Because of the Kavanaugh stuff I’ve spent much more time on twitter than I normally do. On Saturday I saw a series of tweets that perfectly illustrates why Donald Trump keeps beating the left

The first tweet came from the account Neoavatara

This tweet was actually rather unremarkable, the left in general and Christine Ford’s lawyers in particular have really bent the meaning of the word “corroboration” to its breaking point.

The 2nd tweet was in response to this one, it was from old friend Doug Mataconis who has kindly provided me with so much fodder over the years:

Now on a few levels this tweet is also unremarkable. Based on this tweet Doug clearly believes that Christine Ford is a victim of some form of sexual assault and because of this finds any statement contradicting this an attack on her and while in my opinion a reasonable person would not call this an attack others might disagree so his response rather tame overall.

The third tweet came from me and made an important distinction:

It’s clear that @Neoavatara does not believe Dr. Fords accusations, as he does not believe her or find her credible he clearly is not, in his mind, attacking a survivor of a sexual assault. However that is an opinion, and Doug’s opinion that Dr. Ford IS a victim of a sexual assault is just as valid.

So my tweet conveyed that both Neovatara’s tweet and Doug’s tweets are valid based on their opinions and evaluation of the credibility of Dr. Ford’s statements.

To this point all the various tweets are pretty unremarkable and while I may disagree with some of them, valid points of discussion and nothing at all remarkable.

The series of valid points ended with Doug’s response.

Doug has two problems here one small and one large. First comes his assertion that I claimed that Dr. Ford was never assaulted when she was 15, when my actual tweet simply pointed out that both the opinion that she was and the opinion that she wasn’t are valid points, however I give Doug a pass on this because while I didn’t say it, that is an accurate description of my opinion and we’ve jousted enough online that I can’t fault him for knowing what I think.

His attempt to equate the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, or as of today Justice Kavanaugh, a person who for decades that nobody and I mean NOBODY had a bad word to say about his personal character (remember during the Clinton years while Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr’s team a large cash bounty was offered for any dirt on any member of Starr’s team) with folks like Weinstein, Bill Conton and Matt Lauer was such an amazing statement that it required a strong response:

Remember Hillary’s famous 60 minutes interview was to kill the “bimbo eruptions” problem with her husband that was open knowledge in Arkansas. For years Hollywood knew about Weinstein and obliquely joked about it in public as did network news people about Matt Lauer and unlike some millennials who don’t follow this stuff daily Doug knows this well. It was necessary to call him out forcefully, not only because it was a provably false public assertion but because it was incredible to me that a person as well informed and as intelligent as Doug would make it and for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why…

…until I read his response.

This tweet explained everything, both about the Democrat left in general and Doug in particular.

The facts on the ground don’t matter, the economic success, political success, international success, military success, trade success all of these things don’t matter. Donald Trump is stupid, and thus anyone who supports him or anything he does is a clown, a dope and a fool and thus any assertion, any action and any declaration intended to counter either Trump or his supporters, no matter how provably false, no matter how outlandish, no matter how counterproductive to the goal of actually defeating what President Trump is doing, is not only valid, it is sacrosanct because it is made in accordance to that matter of faith.

This is the attitude of the press, of the academic left, of the Hollywood left and of the socialist left and because the validation of this belief brings them comfort, self-satisfaction and profit (as the fat fees consultants will get from, the hundreds of thousands pouring into Maine to defeat Susan Collins will demonstrate) we will continue to see more of the same from the left in general and Doug and people like him in particular.

And that’s why Donald Trump will continue to win.

Back in 2013 I got into a Twitter exchange with Doug Mataconis which started when I pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s record as secretary of state is an argument against her presidency:

Doug instantly came to her defense and over the course of our exchange I finally asked the following

45 minutes laters during which time he declared it’s not relevant as Hillary wasn’t a candidate, declared Americans didn’t care about Benghazi , attacked Rick Perry & the GOP he finally left my question unanswered saying:

Well it’s three years later. Hillary Clinton is now the likely nominee for the Democrat nomination and Donald Trump is the likely GOP nominee (I say likely in both cases because media reports notwithstanding neither has actually hit the magic number in pledged non-super delegates although Trump is likely to by June 7th) and our friend Doug Tweeted out the following about Donald Trump

Now looking at the assertions in this tweet as a person who didn’t support Trump in the primaries and has yet to decide if he will support him in the general election I’d say of the three attacks on Trump big government is certainly accurate and not in dispute. The 2nd attack of Xenophobia I would declare incorrect as he’s talking about enforcing existing law, but Doug could make a case for it and the left could make an argument for it, As for Ignorance I took it as a hit on Trump’s supporters although if Doug was making a point about Trump’s lack of political experience is by definition ignorance of the internal workings of government it would be a valid one but one that would have applied to every military man from Grant to Ike who ever ran.

All in all nothing all that unusual for an attack on Trump, but I thought something was missing from the conversation so I replied thus:

Now you’ll note there is nothing all the remarkable in that reply. Nobody can dispute Hillary Clinton is for big government, The donor scandals, the Clinton foundation are only the latest examples of her corruption that go back to whitewater, and given the current state of Libya, Syria, egypt and the email scandal an assertion of incompetence would not seem out of line.

It’s also worth nothing that nothing in this tweet disputed any of Doug’s assertions concerning Donald Trump. There was absolutely no reason that these two tweets could not have stood on their own and have it left at that.

Except that I dared attack Hillary Clinton and just as it was in 2013 that can’t be allowed to stand.

Now nothing in my previous tweet indicted that I was voting or Trump or even referenced him. I simply made an assertion concerning Hillary so given that reply I asked the natural follow up question:

Doug Didn’t take that kindly to that and after some back and forth and brought up a phrase that was once a favorite of the MSM:

Hmmm my statements were an example of “Clinton derangement syndrome?” The use of that phrase carried implications at least it did to me.

He thought the implications were different

I believe Ace of Spades referred to this as “virtue signaling”

Now Doug is a lawyer, I’m a former Tech who now works overnight in a warehouse but I felt pretty good about my public arguments and as we obviously weren’t going to convince each other for the 2nd time in the thread invited public comment.

Doug didn’t take kindly to this claiming that Glenn Reynolds and Jazz Shaw were my “attack dogs” and despite having triple my followers took exception to my inviting comment using the word “douchecanoe” and followed with what I thought was one of the most amusing tweets I have seen a person make:

This is what we baseball fans refer to as a hanging curve ball over the plate

Remember Doug is a Lawyer, he makes public arguments for a living yet when the subject of Hillary Clinton’s incompetence, dishonesty and commitment to big government is asserted publicly he felt compelled to attack Trump, throw insults at anyone who would support him (in a rather Trump like way actually) assert critique of Clinton implies “derangement” and then objects to my inviting public comment in a public forum that any member of the public and see.

Even more interestingly in the various bits of that thread, which I invite you dear reader to examine, as of this writing this is the only defense of Clinton i’ve seen

It speaks volumes that the best defense of someone with a quarter century politically in the public eye in politics is the assertion that while she is bad her opponent is worse.

No wonder they want to talk about Trump, it’s sure easier than defending Hillary.

What does all of this prove? It proves that a tweet I sent out just before this conversation began was spot on:

I think there are going to be plenty of people who, for good or ill, will decide to vote for Trump just to watch the heads of the anti-trump people explode.

Update: I can’t believe I spelt Doug’s name “Dong” in the title, I know it looks bad but it was totally unintentional. It’s now fixed and I offer a VERY pubic apology. No wonder he was so pissed this morning.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

Carpenter: You can hardly, you can hardly see dem nipples.

Frank Cross: See? And these guys are REALLY looking.

Scrooged 1988

I was channel surfing Sunday Morning when I stopped at Meet the Press, the subject of the way was Hillary Clinton’s all but certain 2016 run.

After speaking to the authors of an upcoming book on Mrs. Clinton David Gregory brought the Meet the Press panel in to talk Hillary 2016. Andrea Mitchell was on that panel. During the discussion of the potential Hillary run she said something both incredible and familiar.

No, I don’t mean what she said about donors the that Glenn linked to yesterday. While a tad juicy, that didn’t shock or surprise me.

What Andrea Mitchell said concerning Hillary 2016 that was worth remembering was this: (Emphasis mine)

She’ll also have to show what she achieved as secretary of state. Yes, Benghazi will be raised over and over again. But she has to show some real accomplishments. And that is completely up in the air. We’ll see what John Kerry is doing, we see what negotiations are in play in Iran. We don’t know how that’s going to turn out.

Are you kidding me? Who does Mitchell think she is, Doug Mataconis?

Allow me to explain, on July 8th of last year at 6:34 AM EST I began a rather memorable Twitter tete a tete with Doug concerning Hillary’s accomplishments as secretary of state. The key tweet from our spirited exchange came 20 minutes in when I asked this question:

That tweet led to many twists, turns and dodges but they ended at 7:16 AM when Doug left the conversation without having offered an answer proclaiming:

I put the question open to those reading our exchange and noted the lack of responses in  my post of the next day

1. In the forty five minutes my first tweet to his last, an informed, intelligent and prolific writer could not name a single accomplishment in the record of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

2. While my twitter steam is alive with tweets from others agreeing with me, not a single tweet from a reader of #p2 @morning_joe or even #hillary2016 showed up to defend the record of Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of state.

3. The absolute need to change the subject from anything but Hillary’s record suggests her actual record is something that must be avoided at all costs.

Given Ms. Mitchell quote,  perhaps I was too hard on Doug in back in July. Not to minimize him as a writer and follower of national events but I’ll wager he’d concede his record can’t compare to Andrea Mitchell’s.

Consider,  Andrea Mitchell started as a reporter in the LBJ years when I was five years old. Whatever I might think of her biases her accomplishments in the news business are impressive. She is on Television on a daily basis, is known to almost everyone in Washington,  has access, connections and a resume that I can, at this point in my career,  only dream of.

Yet one year after Hillary Clinton left the office of Secretary of State,  Andrea Mitchell when discussing that record on Meet the Press while easily naming Benghazi as a problem declared Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments were up in the air?

THIS IS Andrea Freaking Mitchell!  She probably supports Mrs. Clinton for president stronger than I support the Boston Red Sox.

If her ability to name an accomplishment Mrs. Clinton had in four years as Secretary of State is totally dependent on how well John Kerry cleans up after her that means SHE HAD NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS, PERIOD!

It also mean the basis for promoting Hillary for president in 2016 is the Hillary Principle that I articulated four days after my exchange with Doug:

If a democrat is promoted to an office beyond their level of ability, the very act of holding said office, regardless of the lack of success or degree of failure, will be considered evidence of success , particularly if said Democrat is a member of a “protected” or “oppressed” group as defined by the party and/or media.

Given that America was willing to re-elect Barack Obama based on one of the worst terms a President has had in my lifetime I regret to say it would not surprise me at all that the nation would be willing to elect Hillary based on nothing other than spin.

Update: Added the Scrooged quote at the top. The Scene is here

I suspect those stagehands staring at that solid gold dancer aren’t as motivated as Andrea Mitchell is to see a Hillary accomplishment.

I’d bet real money if this post is linked widely or mentioned on Rush that Andrea will suddenly come up with something, ANYTHING no matter how convoluted.

Update 2: An interesting note via Glenn from the NY Post:

A system of political rewards and punishments devised by the political power couple set aside “a special circle of Clinton hell . . . for people who had endorsed [President] Obama,” according to “HRC,” a new book by Politico former White House bureau chief Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes of The Hill.

The most helpful Clintonistas were rated “1” under the Clintons’ rating system, while turncoat former allies, such as John Kerry, received “7’s.”

Hmmm if Andrea Mitchell is right John Kerry is safe for now since Mrs. Clinton’s record as Sec of State is based on him.

Then again who said the “Elect Hillary” business is based on her record?

Update 3: Doug seems a tad miffed at the piece but I think he’s missing the point.

7 months ago in a midst of a twitter exchange I asked him a question he had no idea was coming & he couldn’t answer on the fly over the space of 20 minutes while doing all the things a person does in the morning to get ready for the day.

Andrea Mitchell was going on Meet the Press, knew she was going on, knew the subject was Hillary Clinton 2016, and had to know the question of her record as Sec of State would come up in discussion…and still couldn’t name a Hillary success at State.

Update 4: Glenn Reynolds takes a different view than Ms. Mitchell on the purpose of John Kerry vis a vis Hillary’s Accomplishments as Syria continues to explode

As I’ve noted before, John Kerry’s role is to make Hillary Clinton’s unimpressive tenure at State look better by comparison. So far, he’s fulfilling it perfectly.

If “Not being as wrong as John Kerry” makes on presidential material I should form my 2016 exploratory committee at once.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday and the weekly goal sits at $51.11

With a weekly goal of $350 that means we’re only $298.89 to go to make week 2 in February a success as opposed to week 1.

Only 12 readers at $25 are needed to clear this weeks goal and start to make up on last week’s shortfall.

Olimometer 2.52

Your tip jar hit can help me do this. Please consider kicking in.

And now there is another reason to kick in on a more permanent way

DaGuy low rez copy-psd If you become one of the 55 3/4 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis but do so at the $25 level
you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of the original members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right

Low res tha lotPlease specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plug the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!

I often disagree with Doug Mataconis on issues but I think this statement on Tim Tebow is spot on:

Tebow is being more mature and more level-headed about this than any of the people who have adopted him as either a cultural hero or enemy. Perhaps they could all take a clue from him and just enjoy the game.

but Tebow himself nails it better:

“I think number one is, what my mom and dad preached to me when I was a little kid: Just because you may have athletic ability and you may be able to play a sport doesn’t make you any more special than anybody else,” Tebow said. “Doesn’t mean God loves you more than anybody else.

“We play a sport. It’s a game. At the end of the day, that’s all it is, is a game. It doesn’t make you any better or any worse than anybody else. So by winning a game, you’re no better. By losing a game, you’re no worse. I think by keeping that mentality, it really keeps things in perspective for me to treat everybody the same.”

I don’t doubt that God works through Tebow as he does through all that have faith, but the result of the Patriots game will not be part of that work.

Oh and those who think that God wouldn’t bother with a quarterback let me remind you of scripture:

To Amos, Amaziah said: “Off with you, visionary, flee to the land of Judah! There earn your bread by prophesying, but never again prophesy in Bethel; for it is the king’s sanctuary and a royal temple.”

Amos answered Amaziah, “I was no prophet, nor have I belonged to a company of prophets; I was a shepherd and a dresser of sycamores. The LORD took me from following the flock, and said to me, Go, prophesy to my people Israel. Amos 7:12-15

If God did things the way people expected, the stable at Bethlehem would have only housed animals.

President James Madison: “You’ll give us victories, then, you think?”

Captain Charles Stewart: “We do, and not upon irrational premises.”

Madison: “Which victories will give us ships; for with victories congress will supply them faster than they can be lost”

 Fletcher Pratt Preble’s Boys  William Sloane Associates 1950

I’ve had a bit of debate with Doug Mataconis of Outside the Beltway on twitter concerning the inevitability of the coming race, that was generated by this tweet:

I took exception to this and he countered declaring:

He mentioned how the air war on Newt was successful and I counted that it was because the Newt people had other conservative alternatives, yet he named his winner:

and explained why a Santorum win just wouldn’t cut it after a NH loss:

Doug is a smart guy but he is making the same mistake that the Madison administration almost made in 1812. It’s based on a rational thought, after all the US navy consisted of 16 ships the largest being six frigates (think Cruiser) vs the 600+ ship British navy that had a fleet with line of battle ships by the score, however once the fight was actually engaged and the USS Constitution, USS United States, USS Wasp all won improbable victories against a navy that not only had the reputation of invincibility but had a record that backed it up, the entire equation changed:

The results of these battles were explosive, Congress suddenly voted for 6 more frigates of the Constitution Class and four battleships of the line when the country had none before.

So it is with Santorum, if Rick Santorum manages to win Iowa that win will produce not only sufficient funds, but Tea Party backing that will give him organization not only in Florida but beyond.

It’s true it will not be enough to move New Hampshire any more than the 18 gun USS Wasp after defeating the HMS Frolic was able to avoid being taken by the 74 gun Battleship HMS Poictiers but just as the Wasp’s defeat and capture did not cause the congress to abandon the new ship building program, nor will the forgone conclusion in New Hampshire prevent Rick Santorum from taking full advantage of the Iowa result, particularly if other conservative Tea Party candidates are no longer in play.

By Florida we will know if Santorum’s performance is enough to make the difference or if Mitt Romney’s divide and conquer strategy lasted long enough to win the day.

Update: Shhh don’t tell Doug:

Rick Santorum’s poll numbers aren’t the only thing on the rise. The former senator from Pennsylvania’s fundraising figures are also skyrocketing.

A senior Santorum adviser tells CNN the campaign raised more money in the last week than they raised on-line the past six months, adding that fundraising is between 300% and 400% higher on a daily basis than it was just ten days ago.

Update: the phrase “of line of battle ships” somehow was missing from a paragraph, now re-inserted.

Today show with Doug Mataconis is now available here.

And here are some photos from the remote at Kevin Kuros location:

the remote setup

And here is Kevin with Cappy

Here is my interview with him

We had tea party people stop by

Keven and Tea Party Leader

And a very happy Bruins and Sox fan

Other than some technical issues it was a great day

Well have no fear, it’s been available all week here.

And don’t forget to join DaTechGuy and the entire WCRN Saturday Crew, John Weston, Tom Wesley, Mike Wade and Carol Ann Brown as we broadcast live from State Rep. Kevin Kris’s District office at 150 Main st. in Webster, Ma.

Come on down and meet your favorite WCRN Saturday personality (or give us what for if we deserve it) you will be able to give to the Worcester Cares program at that location and my guest on DaTechGuy on DaRadio will be Doug Mataconis who writes at “Outside the Beltway”.

We will be talking Monday’s debate, the Weiner Resignation Libya, Wisconsin and maybe Ladd Ehlinger.