Moe Lane

And by “well” I mean “will result in a particular C-List regional blogger with a history of reckless behavior getting shaken by the military blogosphere until he suffers from fits.” Although I don’t know whether The Garnet Spy (which is one of the ones doing the shaking) is actually a milblog.  Oh, well, everybody’s invited, I’m sure.  Anyway: free hint for everybody out there trying to make it into what we will call, for lack of a better term, the ‘big time:’ when you’re on this side of the aisle, folks tend not to react well when you host posts that attack the military and call them hoodlums; particularly when you’ve got a [past*] history of being, well, a jackass.

But don’t let me stop the aforementioned jackass that The Garnet Spy is linking to (so that I don’t have to).  The guy’s got to learn what it’s like to play in the big leagues sometime, after all.

Moe Lane

PS: I know that this is somewhat convoluted, but you try writing about somebody getting smacked around while still trying to avoid giving the guy being smacked traffic that he doesn’t deserve.

[*Got this pointed out to me on Twitter: fixed.]

And just a bit angrily, too. If that surprises you, it shouldn’t: while the NYT loathes conservatives in general – while Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post merely(?!) loathes a lot of specific conservatives – both probably despise New Media even more.  And since it was a doofus progressive regional blogger (Logan Smith, for the benefit of those tuning in late*) that started the whole carnival of stupidity in the first place, well…

And that’s that, hopefully.  Until the next time that somebody tries it, of course.

Moe Lane

*Search engines, too.  In light of that, let me print the following terms: nincompoop, doofus, n00b, twerp, goofball, idiot, moron, ineffectual, and justifiably obscure.

Most people are concetrating on the absolutely inane question Gov. Haley got at the end – as God is my witness, the Time interviewer* really did ask whether the Governor tipped Sikh cab drivers more – but the entire interview is in its way engrossing viewing. If only because the interviewer clearly thought that there was a hick in the interviewing room (true) and that her name was Nikki Haley (false). I mean, I grew up in New York and New Jersey and I was humiliated by the utter unsophisticated provincialism of the interviewer; I would take some comfort that the woman’s accent suggests that she’s just some rube right off of the boat, but that’s cultural chauvinism talking. (more…)

Welcome to South Carolina! Here’s your accordion.

You may remember that a few days ago a minor South Carolinian political blog tossed out the very serious allegation that South Carolina governor Nikki Haley was about to be indicted by the Justice Department for alleged tax fraud involving her parents’ temple*. The keyword? “Imminent.” Well, it turns out that the IRS is not actually investigating either the Governor or the temple (H/T @RBPundit) in fact, if I’m reading this correctly the entire thing was more or less based off of the usual bureaucratic paperwork (H/T Hot Air Headlines). The goofball progressive blogger n00b (some guy named Logan Smith) that put up the article in the first place at first tried to stand by his anonymously-sourced allegations, but has since more or less given up and done one of the more grudging and passive-aggressive retractions that it’s been my pleasure to read lately. I don’t even think that Smith is going to get fifteen minutes out of this; and, of course, he’ll never get another shot.

Tragic. (more…)

As mentioned earlier, I was kind of taking last night off, so this will be a little scatter-shot.  Anyway:

• Heh.  Called it.  Not that getting the order was all that hard, or even unsurprising; also note that I didn’t predict the percentages.  By the way:  the end results (Gingrich 40%, Romney 28%, Santorum 17%, Paul 13%) were pretty close to what PPP predicted (Gingrich 37%, Romney 28%, Santorum 16%, Paul 14%).
• Sean Trende over at RCP has done a pretty good job explaining just how bad this night was for Mitt Romney.
• I predict that we’ve heard the last of any suggestion, by the way, that Romney will skipping most or all of the remaining debates.
• Most importantly: none of this suggests that Newt Gingrich is now the inevitable nominee.  Just that Romney isn’t actually inevitable.  But it’s going to be one of those two.
• Florida is going to be epic next week.  Nine days of (metaphorical) knife fights in alleys, because there’s some people out there who are scared for the first time in this campaign cycle.  Hope everyone else is prepared for that, because it’s going to happen anyway.
• Looking further at the schedule… Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan’s caucuses/primaries look like the results will be binding; Maine, Colorado, and Minnesota’s technically will not. Don’t expect that to be reported in the media.
• If Romney doesn’t start winning primaries, the Super Tuesday narrative will have a disproportionate amount of space dedicated to the minor detail that the frontrunner is not on the ballot in Virginia. Fallout from that: if Romney wins the nomination then Bob McDonnell will not be his Vice Presidential pick.
• Last but not least: if the Gingrich campaign is wondering what to send RedState in the way of a gift basket, I personally like those chocolate praline stick things.  Although, honestly, I didn’t do the heavy lifting on this one.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Everybody else in the ‘sphere was busy this evening with the SC primary, more or less: but this feels like the first political night that I’ve had off in months.  It was kind of relaxing, really.

And now: one of the ur-humorous cat videos.  Because, really, I should do that at least once in my blogging career.

In order:

1. Gingrich
2. Romney
3. Santorum
4. Paul

…and if Paul ends up being in third place then it’s time for Rick Santorum to leave the race. :shrug: Just the way it is, and if that reasonably dispassionate analysis bothers anybody then I suggest that they take a philosophical view on the subject.  Given that I was (reasonably) expected to do that myself – twice – you’ll understand if my sympathies are somewhat, ah, muted.

If Iowa is the caucus where everybody has to suddenly pretend to be an isolationist who likes corn dogs and ethanol subsidies; and New Hampshire is the primary where everybody has to introduce themselves to every Republican voter in the state; then South Carolina is the primary where everybody gets the ‘let’s say horrible things anonymously about the other primary candidates’ out of their systems.  Which means that if you are hearing awful things – and I mean awful – being said, written, emailed, Tweeted, or anything else about the various candidates, take some comfort in knowing that it’ll be over after Saturday evening.

For the next four years, at least.

Ed Morrissey notes this Byron York article about how Mitt Romney would probably like to stop the debates now, please.  This is my thinking on this.

• On the one hand, I agree with Ed: we’ve had a godawful amount of debates so far.  They’re exhausting to cover; I can only imagine how grinding they are to the people actually doing them.  From Mitt Romney’s point of view, a debate must be much like how Tom Wolfe portrayed physical examinations as being for fighter pilots.  Which is to say, the best that Romney can hope for in a debate right now is to not have a campaign-ending disaster.
• On the other hand, I also agree with Ed: we’re actually starting to see things that look like debates, instead of an extended poking of Republican candidates with sticks to see whether they’ll attack the bars.  Also, as Byron noted, the debates are popular (the ABC News poll had 6.25 million viewers).
• And on the gripping hand: well, this is probably not a good time for Mitt Romney to quit debates anyway.  Yesterday was… not optimal: Romney got punched hard by Santorum, frankly evaded his way through the question of whether he’d release his income tax statements, and spent most of the debate agreeing with Rick Perry.  I would seriously recommend that Romney quit the debate schedule when he’s in a slightly better pole position.

I think that this is a reasonably fair take on the subject.

[Please note the edit below: the implication in the CNN article was that Bauer's endorsement of Gingrich was welcomed by the campaign, but there's still wiggle room for Team Newt. I've emailed the Gingrich campaign to confirm.]

Team Newt announced today that they [CNN reported today that the Gingrich campaign] had picked up the endorsement of Andre Bauer, who is: a former Lt. Governor of South Carolina; a former gubernatorial candidate; and a potential candidate for the new SC-07 seat.  If that name sounds familiar, it should… because Andre Bauer was also the person that current South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley gutted like a newly-caught river trout for Bauer’s (alleged) role in attempting to wreck Haley’s marriage and career:

(more…)

I will admit that the New York Times largely did not attack South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (R) all that harshly in this article; in fact, they said some things that were actually complimentary (given that the governor is openly going after entrenched Republican interests in SC, that’s probably not a surprise). But they couldn’t quite resist playing silly games by getting local liberal political flack Jack Bass to say “Her understanding of the role of state government appears rather limited” – and presenting Bass as an authority. Here’s a radical notion for the NYT: if you simply must use a liberal to attack a conservative, could you at least mention the following? (more…)

…when you pry them from their cold, dead hands:

South Carolina lawmakers are taking a stand in favor of states’ lights.

Which is a great first line, by the way. The basic gist of the article is that the South Carolina legislature is debating a bill that would permit incandescent bulbs to continue to be made in-state, solely for in-state use. As you probably know, incandescent bulbs are being phased out nationally in favor of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs, on what is turning out to be perhaps dubious evidence that they’re cheaper over the long run.  I think that we can likewise discount the suggestion that CFLs are better for the environment, what with the entire “partially made out of mercury” thing.  South Carolinan legislatures have a habit of being a bit stubborn about things, so it’s not too surprising that they’re doing this.

Will it work?  Maybe, maybe not: I don’t know how you keep out of state folks from buying your bulbs, and once it becomes interstate commerce, well, the feds swoop in.  But I’ve noticed that people don’t like having these little things taken away from them for no good reason… or even when there is a good reason, really.  Something about being mature adults who can make their own choices, or something like that.

Plus, the mercury.  A lot of people didn’t really grok the bit about the mercury.

Moe Lane

Via Instapundit.