The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Notes From CPAC

Re: Notes From CPAC

Harold — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:17:17 -0000

These hecklers are like the musicians on the Titanic......they refuse to face the truth.

A huge faction of the Republican party is in denial that we aren't living in the 20th century anymore. They don't want to live in a global world (unless they can exploit little brown people to make money) and they are terrified that white (western Euro) people aren't on top anymore.

Their discomfort with the concept of other countries or other races thriving and being as successful or more successful than they are has made them tweak out. They are full of fear. So they create their fairy fables and spin the hate and present them as truth. And they pretend that we are back in the 50's. Look at any footage of a Palin rally........it's all there in the twisted faces.

It's pathetic.

And I'm not surprised that Tucker caved. This group eats their own.....he's done it himself.

Re: Notes From CPAC

OriGuy — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 03:53:25 -0000

This is my pencil, this is my gun. This is for writing, this is for fun.

Re: Notes From CPAC

John — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:52:17 -0000

Tony,

It depends on when your father served. In the modern Marine Corps officers certainly carry rifles, M-16s.

But during World War II, your father's statement was sadly true. It also led to the Marine Corps enlisted man motto, of never standing anywhere in the vicinity of a Second Lieutenant. (See Eugene Sledge's memoirs, With the Old Breed.) This was a motto that seemed to evolve as early as Wake Island and remained true throughout the Solomons, the Marianas and even up through Okinawa.

Part of it was that Second Lieutenants often didn't know what they're doing. But part of it was exactly what your father said: A lead-from-the-front motto, followed by issuing them only sidearms. Experienced officers generally learned to either pilfer a rifle or simply carry one with them, tradition and regs be damned.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Jordan — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:28:18 -0000

@AMT

I remember reading a piece a couple years ago about how most of the European media is quite upfront about the fact that they're biased in one way or another. It's just assumed that there's at least some agenda and so people know what to expect. Here we're still holding on to the notion that the media is supposed to be unbiased even when it's clear that it's rarely the case anymore. The author was arguing that the European system is better in as much as you know upfront what kind of slant to expect.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Mary — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:08:19 -0000

@Tony Comstock

I am enlisted, about to deploy in a month to Iraq, and will be carrying a sidearm. My job makes it necessary. I'm not the typical enlisted infantry man people are thinking of here, but just to be clear there are a number of jobs in the military that now require or highly suggest that enlisted soldiers carry M9s. It's not the pure status symbol it once was.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Jive Turkey — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:31:47 -0000

The metaphor is a gem - but I'm afraid you might not see it quoted precisely by others. I think it should be "confusing his flag with his sidearm." Or, replace "confusing" with "mistaking."

Or am I just being a pedantic white dude?

Re: Notes From CPAC

Guest — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:12:53 -0000

"Also seem to remember my former Marine Corp father telling me that the Marine's "lead from the front" creed and no rifles for officers resulting lieutenants walking point carrying nothing more than a .45 automatic."

Tony-

Maybe it depends on your MOS, you exact job? My father was a gunner & driver in a tank, the armored infantry, during the Korean War. (He finished off his four years as a Staff Sergeant.) During boot camp he had to qualify on a rife, the M-1 Garand I am assuming, but he was issued a sidearm once he was in combat.

I remember this distinctly because he mentioned how his particular Colt .45 automatic was a piece of crap. It was automatic only in the sense that it would fire one round and then automatically fall apart.

Re: Notes From CPAC

DB Cooper — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:11:22 -0000

USMC Lt. Nate Fick (One Bullet Away; Generation Kill) carried a rifle, anyway.

On the main topic: Those guys (the GOP) are so screwed.

Re: Notes From CPAC

MAJeff — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:59:25 -0000

it's almost like watching the last days of Jonestown. the conservatives are in lalaland.

I don't see it so much as the decline of Jonestown as the Black Helicopter crowd getting crazier as they were increasingly marginalized. It won't end in a mass suicide. It'll be a repeat of the Murrah Federal Building.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Pesto — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:48:53 -0000

@ Tony Comstock

TNC, are you a officer or an enlisted man?

TNC is a mercenary. He probably subscribes to Blogger of Fortune.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Mark — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:27:58 -0000

I really respect Carlson for what he was saying, up until he got booed and completely caved.

I completely agree with his opinion about the NYT. It absolutely is a liberal paper (my favorite thing about it is its editorial page), but it is a NEWSpaper first. The only programming on Fox News that I would call straight-up news is whatever show Shepard Smith is doing now. The rest have no line between opinion and news.

How many shows does Hannity have there now? Like three?

Re: Notes From CPAC

Ryan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:26:29 -0000

I knew I could totally derail this thread. Huzzah!

Re: Notes From CPAC

Tony Comstock — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:02:42 -0000

Also seem to remember my former Marine Corp father telling me that the Marine's "lead from the front" creed and no rifles for officers resulting lieutenants walking point carrying nothing more than a .45 automatic.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Tony Comstock — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:59:27 -0000

AMT

Traditionally officers carried sidearms, as last ditch personal defense and to shoot enlisted men. They did not carry rifles because they were not supposed to be shooting, they were supposed to be directing their men. I seem to remember stories of British officers in WWI going "over the top" armed with nothing more than a swagger stick.

Re: Notes From CPAC

AMT — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:53:44 -0000

And who could forget the time Carlson bragged about getting a friend to help him beat a a guy who made a pass at him in a restroom?

So not only is Carlson a homophobe, he's a coward too?

@KevDog: I thought enlisted personnel carried sidearms as well. My dad was enlisted, an MP in Vietnam, and I remember him telling me about how inaccurate some standard-issue Colt pistol was past a certain range. He was speaking like someone who had first-hand knowledge. Maybe he just had to qualify on a pistol as opposed to carry it around. Maybe its just the special ops guys who carry pistols and rifles.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Tony Comstock — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:46:18 -0000

Was thinking the same thing, but have trouble classing a reporter as an officer.

TNC, are you a officer or an enlisted man?

Re: Notes From CPAC

like totally down — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:43:39 -0000

It's a wacky day when *conservatives* (these are the people who cheered when Ambassador Bolton joked about nuking Chicago and laughed when Ann Coulter called Senator Edwards a *fag*, which makes them kooks in my book) get lectured about seriousness by Tucker Carlson.

A quick search of Carlson at Media Matters reveals Carlson said that Obama sounds like *a pothead*, the NAACP *should be shut down*, and that he *crosses his legs* whenever Hilary Clinton speaks. And who could forget the time Carlson bragged about getting a friend to help him beat a a guy who made a pass at him in a restroom? And yet he's the serious guy in this room.

Re: Notes From CPAC

KevDog — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:41:39 -0000

The grunts have rifles, the officers have sidearms. The metaphor is perfect.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Tony Comstock — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:39:18 -0000

And it's a great metaphor, Rifle is more accurate, but the subvocalization works better with sidearm because of the elision between "his" and "sidearm"

Re: Notes From CPAC

AMT — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:39:14 -0000

I need to take a dig at Fox news. My probably with those fools is not that they are right-wingers. Well, not my biggest problem. My problem with them is that they lie to no end. I'm not talking about particular stories or the partisan slant they have other networks (MSNBC for one) does that kind of thing too. My problem is that they have the balls to say its "fair and accurate" and that people disagreeing with them are twisting the news or are shills for the "liberal media". That's the same tactic Bush used to make his power grab "you're with us or you're unpatriotic".

The bigger problem is not that Fox news refuses to admit that they have an agenda and are not fair and balanced. It's that otherwise intelligent conservatives are blind to this, willfully or otherwise. These frakking people! They're the same ones whose eyes roll and get twitchy when Rachel Maddow or Olberman even show up on screen for a second. But they're the first ones to yell in an argument "But last night on Hannity [fill-in the right-wing douchebaggery of your choice]!" These are the same people who bitched about media bias even as they had control of Congress and the White House and the New York Times was printing Bush administration press releases as news. And these jokers are surprised that, while many lefties may appreciate input from intelligent conservatives, we don't want to hear anything else from them or the idiots they champion/elect?

/rant

I'm sorry. It's been that kind of week.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Tony Comstock — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:37:14 -0000

I have been reading and commenting at TAS, and have been flabbergasted to find out how deep in the weeds today's young cons are about commerce and the market place of ideas. They are as bad/lost as the lefty doco filmmakers. Check out this post and comments:

http://theamericanscene.com/2009/02/27/substance-matters

Re: Notes From CPAC

rikyrah — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:25:42 -0000

When they start booing the likes of reliable media flunky Tucker Carlson, you know they are in sad shape.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:24:37 -0000

I love these conversations! I thought of rifle first actually, and it probably makes more sense. I just like the almost archaic sound of "sidearm."

Re: Notes From CPAC

Ryan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:20:24 -0000

Irritating and picayune metaphor Nazi alert: wouldn't the metaphorical conservo-soldier be confusing his flag for his rifle? If he/she/it is resorting to their sidearm, things have already gone pretty sideways.

Although perhaps this is an appropriate depiction of the current fortunes of the mainstream conservative movement in America.

Re: Notes From CPAC

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:13:52 -0000

Oh I don't know. It's just like the analogy questions from my old SATs. In the following sentence, Writer is to ideology, as Soldier is to blank. A little more abstract than that, but the same idea. Often I'll write a sentence like that out, with the structure in tact, and then spend 15 minutes trying to find the most evocative thing for the second part of the analogy. It's very powerful when it comes off right. If it's weak, I usually scrap the sentence.