Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

Recommended Photo Store
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading? Click here to find out.
 
Make your Amazon purchases though this banner to support this blog:
(If you don't see the banner click here for our Amazon store.)
 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Tea Party Bozo Show

    Posted by Bruno Behrend on October 19th, 2010 (All posts by )

    Miller cites Communist East Germany as effective in dealing with border security

    The scuffle between the editor of Alaska Dispatch and Joe Miller’s security guards at a public forum in Anchorage late Sunday is getting much national attention today. Getting lesser but growing attention is Miller’s answer at the forum to a question from the audience about how he would deal with illegal immigration. Anchorage blogger Steve Aufrecht was there and is among those today who are criticizing Miller’s response that Communist East Germany is a good example of a nation achieving border security. He quotes Miller as saying: “The first thing that has to be done is secure the border. … East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could do it, we could do it.”

    What a blithering idiot!

    These apparently are the only choices for Rs these days.  A class of in-bred crooks who serve the functional equivalent of perverted uncles molesting American principles, or a class of pseudo articulate ass-clowns.

    Oh well, the upside is that I’ll likely get my wish that Rs don’t get the senate. That’s a nice silver lining.

     

    32 Responses to “Tea Party Bozo Show”

    1. tyouth Says:

      I’m not going to follow the links to what you’re posting about to see if there is some underlying support for your weak post. Time is short and I think a good post should stand on it’s own.

      It appears that you object to the East German’s being effective at some aspect of their governance and national security. I’m guessing here that since the country was Communist run that we should reject every thing that they (may) have been effective at. It doesn’t make sense.

      Your hyperbole rubs me the wrong way too. “idiot”, “ass-clown”, “in-bred”. Criticize Miller, whoever he you shouldn’t give us, and I resent being exposed to, such drivel. Use a good argument or STFU.

    2. tyouth Says:

      argh, let me have a go at that last paragraph again:
      Your hyperbole rubs me the wrong way too. “idiot”, “ass-clown”, “in-bred”. Criticize Miller, whoever he is. You shouldn’t give us, and I resent being exposed to, such drivel. Use a good argument or STFU.

    3. democratsarefascists Says:

      Precisely.

      It’s a ridiculous premise.

      Rome was a brutal culture, but do you really want to do without concrete, medicine, law, roads, plumbing and architecture?

    4. DHL Says:

      I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but the previous commenters are correct. Miller’s comment, while it may have been impolitic, was factually correct. If your only knowledge of Mr. Miller and his politics is based on this quotation, and you judge him based only on this quotation, then who is the “ass-clown?”

    5. Robert Schwartz Says:

      “Anchorage blogger Steve Aufrecht was there and is among those today who are criticizing”

      Why should we believe Aufrecht? Who is he and is he accurately reporting the statement?

    6. hubwolf Says:

      If you take Millers comment with a little common sense I think it is highly unlikely that he is suggesting we should be shooting anyone trying to leave the US. Sorry to see a CB post that sounds more worthy of craigslist.

    7. newrouter Says:

      a better example would have been israel vs. the palis but his example works too. so i don’t see the point you’re trying to make.
      that sealing a border is impossible? or that commies didn’t know how to seal a border?

    8. Michael Kennedy Says:

      I wasn’t there but suspect a reductio ad absurdum. His point seemed to be that a border can be closed. The question is how do you want to do it and how much do you want to do it ?

      I remember a somewhat similar comment from my chief of surgery many years ago. The Director of Nurses told him that they could not staff the post-op recovery room on Saturday night. In fact, we had a couple of days where immediate post-op patients were sent to the floor and two of them died. The floor nurses were just too busy to properly monitor patients coming out of anesthesia. The two patients were mine and I advised the family of one to sue the County.

      Well, the Director said “We just can’t get nurses to work Saturday night.” Since all these cases were emergencies and the County Hospital doesn’t close, a solution was mandatory. His answer to her was, “Do you think you could get them to work if you paid them $100 an hour ?”

      I think that was a bit like the East Germany border comment.

      She, of course, replied that yes they could get them to work but that was a ridiculous suggestion.

      He then replied, “How about $50 an hour ?”

      We eventually got the recovery room staffed but that was when I learned about bureaucracy.

    9. newrouter Says:

      Tea Party Bozo Show

      and you consider reid,pelosi, grayson, frank, kincinich, biden, murray, boxer et al mensa material?

    10. Mitch Says:

      Machine-gunning people trying to cross the border is a good idea? How about barbed wire and anti-personnel mines? IThis is just nauseating. This guy is not fit for public office.

    11. Helian Says:

      If you actually had the common decency to read what the man actually said, it’s clear he didn’t suggest that we hire old Stasi commanders to seal the US borders. He merely pointed out that it is not impossible for modern states to secure borders, and suggested that the United States, a land with substantially more wealth and technological resources than East Germany might do under the rules that apply in modern democracies what that now defunct state had done under Communism. Miller’s problem wasn’t in the accuracy of what he said, but in the degree to which he underestimated the mendacity with which those who are firmly convinced they are infinitely smarter than the rest of us “blithering idiots” would distort his comment to score cheap political points.

    12. TMLutas Says:

      There’s tape of Barack Obama talking about visiting 57 states. Gaffes like this happen. They don’t help but until they form a pattern they generally aren’t disqualifying.

      If Miller had picked the Schengen zone border controls or France’s expulsion of itinerant gypsies, or any of a number of other flawed examples, this would have been a lot better. They would have been just as inapt because none of the free world’s border controls are anything to write home about so far as I can tell, either in effectiveness or in christian welcome.

      Now the Democrat party has a similar problem but people generally are too polite to point it out. What do you think, do the Dems or the Reps have a poorer list of choices?

    13. Craig Says:

      An odd example of border control to be sure. But your reaction is ridiculous.

      Go lie down for a while and get over it.

    14. Lehmamaki Says:

      I just have to pile on. Previous comments are absolutely correct. You are being deliberately obtuse. I expect that from Progressives, it’s a surprise to see it here.

    15. Lexington Green Says:

      It was a stupid thing for MIller to say.

      It can be and will be used against him politically.

      It shows that amateurs make amateurish mistakes.

      Knowing how to say things, and what true things are still stupid to say, is Politics 101.

      You don’t get many second chances.

      People are relying on him, and giving him money, and making him a standard bearer, and he has a duty to think before he shoots off his mouth.

      I want nothing more than to see Miller win. But most people don’t pay attention until the last few days. Giving ammunition to the opposition to use in the closing days of a close election is indeed clownish. Maybe he will salvage it. I hope so.

    16. Jim Miller Says:

      And you prefer that Republicans don’t take the Senate because?

    17. charlotte Says:

      Hey, Joe Miller! I knew you at West Point, you had dinner at our quarters, etc. My ex is Jim.

      All the best to you in this election, may you upset the status quo, and thank you for your service.

    18. Michael Kennedy Says:

      And you prefer that Republicans don’t take the Senate because?

      Government employee ?

    19. Bruno Behrend Says:

      Boy oh boy, the angry conservative/libertarian faction is in full bloom tonight. A near universal drubbing from the commentariat!!!

      Let me re-examine my premises.

      First, I supported Miller winning, and still do. I remain an uncompromising critic of the “establishment” types, Murkowski in particular. (I notice no one took me to task for calling establishment types “perverted uncles.”) Check.

      Second, I properly criticized an absurd unforced error on the part of a novice politician. Check.

      Third, I remain convinced that the weakness of many Tea Party candidates is their penchant for running off message to prove some Randian, quasi-constitutionalist, Galt’s Gulch bona fides instead of realizing they are running for office in a state/district populated with 10s of 1000s of voters with millions of nuanced positions zipping through their neurons. Check.

      Fourth, the radio host portion of my personality took hold for a moment, and caused me to go nuclear with some rhetoric. Guilty as charged. (but it did generate 17 comments on a slow news day, so hey…)

      More evidence in my favor?

      1. Sarah Palin, perhaps one of the most naturally talented politicians in the nation, was taken to task by a lightweight like Couric because she couldn’t bother to do a few hours of political homework every night.

      2. Rand Paul opens the first week of his post-primary win with blurb about repealing the civil rights act.

      3. O’Donnell is perhaps the first person to trump Nixon’s “I am not a crook” with her new slogan “I am not a witch.”

      4. Paladino

      5. Sharon Angle can’t keep out of trouble. http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=29918&n=122

      6. Ken Buck “Being Gay is like alcoholism.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20101018/cm_theweek/208303

      C’Mon Y’all!!! Your aggressive reaction to my post critiquing Miller smacks of a little of projection. You’re all CB readers! Tell me this isn’t embarrassing. Be honest.

      Look. I’m quite familiar with the libertarian/conservative penchant for attempting to convince the 70-95% of America that disagrees with us on some issue that THEY’RE WRONG!!! I get a kick out of some of the posts here attempting to rationalize the comparison of East Germany with the US. It’s endearing on a blog. On the campaign trail, it’s just plain stupid.

      Exhibit 1 – “If East Germany could do it, we could do it.” What, no back up from Kim Jong Il!!!! I rest my case.

      As a blogger, it’s a vocation. As a politician, it’s an absurd self indulgence. I applaud Miller beating Murkowski, but when you make the big leagues, realize where you are!! Grow up, and fast.

      Bash me all you want. Leaving aside the heated rhetoric and name calling, I was dead on. If we are serious about winning, we had better approach the opportunities we are given with a modicum of professionalism.

    20. Zenpundit Says:

      Saying that East Germany had good border security is factually true. In terms of political effect it is akin to saying that the Nazis knew how to throw a good parade.

      Election campaigns are not exercises in logical prowess. It’s the art of getting 51% of the electorate to vote for you by whatever means you can. Statements that make ppl say “WTF?” are unhelpful toward that end.

    21. Bruno Behrend Says:

      Re: Not wanting the Rs to win the Senate.

      My reasoning is a bit Machiavellian, but sound.

      First, if the Rs take both houses, they will be pressured to “accomplish something.” This will be defined as either;

      A) Bills that pass both houses and are vetoed by Obama, or
      B) Bills that are bipartisan enough that Obama signs them.

      Both have large perils for Republicans. If they do A, they will have created a body of policy that the Dems can rally against. If they do B, they risk either a) backlash from their Tea party flanks, b) salvaging a presidency that is best left to 1 term, or c) both.

      Better to get to 49 seats, use the House to pass popular and robust policy and watch that policy die in the Senate with Obama’s veto hanging in the balance. Run the next two years against obstructionist Dems. One of the HUGE benefits of this strategy is the 2012 ground to conquer.

      Dems must defend 22 of 33 or 34 seats with an unpopular president. It’s a conservative’s dream, and 60 seats is with in striking distance.

      Not attaining the senate in 2010 will be a huge hidden blessing for the Rs.

      One can disagree, of course.

    22. ArtD0dger Says:

      Well, I’m with Bruno Behrend. I think the Miller quote is appalling in a way that transcends mere “57 states” gaffery. By the way, it was caught on tape, so don’t blame Aufrecht for being the (willing) messenger.

      I feel like I’m watching a train wreck in slow motion. As much as I agree with the underlying precepts of the tea party as I understand them (i.e., free markets and constitutionally limited government), it is obvious that many of the actual tea party candidates are walking disasters. Here in Colorado, we are about to get a Democrat governor because the Tea Party Republican, Dan Maes, imploded upon remedial vetting … AFTER the primary. And who could defend electing Christine O’Donnell to so much as dog catcher after seeing this performance , let alone her numerous other gaffes?

      Something about this amorphous tea party movement, coupled with an understandable revulsion for the Obama administration, has caused a short circuit in the process of critical introspection. I still want the Rs to win the senate as well as the house, but I’m cringing at how bad this least-worse case may prove to be.

    23. tehag Says:

      Is it really so hard to find Americans who loathe Communism? The Republican candidate uses East German border security as an example of a state controlling its borders? Was he aware of 1991 or not? A presidential friend writes a book prophesizing (in the Hitlerian sense of “I’d do it if I could”) the deaths of 25 million Americans. A presidential advisor hangs Mao Christmas ornaments. Another is a member of the Communist Party.

      People can’t simultaineously use the USSR as a good and bad example. It was all bad, despite its popularity with, well, everyone, apparently.

      Who won the Cold War again? Are End Times (as in, End of the Enlightenment) upon us?

      On the flip side, perhaps Miller, van Jones, and Obama will have a beer together to celebrate how they put one over on the American people.

    24. bgates Says:

      People can’t simultaneously use the USSR as a good and bad example

      They can if they’re using it as an example of two different things.

      who could defend electing Christine O’Donnell

      Anybody who knows what the Democratic party is.

      Leaving aside the heated rhetoric and name calling, I was dead on.

      Leaving aside the heated rhetoric and name calling, you didn’t say anything at all.

    25. Paul Milenkovic Says:

      “Rome was a brutal culture, but do you really want to do without concrete, medicine, law, roads, plumbing and architecture?”

      Wha’ ‘ave th’ Romans ever done fo’ us anyway?

      Uh, the roads . . .

      OK, roads.

      An’ the Aquaduct!

      Yes, yes, th’ Aquaduct . . .

      Baths, yes, hot baths . . .

      Alright, baths.

      And wine, lots of wine . . .

    26. mlyster Says:

      The problem with reductio ad absurdum examples is that many, many people, incapable of abstract thought, don’t get that you’re not advocating the example, but merely referencing the concept.

      Many of these people seem to be liberals. Moe Tucker (Praise be unto her) made a great point that conservatives treated her much better when she was a liberal than liberals now treat her as a conservative. It is, for reasons that elude me, a peculiarly leftist tendency. I think it’s the “We know better because The Truth issues from out mouths” mentality, currently residing comfortably in the White House. Conservatives, on the other hand are I think a bit more tolerant of others making different choices: even if they find those INDIVIDUAL choices to be foolish.

      Michael Kennedy makes a perfect example with the $100/hour, $50/hour example. I will bet anything, anything however that at least one person in that episode went on to tell people that the Chief of Surgery RECOMMENDED paying nurses $100/hr, rather than recognizing the premise of the discussion.

      Miller’s example, to summarize, was poorly chosen. It was however a perfectly rational debating example. That will be wildly distorted by Murkowski, MSM and other dolts.

    27. valete Says:

      Don’t forget Roman font.

    28. navtechie Says:

      Miller’s example, to summarize, was poorly chosen. It was however a perfectly rational debating example. That will be wildly distorted by Murkowski, MSM and other dolts.

      And the incredibly ignorant masses will fall for it. It is not so much a problem of the person running for office saying off the wall things; it is a failure of those that vote not having the knowledge and wisdom to disseminate what was said.

    29. Lexington Green Says:

      “…it is a failure of those that vote ….”

      If the salesman says something stupid to the customer and blows a sale that is almost clinched, it’s his fault, not the customer’s fault.

      It has nothing to do with whether the salesman’s statement was true. He is making a sale. Or failing to make a sale.

      If the salesman fails to make the sale, his family does not eat.

      If the politician fails to make the sale, the other guy wins.

      If the other guy wins in 2010 it will potentially have a huge impact on the future of the country.

      Miller is not just the guy on the barstool, or just some guy blogging, he is trying to be one of 100 Senators at a time when the future of the country is on the table.

      Miller should exercise thought, care and self-discipline. He is fully capable of it. His career proves it. He is smart, he is disciplined. He now needs to be focused and careful, and not make any more stupid mistakes.

      No one said this would be easy. But he wanted it. He needs to act like he wants it.

    30. Jim Miller Says:

      Bruno – I’ll be writing a reply to your “Machiavellian” argument that it would be better for the Republicans to not win control of the Senate. (As I have said about a Seattle Times columnist, Danny Westneat, I think you are wrong in an interesting way.)

      I don’t have comments on my site (yet), but you should feel free to reply by email, if you wish.

      (Not sure just when. Today, my big post will a fairly abstract piece on pork barrel spending. Maybe as early as tomorrow.)

    31. mlyster Says:

      Milenkovic and Valte,

      Let’s not forget Roman candles and Roman numerals. But we will try to forget Roman Polansky.

    32. sexame street Says:

      heh on Polanski, mlyster