American conservatives’ Putin man-crush

Pat Buchanan has been defending Putin for years as a successful culture warrior defending civilized values against the growing power of liberal nancies. Social conservatives admired his courage in standing up for besieged heterosexuals.

Isaac Chotiner has a piece about conservatives and Putin in the New Republic:

During the nearly 50 year Cold War, Americans were informed time and again by rightwingers that the Soviet Union did not allow dissent, and could therefore pursue its desired policies without protest. While the Soviets were single-minded, we were, yes, decadent. Soviet leaders could fight wars as they pleased, but freedom-loving presidents like Ronald Reagan had to put up with what Charles Krauthammer laughably called an “imperial Congress.” (Some of the same type of commentary shows up about today’s China: look how quickly the Chinese can build bridges! And, as Thomas Friedman proves, it isn’t coming solely from the right.) But more unique among conservatives is the desire for a tough leader who will dispense with niceties and embrace power.

It will be interesting to see how the recent far-right love affair with the Russian autocrat plays out as he becomes a more aggressive enemy of the West.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
121 comments on “American conservatives’ Putin man-crush
  1. texan5142 says:

    Enjoy your weekend, I am starting with a craft beer, a fatty, and a game of chess.

  2. GG says:

    I’ve been gone all week so enlighten me on how this turned into a gay marriage discussion. Also curious if Cappy considers his relationship with Tutt sinful. I would assume they “fornicate”. 🙂

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      I really cannot imagine how that would be any of your business nor why you would be spending any time thinking of Stern doing those things.

      Some things, even here on the internet, are best left unasked and unimagined.

    • GG says:

      Believe it’s the last thing I would like to think about but since he’s opining on sin I just wondered if he considered his relationship a “sin” since I don’t think they are married.

      • flypusher says:

        Hey GG, HSAH has the right of it here. I think it would be a good gentleperson’s agreement just to leave people’s personal lives out of the discussion whenever possible. For me, even with my closest friends, I won’t talk about that stuff unless they bring it up.

        This is said in the spirit of friendship, not recrimination.

      • CaptSternn says:

        And thank youm Fly. Much more for Tuttabella than myself.

  3. rightonrush says:

    Lots of lying going on at this so called GOP/TeeP Christian convention.

    • rightonrush says:

      Fox News loves pudgy little white men with delusion of grandeur. Notice all their male (so called journalist) look like death warmed over while all the women are babes in short skirts.

  4. flypusher says:

    I had a look at Buchanan’s piece- same old whining from religious conservatives who can’t adjust to the fact that people just don’t have to accept their proclamations without questioning anymore. This one’s a classic:

    ‘ “They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.”

    Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.

    No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.’

    Moral clarity doesn’t automatically mean what you’re declaring is correct, just that you believe it really, really strongly. So you say same-sex marriage is evil, and you want society to accept that. Then tell us who it HARMS. Not inconveniences, not embarrasses, but actually causes real hurt. Don’t give me the hand-waving about “standards” and “values”, give me real examples of real people actually hurt. Or even better, a proper unbiased scientific study that shows same-sex marriage hurts people. Otherwise it’s just your and Vlad’s opinion.

    ‘Peoples all over the world, claims Putin, are supporting Russia’s “defense of traditional values” against a “so-called tolerance” that is “genderless and infertile.” ‘

    Russia’s got a depopulation issue alright, but pinning any of that on gays defies logic.

    “America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian.”

    If by de-Christianized you mean that Christians can’t impose standards/ laws based solely on their religious beliefs on other people anymore, then, yeah (although I STILL can’t buy beer on Sunday morning, so we’re not “de-Christianized” enough yet). And that’s not a bad thing if you believe in that whole religious liberty notion.

    “And same-sex marriage is indeed an “abstract” idea unrooted in the history or tradition of the West. Where did it come from?”

    It’s the American notions of “all men are created equal”, and the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” taken to their logical conclusion.

    Here’s the deal Pat, the cornerstone of your religious case against same-sex marriage is the claim that homosexuality is a choice. Should it be shown that it is not a choice, you can’t reasonably call it a sin, because sin requires free will. Should it be shown that it is not a choice, you and your ilk are being grossly unfair. You should be worried about that Pat, because science is chipping away at that cornerstone, and someday your arguments are going to collapse into a very ugly heap.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      I’m with almost all of your points, but I quibble with the last (although I think you are correct there as well).

      So what if being gay is a choice? So what if some people consider it a sin?

      Neither of those things should stop the recognition of same sex marriages.

      Becoming a Baptist is a choice. It would be illegal to refuse to issue marriage licenses to Baptists.

      I think at least one or two religions view divorce a sin, yet it would be illegal to refuse to issue marriage licenses to people working on a second, third, or fourth marriage. Most religions frown on murder, but we let convicted murderers get married.

      Nope, we’ve carved out this particular “choice”, and this particular “sin” for special treatment, and in this country, there is no logical rational for it.

      • flypusher says:

        “So what if being gay is a choice? So what if some people consider it a sin?”

        From the legal perspective, it doesn’t. But I’m looking at the moral basis of the religious argument against there. Buzzy is claiming that God calling homosexuality an abomination. What’s he basing this on? Ancient scripture, written by humans, that is imbued with the culture and personal likes/ dislikes of the authors. Humans from a culture that didn’t have a strong tradition of scientific inquiry and that didn’t have access to our knowledge of biology, the human brain, and human sexuality. The ancient Hebrews didn’t like gayness, and their culture has a lot of influence on ours. But another culture with just as much, if not more influence, Ancient Greece, was OK with same sex relationships. So why should we prefer Ancient Hebrew likes/ dislikes to Ancient Greek likes/ dislikes?

        If homosexuality is not a choice, then a thinking person can rightly question the fairness behind the claims that God forbids same sex relations. If people are born gay, then that’s part of the natural order of things, and God is permitting it. God’s also permitting gay people to have that standard human urges to love and be loved, and to have sex with a partner who actually turns you on. But you, Mr. Gay person, can’t have any of that say the religious conservatives. You either have to be celibate or fake a hetero relationship ( and isn’t that a great foundation to build a family upon, a big lie). Never mind that you having a gay relationship with the person you really want isn’t harming anyone else, we just can’t allow it. A deity who’s OK with that sort of unfairness is a deity I couldn’t feel reverence for, even if I were the spiritual type.

      • Texan5142 says:

        John Galt says:
        March 7, 2014 at 8:49 am
        I do. I will openly and happily tell you that I do not believe in god

        Not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster? May the pasta be with you.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      You guys are still missing the mark. Christians who follow the faith and honestly want to please GOD follow His precepts. It’s not the Christians hate homosexuality or sodomy, God calls it an abomination and like other scripture, we Christians desire to obey. What the problem is and where it comes from is the left’s bigoted action towards Christians who are just following God, with no malice towards none. So we can’t agree or recognize a sexual deviancy if God forbids it.

      You try to pigeon hole us but we are confidant in our standing. I would rather stand with God then anyone else. This is why I can love God and have gay friends. I don’t hate my friends but I won’t acknowledge their lifestyle and acceptable either. We simply don’t talk about it.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Buzz…we wacky folks on the left are happy for you to stand with God. You just can’t make everyone else do it too.

        At least to my knowledge, you are not in favor of the state denying marriage licenses to murderers (a deviancy which God kind of frowns upon), adulterers or fornicators (which are sexual deviancies God does not care for) or even Satan worshipers (whom I’m assuming would generally be viewed in an unfavorable light).

        Maybe you are against letting those folks get married, but you are not nearly as vocal about it. Heck, there are lots more adulterers getting married than there ever would be gays getting married.

        Yet, it is the issue of gay marriage that caused folks on your side to put a stake in the ground.

        All that aside, it generally isn’t a grand idea to let religious beliefs be the basis of our laws.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Okay, I will type slower. All sin is a sin. So if God says homosexuality is abhorrent and a sin it is what it is. To live in that sin is much different from sinning and repenting of that sin. Murderers have sinned no doubt. If they do not seek forgiveness, they a sinful but they do not murder 24/7 either. Adulterers are personally my least favorite since they took a vow before God and witnesses to be faithful yet mocked that vow, but it to can be forgiven if repented sincerely. Homosexuality want us to accept their sin which I can’t do do to my faith. You shouldn’t make laws based on faith but we demand it all the time. There is a huge disconnect concerning pro gay forces and what they think of those that oppose their position. I say take it up with God, just don’t ask me to disobey Him.

      • flypusher says:

        You don’t have to accept them Buzzy, and neither does your church. You do have to leave them be, and part of leaving them be is to NOT be trying to pass laws like DOMA.

      • Texan5142 says:

        kabuzz wrote

        “I say take it up with God, just don’t ask me to disobey Him.”

        How do you square that with calling people names and the slander you post here daily? You disobey the teaching of the Bible and Jesus everyday on this blog. We will not ask you to disobey Him, you are doing a good job of that all by your little kitty self. CINO (Christian in name only).

      • CaptSternn says:

        The temptation to commit a sin and committing the sin are different things. Besides that, now we have HT comparing homosexual behavior to murder. We remove rights from murderers, put them in prison for years, maybe even for life. Sometimes we even remove their right to life. But last I heard, Texas still would not recognize same sex marriage between murderers.

        Kabuzz is right. Though we are all sinners, we do not generally go around flaunting our sin openly and pushing it in the faces of others.

      • flypusher says:

        The best definition of sin that I’ve seen:

        “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. Hurting yourself is not sinful–just stupid.”-Robert Heinlein

        If you want believe homosexuality is a sin, fine, it’s a free country. But when you say it, and present it as something that is fair and reasonable, people will debate you on it. Because it’s a free country.

      • John Galt says:

        I do. I will openly and happily tell you that I do not believe in god. I believe that is probably the biggest sin in Christianity (though how that would be bigger than murder, I don’t know). There is not a shred of objective evidence that this mythology is any more true than turtles beating rabbits in a race and I get a tiny bit depressed when I think of how many people are still completely obsessed with this preposterous con job. And before you ask, no, I don’t single Christianity out – other religions are equally nonsensical. I’d also like to be able to buy a bottle of Scotch on Sunday should I have the desire to do so.

        Strangely, none of this came up when I stood in front of the Harris County judge to get married, nor should it have.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…buddy, you need a big hug and a reading comprehension class.

        You would be hard pressed to see me comparing homosexuality to murder (or becoming a Baptist). However, that level of reading comprehension does help me understand some of the conclusions you have reached after your extensive study of the Constitution, the Civil War, Abortion, and the Middle East.

        Dudes holding hands, talking about their partners, and kissing really is not shoving anything in your face. If you really feel that it is, then there are a lot of heterosexuals throwing all sorts of stuff in your face on a daily basis.

        I think I’m starting to the hoops through which you are Buzz are trying to dance with the sin and same-sex marriage thing.

        We are all sinners, but we are OK with adulterers and murderers and a whole host of other sinners getting married if the are not actively sinning at the time of marriage. Murderers are not murdering 24/7 and heck, even adulterers generally are not actively adulterizing during the wedding ceremony (even though they may be lusting in their hearts about a bridesmaid). It seems to be the sin, not the sinner that you are against.

        At least until it comes to being gay. Most gay folks are not actively having gay sex during the wedding ceremony. So if you are against the sin (i.e., gay sex), as long as the person is not doing it right then, we should be OK with the person getting married.

        Maybe that is silly. What if the gay couple said, “hey, we won’t be having gay sex, so no sin here.”? Is that OK? There are plenty of adulterers who have no intention of stopping their adultery after marriage, but we allow them to get marriage licenses.

        I seldom like to parrot owl (two birds there, one stone), but folks simply cannot come up with an argument that is not “God” or “icky” in opposition to same sex marriage.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, I have been clear in the past about same sex marriage, at least for any that bother to read and comprehend. I am opposed to same sex marriage, mainly because of my religious views and beliefs. But I think the states should recognize such contracts anyway. No government at any level should be making laws based on religion, just as no government at any level should be making rues or laws against religion or the free exercise thereeof, as in trying to censor the cheer leaders in Kountze, texas.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…I follow your position, but it is a position Buzz does not share, and you readily jumped to defend his side, and his side really is not defensible.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, now it seems you have a reading comprehension problem. Adulterers that continue cheating are living in sin. Sin is sin until repented. Homosexuals do not repent of their sin, they ask that I accept their lifestyle. Your going off on murderers, adulterers are not proving your point. Sin, is sin, is sin.

        JG, I feel very sad for you and will pray for you.

        Texas, you also do not believe in God which is your right but please, don’t lecture me on behavior that you know nothing about how it effects my relationship with God.

        Homer, don’t be obstinate for obstinates sake. I know you understand what I and Stern are saying.

      • John Galt says:

        “Homer, don’t be obstinate for obstinates sake.”

        I laughed so hard reading this that I literally spit a mouthful of water on my desk.

      • fiftyohm says:

        FP- Do realize the utter havoc having these Heinleinien principles codified into law would wreak? There could be chaos! These could be ickiness! These could be…


      • texan5142 says:

        kabuzz wrote
        “Texas, you also do not believe in God which is your right but please, don’t lecture me on behavior that you know nothing about how it effects my relationship with God.”

        Hey I could care less about your relationship with “God”, it is not my fault that your actions expose that you do not follow the teachings in the Bible, that is on you.

        kabuzz wrote
        ” Christians who are just following God, with no malice towards none”

        Is this not malice?

        kabuzz wrote
        “They found what is killing off or chasing off the moose in Minnesota, Texan lives there.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, I have seen Kabuzz say over and over that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes same sex marriage. Doesn’t mean he can’t speak out against same sex marriage, recognized by the state or not.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Buzz…I’m obstinately following your argument.

        Adulterers who happily continue to sin and live in sin are not denied marriage licenses in your state, and you are not vocal in your opposition to them getting married.

        Why is that?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fifty, if we followed Heinlein’s ideas, only citizens would be able to vote, and one would have to serve in something like the military to be a citizen. The rest would be civilians and have no say in matters of government.

      • Crogged says:

        “Chaos Ickiness and Freedom” will be the title of the box set of Ozzy Osborne’s music.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Cap’t- With all due respect, just what in the hell are you talking about?

      • vivalagalgo says:

        You have gay friends? hahahahahahahahahaha

      • fiftyohm says:

        And speaking of Hell, (an idea best abandoned in preadolescence along with Santa, Tooth-fairies, and omnipotent beings, but I digress), there’s a quote I used to ascribe to Emerson, that the Right really ought to internalize. “I support every man’s right to go directly to Hell on his own chosen path.” While I now doubt the accuracy of my previous ascription, I do not doubt the wisdom therein. Hint: It’s a metaphor!

        Listen: I don’t give a rat’s ass about your religion, or whether you have one at all. It’s none of my business, and mine is none of yours. You keep your religious justifications out of my legal system, and we’ll get along just fine. You don’t, and we’re gonna have a problem.

      • John Galt says:

        To their credit, Sternn and Buzz seem to be OK with separating their church and state on this matter. I think we all get that devout Christians have an issue with homosexuality. It does seem rather curiously magnified in relation to all the other sins given the limited mention made of it in the NT, but whatever. If we end up with religious folk concluding that, “I don’t like it, but I can’t think of a secular reason to prohibit it,” I think most everyone would be OK. We seem to be getting there, slowly but surely.

      • flypusher says:

        “Cap’t- With all due respect, just what in the hell are you talking about?”

        I am going to hazard a guess that he is taking Heinlein 100% literally; that by writing “Starship Troopers” he was saying that running a society in that manner was a good idea.

        Just like Huxley was advocating that whole alpha-beta-gamma-delta-epsilon caste thing.

      • fiftyohm says:

        JG – I tend to agree. There are hopeful signs.

        FP- That thought crossed my mind. But I was responding specifically to your quote. I like Asimov too, but I doubt the existence of a special ‘Robot Hell’ for military drones.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, I am glad you get it. Stern and I have never wavered from our belief on this issue.

        As far as other sins Homer wishes we spoke out on, well when it is brought up we will. I have commented in the past that if a couple gets married in a church, they have to go through marriage prep (which most denominations require) but later, if they seek divorce, they have to get the minister or proxy to sign off on it just to make sure all avenues of reconciliation were sought.

        I have no respect at all for adulterers. If they can cheat on their wife or husband that they swore before God to honor, well, just think what they can easily do to us if put in a position of leadership.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Buzz- You can call adultery a violation of trust with your spouse, or – I suppose, call it a violation of the laws of your deity of choice. If the result of such beliefs is the same, I guess I’m OK with it. I certainly consider the former more important at the polls though.

  5. desperado says:

    Just a reminder. It’s opening day at CPAC.

    • rightonrush says:

      This is a photo from their minority outreach lecture.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Liar, no such agenda item.

        They found what is killing off or chasing off the moose in Minnesota, Texan lives there.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Buzz…are you really, really sure about that?

        “Thursday afternoon, CPAC hosted a panel on GOP outreach into minority communities. The panel included Virginia Senate candidate Ed Gillespie and a panel of Republican political strategists: Jason Roe, Elroy Sailor, and Robert Woodson. The panel delivered a remarkably pointed review of GOP voter outreach (largely its failures) and explained, in very straightforward terms, how the party can (and must) do better.”

        I mean, I realize that C-Span is a liberal plot to destroy the country, but there are actual pictures and video of the session.

        Of course, who are you going to believe, actual video of people talking in a session on minority outreach or your own lying eyes?

        But hey, you don’t need to apologize for calling people liars. You just stand with your God and his teachings about spreading falsehoods.

      • rucasdad says:

        Wow ROR, that’s embarrassing. But hey, it is what it is.

      • CaptSternn says:

        First, how does it compare with attendence at other lectures? Second, why would most conservatives worry about “minority outreach” when we see all as being equal to begin with? The left focuses on race, which is what racists do.

      • rightonrush says:

        Buzz, with each post you prove yourself to be as dumb as a stump sucking horse. Sternn, excuse me for not giving a S-it about attendance at other lectures of the clown car circus.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Yes Stern…why would a political group care about reaching out to growing demographic groups that historically vote overwhelmingly for the other side?

        I can see why you would be against “A discussion of how to bring conservative ideas of liberty, opportunity and prosperity to non-traditional voting blocs AND teach party and
        movement leaders how to embrace them.”

        Hey, if they don’t like you for who you are, why go changing to please them? Heck, why even bother trying to explain how much you love liberty and freedom and that those groups should love them just like you do.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Because, HT, I don’t care to focus on such things, pandering to people based on the color of their skin or anything else. I know a lot of people that live conservative lives and have conservative values that vote for democrats based on tradition, they always have. But they also were left alone to live their lives as they saw fit, the government wasn’t all up in their business. Democrats are changing that, and democrats will drive people away because of that. Those people will start to more closely look at what they are voting for, and that will bring them to the conservative side of politics. The left is doing more for the right than we could ever ask for. Let us just hope people see the light while much of the damage can still be reversed.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…good luck with that electoral strategy.

        Pandering = “Hey guys, really, we do not actively dislike you. Let me tell you about our policies”

        Overwhelming voting patterns in favor of Democrats. Possible causes:
        Brainwashing? – check
        Liberal media (leading to brainwashing)? – check
        Traditions of voting democrat? – check
        Vote buying through giveaways? check
        Policies that actively work against the interests of many minority members? – nope, no way, it must be some other reason

      • rucasdad says:

        Who cares about minorities?! Those who do….are racists.


      • rucasdad says:

        Capt, you really should care more about people who are different than you. Gerrymandered districts won’t last forever.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Actually they will, Rucas. Otherwise Sheila Jackson Lee would be voted out. That’s the reason they exist in the first place.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain is right on this one, I think complaints about ‘gerrymandering’ are like complaining about ‘term limits’. You have to win elections.

      • rucasdad says:

        I’m for term limits and against gerrymandering whether it be disadvantageous for Democrats or Republicans. How can you win elections if you’re the minority in a gerrymandered district?

    • Texan5142 says:

      That Wayne LaPierre dude is one paranoid SOB, crazy that one is.

    • Texan5142 says:

      CPAC (Crazy People Against Cognizance)

  6. fiftyohm says:

    I predict the Russians will take the Crimea (effectively from within), and that will be the end of this. The other stuff – demographics, economics, energy trade, infrastructure, corruption, crime, and all the rest will be the ultimate end of Russia.

    It’s gonna be a mess, and we’re bound to get some on us.

    • DanMan says:

      yep, especially Exxon, BP, Shell, etc.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      The Un-Balkanization of the Balkans. The world is a sinusoidal wave eh fitty?

      • fiftyohm says:

        Bubba- Not sure about the sinusoid. More like a square wave, if you know what I mean. Oscillatory and periodic though, for certain.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yeah you’re right fitty. I’m sure you like to hear that, especially from me. 🙂

        Sinusoid is too gradual/rational/deliberative. Abrupt square/step function is a more accurate analogy for the constant radical changes back and forth.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Exactly, Bubba – and loaded with ‘odd harmonics’. /analogy closed/

  7. CaptSternn says:

    Off topic, but today marks the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo. Remember the Alamo, and those brave Texians that died on that day.

  8. kabuzz61 says:

    It would seem Chris Ladd is trying to get in front of the criticism his party is starting to receive for that lack of leadership in the Ukraine debacle. Another foreign policy disaster.

    Romney and Palin, the lefty loons favorite punching bags predicted this would become a problem but the left just laughed and laughed.

    Keep try lefties, but we all know where the failure lies. In the empty suit that sits in the WH. I don’t think he could find the bathroom unless somebody informs him.

    • John Galt says:

      I find it amusing that the right simultaneously derides Obama as an “empty suit” of a community activist and the mastermind of a socialist takeover of the United States. I think you have to pick one or the other: evil genius or incompetent buffoon.

      • DanMan says:

        No choice required. He’s an evil genius attracting incompetent buffoons.

      • rucasdad says:

        Even shorter answer from Dan?


        But let’s not burst his bubble yet. We’ll keep allowing him to think that he’s both edgy and provocative.

      • desperado says:

        Dan, if he was attracting buffoons, you’d have a cabinet position.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Buzzy, we’re still laughing. At you.

      Maybe Romney and Palin could team up in 2016 huh? More laughs….

      Palin’s “prediction” already debunked. Let it go.

      Oh that’s right you can’t.

      BENGAZI!!!!!!!!!!! [sic].

      Feel better buzzy?

      Three for three. Chris should play the Lotto.

    • rucasdad says:

      For the most part, I usually ignore buzzy and Dan’s comments. However, when I do read them, I ALWAYS think about a certain scene from a certain movie…

      • fiftyohm says:

        This is what I think each and every time I hear SJL speak. It’s just too perfectly appropriate to be random!

    • Crogged says:

      There’s only millions of people economically and politically entwined across two continents with several hundred years of contentious and tragic history here, we need to ACT and NOW or we have no leadership! As usual and in fairness to the ‘other side’, to placate the action seekers some members of the Administration and the Democratic party overreact with words, which have meaning when you say things such as ‘red lines in Syria’ etc. Putin, get off my plane! Pow, pow…..

    • kabuzz61 says:

      JG, making up things out of whole cloth. In other words, the usual.

  9. John Galt says:

    Some conservatives cheer the supposed rise of an antagonistic Russia because it gives them warm and fuzzy feelings of a simpler time, when there was a tangible enemy, WASPs ruled the day, and they didn’t have to think about icky things like gays and evolution. Maybe we can practice hiding under desks again for old times’ sake.

  10. DanMan says:

    Conversely, It will be interesting to see how the ongoing love affair love affair with Obama plays out as he becomes more toxic to the democrats he is taking down with him.

    Did y’all hear Lois Lerner once again pled the 5th when asked if there was a smidgeon of corruption at the IRS?

    Hey what’s this? Obama is going to allow those evil insurance companies he has told he will bail-out like the UAW that they can offer those worthless and substandard policies until a month before the 2016 elections? Need any more proof Obamacare never was about health care and was all about politics?

    Hey libs. What is Hillary’s number one accomplishment? She’s got quite the resume’ that extends from being kicked off the Watergate investigation committee for lying to lying about Benghazi but I’d like to know your favorite.

    • desperado says:

      Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’…..

    • rucasdad says:

      1)Lois Lerner and the supposed IRS “scandal”
      2)Obama, insurance companies, UAW, blah blah blah
      3)Hillary….something or another…

      The topic of this thread: The right’s man crush on Putin

      The desperation and need to be so defensive is quite strong with this one. I wonder why?

      • DanMan says:

        Hey I opened on topic, as dumb as it is. I wonder why our republican host doesn’t mention these types of issues in his quest to improve the party. Has cabin fever got you in a funk rucas?

      • rucasdad says:

        No you didn’t. All you did was take Chris’s last sentence and flip it. But you are right, what you said was dumb.

        No cabin fever here my good man. The hell with Philly, it’s always sunny in Chicago. 🙂

      • DanMan says:

        So throwing the same thing back is off topic? 20 degrees and sunny! yea!

      • rucasdad says:

        Not really. It was just an easy intro for you to spill your idiotic talking points.

        Have you really become so intellectually bankrupt that you’re now trying to use the weather as some sort of argument? Since you’ve probably never been here, you do know that Chicago is cold in the winter (obviously this one has been abnormal but so has the ones before this), correct? We tend to get more snow then you guys….you are aware of this, right? RIGHT?!

      • DanMan says:

        yeah I’ve been there but it was in the summer and fall. Very nice town from what I experienced. Me and buddy were doing the circuit of closing baseball stadiums a few years ago and we trundled on down to see the Cubs in the last game of the season that year. I ended up with a standing room only ticket so I headed to a bar under the stands. It happened to be Beanie Baby day. By the end of the third inning the place was clearing out as the kids that came to get the stuffed dolls didn’t care about the game and their parents hauled them out.

        I ended up on the front row on the first base side right behind the ‘no pepper’ sign. My buddy was way out in the right field bleachers. Very cool stadium and great fans. Really enjoyed all the bars and restaurants around he place too. Riding the E and looking through people’s windows was interesting.

      • rucasdad says:

        I think what you’re referring to as the “E” is actually the “L”. It has and can be referred to also as the “EL” (elevated) but the “L” is the more universal term. Not trying to be condescending, just an FYI (if I’m wrong please correct me).

        I was told when I moved here that if you want to see baseball, you go to U.S Cellular to watch the Sox. If you want to go to a beer garden with a baseball game in the background, you go watch the Cubs at Wrigley. I was born and raised an Astros fan and loved going to the Dome (I’ll always remember the beer guy’s sales pitch…”Coldest foam in the Dome!”) and love Minute Maid…especially on opening day but a normal sunny day at Wrigley on any day, any season, no matter how many wins or loses always feels like opening day. CAN’T BEAT IT.

        Glad to hear that you and your buddy had a chance to see it in person.

      • DanMan says:

        Yeah, it’s L. Hey hey, I did opening day at Minute Maid with one of my sons.

        The Astros are really struggling. I gave up my seats about three years after the White Sox took us in 4 games. I have a hunch that series had the most LOBs for a losing team on record. I think Camanetti had two or three at bats with men on third and no or one outs. Bagwell never saw a pitch to hit because Berkman was in the biggest slump of his career. I was in my front row Crawford box seats at that first 14 inning game.

        Now that they play in the toy league its going to be hard to be bothered any more. I really like playing the Cubs, Giants and St. Louis. The AL is just Yankees and Red Sox.

      • rucasdad says:

        “Hey hey, I did opening day at Minute Maid with one of my sons.”

        I’ve done the same with my dad many seasons and hope to do the same with my kid. Some of my best memories so good for you, Dan.

        I can’t argue with you about the Astros. I envy you for being there. I watched from my couch and then literally wept in 2005 when the White Sox swept us. Vowed to never watch them again after last season but I’ll still follow. It’s in my blood. My grandmother who has now been gone for quite some time was a hardcore Astros fan. So much so that she would travel to Florida for their Spring training. Her last time to go to an Astros game was on her 74th birthday in a wheelchair and they wished her happy birthday on one of the electronic scoreboards. I’ll put it to you this way, on that day, the onions (crying/emotions) were out in full force. Bless her heart, I’m sure she’s rolling over in her grave now.

      • flypusher says:

        “Bagwell never saw a pitch to hit because Berkman was in the biggest slump of his career.”

        Which WS were you guys watching? Berkman’s stats:

        RBI-6* (the most of any player on either team)
        BB-5*(also the most of any player on either team)
        SO-5 (this one’s not good, but a couple players had even more)
        BA- 0.358 (best of all Astros with more than 2 AB)
        OBP- 0.526 (tied for best of any player on either team who played in all the games)
        SB-1 CS-0

        Some of those BB were intentional, and guys in the biggest slumps of their careers don’t usually get free passes to 1B in big games. While he was certainly capable of doing better, those stats are not as bad as you make them out to be.

        Also, if you saw Ken Caminiti in the 2005 WS, then you can see dead people (he OD’d in 2004).

      • DanMan says:

        thanks for the corrections flypusher, I didn’t feel like googling prior t commenting and I guess I mixed my 2004 play-offs with 2005 WS games but the result was the Astros lost. Here’s the interesting take away from this exchange. You actually are able to separate facts from fiction and proved it here. How do explain supporting all the lies your president tells us? By blindly ignoring them or blindly accepting them as necessary for the cause. Obama is a proven liar, that is fact. You accept them. That is fact.

        Care to explain that? Remember, google is your friend. Thanks for playing.

      • flypusher says:

        Wow, not even baseball can stay free of politics. Sigh. But I’ll give you an answer. I deal with lies by going on the assumption that ALL politicians are going to, at various points in their careers, make mistakes, miscalculate, mislead, and even outright lie. Some more than others, but everyone will do it. What matters to me is what they are lying about and how bad are the consequences of that lie.

        If you think that I “blindly accept” everything Obama says or does, then you need to work on your reading skills.

      • desperado says:

        I could see that happening. In 2016 the anti….uh, Kenyan vote won’t be nearly as motivated as they were in 2008 and 2012.

      • rucasdad says:

        Even if Hillary doesn’t get the “white” vote(which it’s starting to look like she may), it’s over. Done. Pack it up. The right has said goodbye to the national stage in return for the gerrymandered state/territorial ones.

      • DanMan says:

        It appears from that article between 13% and 31% of liberals don’t want her to run. Somebody better get Sack-a-ja-liar to reconsider not running.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I think having a one party congress and another party in the WH is a recipe for good legislation. Clinton did it and it can be done again.

  11. CaptSternn says:

    Well, I guess we are getting confessions from Lifer since he claims to be a republican and a conservative. For us tea party types, we recognize that Putin could be very dangerous. But right now he is acting more like a modern day Abe Lincoln, fighting to preserve the Union (or to free the slaves, as the left would claim).

    • bubbabobcat says:

      2 of 2 so far. All we need is for buzzy to chime in his Putin man crush for the wingnut trifecta.

      Like shooting fish in a barrel huh Chris?

      And for your information Cappy, this is not a universally accepted correct equation (not even close) as much as you delusionally wish it to be:

      Republican = conservative

    • rucasdad says:

      That’s some serious mental olympics you’re putting yourself through Capt to justify your bromance for Putin. Why do you do that to yourself?

  12. Bobo Amerigo says:

    Putin looks big, riding a pony.

  13. desperado says:

    The enemy of their enemy is their friend. Anyone who the right perceives as making Obama look bad or getting the best of Obama they heart very much.

  14. way2gosassy says:

    “But more unique among conservatives is the desire for a tough leader who will dispense with niceties and embrace power.”

    But only if that leader is one of theirs and their biggest problem is deciding who that is. They are so busy eating each others lunch that no one has risen to the top.

    • fiftyohm says:

      Just wanted to let you know, I glanced at your avatar and screen name. The image in my mind after I looked away was correct, save for the ‘o’ and the ‘s’ that followed. Mrs. Ohm says that me my quite frequently!

  15. DanMan says:

    Hilarious take. You running out of material Chris?

    • bubbabobcat says:

      You have a man crush on Putin, don’t you Danny?

      You just proved Chris’s point about the right. That knee jerk reflex still works well I see.

      • rucasdad says:

        “You have a man crush on Putin, don’t you Danny?”

        “I’m not saying I have a man crush on him, all I’m saying is that he works out a lot and you can obviously tell. Plus, he has a really nice complexion….” – Danny

  16. Crogged says:

    Maybe it’s his willingness to take his shirt off along with winning the hand of Syria’s Al Assad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: