problem for Rudy. But if it’s a straw poll, then actually Rudy looks strong as he does not spend money on straw polls, nor does he send surrogates like Mitt apparently did to this one. To be up against Mitt’s son as a speaker(straw poll voters are always kind to those who show up and make a big deal and spend money on the thing) and Mitt probably spent 100 grand on the thing- and to come in with 22% vs just 27% for Mitt in straw poll is strong as green onions. that is if it is a straw poll. If it is a poll of the voting pop (not just the more right wing convention crowd), like I said, that is a big problem for Rudy.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
#4 … You are right about the fact that we lost in 06 because we drifted from our principles. We need to stand strong on a package of conservative values… all parts are important. Rudy should not represent our party because he is missing the moral values piece entirely. First,he openly supports positions that do not represnt all parts of this party. Second,his personal behavior to his second wife shows a complete lack of integrity and commitment. It is okay to get a divorse, but the shabby disrespectful way that he treated his wife and hurt his children shows us who he is inside. A man that will treat those who should at the very least deserve respect shows that what Rudy wants is more important than keeping commitments, promises and trust! Conservative judges he tells us! Well, that means nothing from the lips of a man who who couldn’t dissolve his marital problems in a honorable way.
In the White house we want a person of moral values, one that will be a good example. Rudy’s moral values are just too close to the Clinton era for me and so I will not vote for Giuliani.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
craig,
According to the Romney’s Five Bothers’ Blog (so take it for what it’s worth), Rudy actively tried to win this straw poll while Team Mitt did not put the effort into this one that they had in others:
“Rudy’s team did actively try to win this one, as they made phone calls and sent a speaker who actively courted votes.”
So, to sum up, North Dakota was supposed to be an easy win for Rudy. On top of that, he actively tried to win votes for the straw poll to get an even bigger win there. This was the first time Team Romney had stepped foot in the state of ND and they ended up winning the poll.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Oh Mitt didn’t try to win it ,he just sent his son Tagg. Tagg, is that really his name? I’m sure he broke with his normal straw poll strategery of outspending the competition like he has in every other worthless straw poll around the country. I’m sure this is the ONE he didn’t spend any money on.
As for Rudy, I can assure you he didn’t spend anything on this one as his campaign is more tight fisted on those matters than the 2000 Bush campaign.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
#24 Pablo, right if you look at the net effect of what Romney has done, he has clearly created more jobs and prosperity than he as lost. The other thing, you had to go back 15 years to get that. When I was in business school, we did a profile of all the most successful businessmen in America, including Lee Iacoca and they had an average of seven business failures between them. In other words, if you have to go that far back to find something, then Romney clearly rules! No highly successful businessman got there without business failures and false turns. Finding one in Romney’s past is not conclusive in and of itself.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
#31 Huh?
October 31st, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Kevin Cramer will surely get the boot after that comment.
I’m a little sick of these Rombots with IQ’s three or four standard deviations below the average repeating the “Kerry was electable!” meme — just because he lost doesn’t mean that he wasn’t the most electable. The others may have lost in landslides.
And this — “Personally, I think the best way to beat Hillary Clinton is not to water down our values, or to try to act more like Hillary Clinton, or try to blur the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. I think we need a strong Republican.â€?”
We need a strong Republican? We shouldn’t act like Hillary Clinton? Then why is he supporting his father?
October 31st, 2007 at 6:27 pm
TLG,
Before you start slamming people for their lack of intelligence, you might try to provide an antecedent for your pronouns in your last sentence.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
TLG,
You are not brilliant in your logic, you come off like an angry little boy most of the time. Your age shows. My 18 and 17 year-olds could not find the time with their social lives to spend this much time on an internet site. I can see you have far more time to spend here than they have, which is telling.
You constantly use words to bully, and act as if your opinion has weight that people should give deference to, none of that is reality. My guess is you are not getting satisfactory social interaction elsewhere and here you can get people to respond, even if it is negative attention. Get a life. This is a serious political discussion, not a vent for your anti-social juvenile 17-year old rantings.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
And then we have marK, who uses the way people type on the Internet on the comments section of a blog to determine intelligence. From now on, I’ll type as if I’m preparing a paper for a class.
Shawnie — I think this is the third time on this blog you’ve replied to something I’ve said and the third time you’ve attacked me for my age. I like this, though: “Get a life. This is a serious political discussion…[you] anti-social juvenile 17-year-old…”
Alright, as long as we’re on the name-calling
Here’s some of the srs biz from this page:
“The goblin bitch from hell will never be President.”
“Oh Mitt didn’t try to win it ,he just sent his son Tagg. Tagg, is that really his name? I’m sure he broke with his normal straw poll strategery”
October 31st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Oh, and speaking of using words to bully:
“You are not brilliant in your logic, you come off like an angry little boy most of the time. Your age shows. My 18 and 17 year-olds could not find the time with their social lives to spend this much time on an internet site. I can see you have far more time to spend here than they have, which is telling.”
I was using that standard deviation quip as a joke, but this asinine remark makes me question whether it may be true. Are you seriously old enough to be my parent? And you’re insulting me for being heavily interested in politics?
“…which is telling.” Telling of what? That you’re supposed to be a middle-aged woman, but you’re too busy making fun of a 17-year-old for having a hobby? Jesus Christ, lady, get a life.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Actually, TLG, it was you who was casting aspersions upon intelligence. I was merely questioning the wisdom of doing so in a post lacking necessary antecedents.
It is obvious to just about anyone that you have intelligence. I must question your wisdom sometimes.
Now, would you care to provide the missing antecedents so we can better understand your post #34? You do wish us to understand you, don’t you?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
TLG,
This was an amusing discussion. BTW, there is no such thing as 4 standard deviations below or above the norm. Three is all you get…sort of like strikes. Take a class in statistics or quantitative methods some time.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
mark — “Actually, TLG, it was you who was casting aspersions upon intelligence. I was merely questioning the wisdom of doing so in a post lacking necessary antecedents. It is obvious to just about anyone that you have intelligence. I must question your wisdom sometimes. Now, would you care to provide the missing antecedents so we can better understand your post #34? You do wish us to understand you, don’t you?”
Oh, shut up! You’re missing the point here on purpose to try to get a rise out of me.
Dave — “TLG,
This was an amusing discussion. BTW, there is no such thing as 4 standard deviations below or above the norm. Three is all you get…sort of like strikes. Take a class in statistics or quantitative methods some time.”
Rombots are nine standard deviations below the average.
I am so serious.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Actually, Dave, four sigma is a perfectly valid number. It represents 0.9999366 of the whole. Which means there are only 63.4 parts in a million outside of it.
For what it is worth, five sigma is 0.9999994 or 0.6 parts per million outside.
Now, TLG, about those antecedents…?
October 31st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Its inappropriate for an adult to attack a child, physically or verbally. This is not an adults only site and its often not serious, at least I certainly am not. So cut the kid some slack.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Alright, now, I’m not a silly little twat. I’m perfectly capable of handling myself and I’m not a “child” who has been “verbally attacked.” She was just being a prick toward me.
marK — If you’re going to judge one’s intelligence by how scholarly his typing is on the Internet…
I spy a grammatical error in 42. Uh-oh! You must be dumb!
No…take a joke for what it is, please.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:01 am
Pablo,
First of all, I am suspicious of your altruistic motive to “stick up” for TLG as you are adversarial to Rombots.
However, in principle, I totally disagree with you. I have a niece that is 17 years old and is a self-appointed spokesman for the gay and lesbian movement. She is beyond grating. And it isn’t her belief system about gays, it is her adversarial tendencies to talk and behave in opposing manners to everyone around her. She has legitmate needs but has learned how to fill them in unhealthy ways.
Here you have a child who is consistently behaving and saying obnoxious things, purposely so. To say that child is to go un-reprimanded is to render that child unlovable.
Everyone allows my niece to act and talk like TLG because she’s had a “hard” life. The net effect is no one can stand her, and she experiences rejection wherever she goes. She has been done no favors to be allowed to go on in that behavior and not be called on it.
The pattern is repeated here.
Also, if TLG is going to join in this forum and pretend he is an adult, if he is to take up time and space here, he needs to handle himself like an adult and he is not. He asserts himself as adult like with his constant, erroneous insulting and when he is called on it, hides behind words like “are you going to pick on little old 17 year-old me, it’s my hobby” and uses the age defense. He is playing both sides of the fence. He is using his age and cute little words like hobby as a defense to behave poorly, I see right through him.
I have a 17 year old boy, and it is my responsibility to teach him social health, to have respect, to conduct himself in responsible ways. Someone has failed TLG and if everyone withholds comment on his behavior, and let’s him go on in that fashion, this poor little boy will go out into the world with awful social skills, a lousy methodology of interfacing with people and will also experience rejection where ever he goes. And thus his most basic needs will not be met and it is a vicious cycle.
What you heard was the Mom in me recognizing a child that has been passed over somehow, and if no one is willing to stick their neck out and tell it like it is, how will he learn?….Not that he will learn, but it needs to be said. And, why is he home on Halloween night? Why is he on the internet so much throughout the day? Why is he so caustic all the time? Why does he use so much vulgarity, which suggests a sense of powerlessness. Those are red flags…
TLG, Prick is a nasty word akin to the F word. And it is really meant as a derision for men. You should not be using that word around women or children. Just in case no one has mentioned that to you before.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“Also, if TLG is going to join in this forum and pretend he is an adult, if he is to take up time and space here, he needs to handle himself like an adult and he is not. He asserts himself as adult like with his constant, erroneous insulting and when he is called on it, hides behind words like “are you going to pick on little old 17 year-old me, it’s my hobbyâ€? and uses the age defense. He is playing both sides of the fence. He is using his age and cute little words like hobby as a defense to behave poorly, I see right through him.”
Ugh, you condescending ass. Where have I used that “defense”? Don’t degrade me by implying that I’d use such an idiotic defense.
“TLG, Prick is a nasty word akin to the F word. And it is really meant as a derision for men. You should not be using that word around women or children. Just in case no one has mentioned that to you before.”
I don’t care; you haven’t earned my respect.
“I have a 17 year old boy, and it is my responsibility to teach him social health, to have respect, to conduct himself in responsible ways. Someone has failed TLG and if everyone withholds comment on his behavior, and let’s him go on in that fashion, this poor little boy will go out into the world with awful social skills, a lousy methodology of interfacing with people and will also experience rejection where ever he goes. And thus his most basic needs will not be met and it is a vicious cycle.”
I notice that you didn’t call the “adults” on this page out on calling Clinton a “goblin bitch from hell” — how’s that for “interaction”? Actually, it’s just someone venting. When an adult does it, it’s just airing his anger. When a minor does it, he’s being immature.
Again — get a life. I’m not the kind of teenager you need to be worrying about.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Oops, I used the Rombot name. LOL.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
“Ugh, you condescending ass. Where have I used that “defenseâ€?? Don’t degrade me by implying that I’d use such an idiotic defense.”
Answer: Post #39 “but you’re too busy making fun of a 17-year-old for having a hobby?”
You’re right, it was idiotic.
Respect says more about the giver or withholder of respect than the person you are, or are not giving it to. No one is perfect, if we waited for people to be perfect, no one would “earn” respect. Your lack of respect says who YOU are, not anyone else. Respect is a gift we give because of who we are, what class of human being we are. What level and depth of humanity we have obtained.
“I notice that you didn’t call the “adultsâ€? on this page out on calling Clinton a “goblin bitch from hellâ€? — how’s that for “interactionâ€?? Actually, it’s just someone venting. When an adult does it, it’s just airing his anger. When a minor does it, he’s being immature.”
And that justifies poor behavior how? “But Mom, everyone else is doing it!”
TLG, the goblin quoting adult guy is set in his ways, but you’re salvageable. There is hope for you. You have passion, you have intelligence, you have potential. I hate to see you pollute it with so much anti-social behavior.
“I’m not the kind of teenager you need to be worrying about.”
That’s debatable. But I’m going to pay attention and hope for your progress and development anyway. Youth is a handsome thing. So many possibilities!
November 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Answer: Post #39 “but you’re too busy making fun of a 17-year-old for having a hobby?� You’re right, it was idiotic.
You said that I used that as a “defense” for “name-calling.” I didn’t. The better defense would actually be that I didn’t call anyone a name on this board — until you, and that’s only because you threw the first cheap shot. If I call someone a name in any other situation, it’s in jest.
However, I used my age as a very serious shot at your wisdom and maturity. If you honestly think that I am the kind of teenager you need to be concerned about — one interested in intellectual fulfillment, rather than going out and getting wasted or losing his virginity (you criticized me — bizarrely, inasmuch as you don’t know me — for having poor social skills) — then you haven’t been very perceptive as a parent of teenagers.
Respect says more about the giver or withholder of respect than the person you are, or are not giving it to. No one is perfect, if we waited for people to be perfect, no one would “earn� respect. Your lack of respect says who YOU are, not anyone else. Respect is a gift we give because of who we are, what class of human being we are. What level and depth of humanity we have obtained.
I give people a general sense of respect for their potential as human beings when I know nothing about them, but you came out of the gate swinging at me for being a 17-year-old interested in politics. You were actually making fun of me for supposedly having no social life and spending a lot of time at R408. And then, in an ironic twist, you went on to criticize me for being immature. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy there?
And that justifies poor behavior how? “But Mom, everyone else is doing it!�
1. I didn’t “behave poorly.”
2. I wasn’t, if you’ll read what I wrote, using it as a “justification” for any behavior. I was simply remarking that you gave others a free pass in light of the fact that they aren’t 17.
TLG, the goblin quoting adult guy is set in his ways, but you’re salvageable. There is hope for you. You have passion, you have intelligence, you have potential. I hate to see you pollute it with so much anti-social behavior.
Oh, I see now. You’re evangelizing for purity. Again — the last person you need to be worrying about is a teenager interested in politics and philosophy that doesn’t drink, smoke or have sex and wants to triple-major in college not because of peoples’ expectations, but because he wants to. What’s your beef here? That I “spend too much time online”? First you want the federal government monitoring my personal behavior, and now you’re going to do it, too?
That’s debatable. But I’m going to pay attention and hope for your progress and development anyway. Youth is a handsome thing. So many possibilities!
Honestly, just leave me alone. You’re not interested in my progress as a human being and fellow R408 contributor — you’re interested in trying to convert me to some silly, arbitrary brand of morality. If you’re interested in a political discussion, have at it, but so far on this site, your main contribution to the discussion has been to worship Mitt Romney and attack me for being 17.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Shawnie is right! TLG, you are one misguided youth!
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 am
[...] that tells you about him: Interested in donating, please click HEREMattC (formerly known as HeavyM) posted the following over at Race42008 . . . I’m surprised that it hasn’t gotten more play (Tagg mentioned [...]
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 am
1. I didn’t “behave poorly.� Bull
“You said that I used that as a “defenseâ€? for “name-calling.â€? Bull
“First you want the federal government monitoring my personal behavior” - another false statement.
“I didn’t call anyone a name on this board — until you” - I’m honored.
“If I call someone a name in any other situation, it’s in jest.” - Cheap rationalization and it isn’t the first time you called some one a name.
“but you came out of the gate swinging at me for being a 17-year-old interested in politics” Bull and another false statement.
It was for the way you treated others, this whole discussion was about how you treated others. And you are NOT a sophisticated teenager because you don’t have much of a social life. It is a symptom of the same pattern. You’re not relating to people well. It is the anti-social behaviors. I pointed out your lack of social life for hopes of introspection, to identify a pattern. It’s all related.
“your main contribution to the discussion has been to worship Mitt Romney
And your main contribution has been the personalized anti-thesis of Mitt Romney and to demean others and tear their ideas down.
“Honestly, just leave me alone.” Fair is fair, do you agree to the same? And are you willing to live by your own philosophy? If you want to be left alone, are your willing to accord myself and others the same privilege?
If you can’t abide it, don’t expect it.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
I could compose a reply, quoting you in where you attacked me for, yes, being a 17-year-old interested in politics, when you said that I “spend too much time on this Internet site” “which is telling.”
But I’m more interested in this…
It was for the way you treated others, this whole discussion was about how you treated others. And you are NOT a sophisticated teenager because you don’t have much of a social life. It is a symptom of the same pattern. You’re not relating to people well. It is the anti-social behaviors. I pointed out your lack of social life for hopes of introspection, to identify a pattern. It’s all related.
Are you like, stalking me or something? Are you keeping tabs on my social life?
I’ve hung out with friends three times this week. I also happen to have a part-time job, go to high school, and take community college classes.
Maybe you’re not familiar with the concept of productive teenagers that can juggle everything?
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
“Are you like, stalking me or something?”
No, you are stalking, you are ubiquitous, you’re in everybody’s face. You attempt to dominate the threads with so much drabble and people attempt to correct your loosely concocted, not all that logical, statements. It’s a game.
“I’ve hung out with friends three times this week. I also happen to have a part-time job, go to high school, and take community college classes.”
Looking at the number of and by the times on the clock that you post, that is not believeable. Looking at your attitude and the way you treat people, it’s also hard to believe.
My oldest is valedictorian, 4.0 and has a full tuition and books scholarship at her university. She worked hard to save lots of money to go to Hawaii for school. She would not have the time to hassle others so much on the internet, and with her social needs met, would not be starving for conversation and interaction. So yeah, if what you say is really true, you’re an anomaly. I don’t believe you are telling the whole story.