The results from Iowa were almost ideal, whether we are talking about the Republicans or the Democrats.
But first, the Democrats and Hillary. It is of course a major big time desideratum that she implode, and I am sure that I am joined in this pious wish by friends of the Republic everywhere. But if she implodes, why should we want it right out of the starting gate? We would have our implosion later on. Give us a minute. Let us rejoice that she virtually tied with a commie in the Heartland, and is now off to New Hampshire to get shellacked by him there. The Democrats there have radically emended the noble motto of that state, which is “live free or die.” With Bernie as their drum major, it is now “live for free or die.” Then Hillary can stagger off to the super-primaries down south, win a bunch of them, and then the FBI indictment. Timing is everything in these things.
Now to the Republicans. I said almost ideal. Donald Trump almost came in third, and I do admit that I wanted him in fourth. So you can’t have everything, and we were not put into this world for pleasure alone.
The received wisdom on the teevee, which formed almost instantly, was that Cruz did what he had to do, that Trump under-performed, and that Rubio over-performed. What is the measuring rod against which these pronouncements are made? Well, mostly the groundless speculations of those making groundless speculations now. But it is the game, and so let us play it.
The received wisdom, when everybody receives it, does drive and shape subsequent events, and so let us be good sports and take it from there. The standing nostrum is that there are three tickets out of Iowa, which means that we should now have a three-man race. The long shot that might surprise us in this expectation would be if someone like Kasich or Christie, or possibly Bush, pulls off a surprise showing of some sort in New Hampshire. But all that would do is keep them alive until our southern brethren finish them off. The one exception down there could be Florida, where Bush might be strong but where Rubio also will be. That will likely just top off this particular part of the primary story with some unseemly ugliness.
So the chances are pretty good that we have our three semi-finalists, in other words. A cluster of men will drop out after New Hampshire, and another one or two might even follow Huckabee and drop out before New Hampshire. That should help us clarify our lives.
If Trump had walked away with it in Iowa (and then again in New Hampshire), a number of establishment types (who find him gauche and distasteful) would have blinked at what the trumpen-proletariat had done to us, but nevertheless would have started to accommodate themselves to the prospect of lots of Deals. But I think the strong presence of Rubio will keep them from doing that, at least not right away. Right or wrong, I think they believe they could work with Rubio and I think we will start to see a lot of their support start to consolidate there. If this happens, keep in mind that Rubio will be the most conservative “establishment” pick to come along in a long time. The establishment will have been dragged right, in other words.
In the meantime, Cruz needs to continue to win without being recognized as someone who is winning. Whatever he accomplishes for the remainder of the campaign will only be grudgingly acknowledged, if at all, until the point where it is undeniable and he has become a Public Menace. Cruz is disciplined, he is smart, and he has money. There are some areas where I wish he were more disciplined, or disciplined in a different fashion, but I will just keep those thoughts to myself for the present. For the time being, I just want him to continue to terrify the denizens of every cozy cubby inside the Beltway. This is because I think Rush is right — those people fear Ted Cruz and fear is the only appropriate sensation for them.
I don’t want to send a deal-maker to Washington. I don’t want someone who knows how to work both sides of the aisle. I want an Ostrogoth king dressed in furs with a spear of ash in his right hand and his well-worn copy of Hazlitt in the other. So to speak.
Cruz is a slimy politician. He sent out purposefully misleading vote shaming mailers for goodness’ sake. in other words, he lied to people to get their vote. That’s not cool! Just the same, now that he beat Trump, Cruz will now be squeezed to suffocation on the issue of his eligibility and possibly be forced out.
“He sent out purposefully misleading vote shaming mailers for goodness’ sake.”
I think you mean he used the same get-out-the-vote tactic that the Iowa Republicans used in 2014. And also, apparently it worked.
Ends and Means.
I suggest you compare them. The general concept has been used before. But the over-the-top implementation Cruz’s campaign used is unique to it, so far as I can tell.
But what a scummy thing to do.
Trump may call you a loser, but he doesn’t threaten you with notices mailed to [edit] your front door and claim it’ll be a part of the public record.
I don’t like the tactic myself – I think it’s too harsh, and is more of the sort of thing I’d expect from Trump. I guess I’m more inclined toward giving it a pass simply because I’m sick of the low voter turnout affecting whether men of principle get elected…
Well, it’s more of a Barack Obama tactic, wouldn’t you agree?
You say po-tay-to, I say “bad hairpiece”.
It doesn’t fit my campaign philosophy, but I’m conflicted because both Obama and Cruz managed to bring out the principled folks, albeit from opposite sides. Cruz’s principled folks are good for the country.
So, it’s ok to lie, as long as it works?
I wasn’t aware that there was lying involved in these fliers. Shaming, sure, but lies? Show your proof.
Just read Jonathan’s response below. He lays it all out.
I wasn’t aware of the mailers until you said that. Looked it up and it indeed was really slimy. I don’t see it as a definite reason not to vote for Cruz (Trump would certainly do the same thing if it helped him, Clinton too, and perhaps some of the other candidates). But it should certainly draw the condemnation of Cruz supporters. We shouldn’t support devious acts just because they are done by the politician we want to support. Statement from Secretary of State Paul Pate Regarding Misleading Mailer from Cruz for President Campaign DES MOINES – “Today I was… Read more »
Interesting. In Georgia there is indeed a “grade” of sorts. You can buy a list of voters which includes their percentage of elections in which they’ve voted. There is also a ranking of how conservative or liberal a person is based on the primaries in which they chose to participate. When people run for office, they use these voting “scores” to know which voters to target — the voters that are most likely to show up on election day.
The only appropriate response to that tactic is a hearty chuckle. Anyone who has “a real problem” with that needs to lighten up – just like someone who gets a piece of mail which says they’ve been “given an F” at anything and it pisses them off needs to lighten up.
But even if they used government records to acquire such information and then try to use it as leverage to guilt and pressure you into voting for them?
Government records? You mean like the kind any one of us can access at any moment? https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/regfaq.html Yes I believe the citizens in this country could use a little guilt and pressure into voting for Ted Cruz.
Well, that’s not exactly true. Allowed uses for such information are listed, so you can’t just go get a voter list. Given, an allowed use is for soliciting votes, and such doesn’t bother me, but Cruz’s campaign used that information to wedge, guilt, and pressure people into voting for Cruz by comparing them against their neighbors, and encouraging that action needed to be taken so as to improve their grade–a grade assigned them by the political candidate in question. If that in no way bothers you, then I don’t think you’re being honest. And why should people be guilted into… Read more »
Cruz is the best candidate who has a chance of winning, that is why people ought to be guilted into voting for him. I think you should feel guilty for voting for Rubio or Trump – because that’s dumb and foolishness is a sin. What’s your problem with making others feel guilty for things that are wrong?
Hahaha Okay, I didn’t know that Cruz had the Mandate of Heaven, or perhaps a glimpse of the Second Coming? So Cruz, working within a system that has zero interest in rewarding the good and punishing evil, is going to be the answer to all of our prayers? He must, since it’s sinful foolishness to not vote for him. “just like someone who gets a piece of mail which says they’ve been “given an F” at anything and it pisses them off needs to lighten up.” No, I’m sorry. I think you with your holding the Presidency as the key… Read more »
Sounds like you need to lighten up.
Zachary, you said it’s foolishness, and sinful on top of that, to vote for anyone other than Cruz because you perceive him to have the greatest chance of winning–a disputed idea. I happen to doubt that anybody we’ve got in the hopper is going to make any meaningful difference on the direction of the country. I don’t take a great deal of stock in the words of men who couldn’t manage, or bother, to remove one dime of tax payer money from PP even after videos showing them pick through plates and buckets full of the body parts of babies… Read more »
Well, ok.
the best candidate who has a chance of winning … people ought to be guilted into voting … you should feel guilty … that’s dumb and foolishness is a sin I haven’t cast a general election vote for a GOP presidential candidate since at least 1996. During an appearance on his friend Pat Buchanan’s talk radio show, the late Howard Phillips convinced me to quit voting for “lesser of two evil” Republicans. I’m pretty sure that eye-opening conversation was before the 1992 election, but I really can’t recall whether or not I “held my nose” and voted for Papa Bush… Read more »
And look where that has got the nation. Good Job.
“The duty is ours. The results are God’s.” ~ John Quincy Adams
“If God had intended for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.” ~ Doug Wilson
And thus we get Obama, and next Hillary, while you stay “pure”.
Your comment implies that I cast the deciding vote. But I suspect you really know better than that.
Considering that America has continued to go down an interventionist route and the majority of Americans have continued to vote for war-mongering candidates like McCain and Romney and Obama and Clinton and whoever-the-Republicans-will-pick-this-time-because-it-won’t-be-Paul, I say no, look at where YOU have got the nation.
You can’t blame Frank in Spokane for what’s happening when the country has clearly failed to heed his advice. You’re the ones who have gotten us here.
You honestly think Obama has been better than Romney would have been? You are out of your mind!
I think that in terms of the direction the country has gone and continues to go, the differences between them in terms of actual policy and its effect on the moral character of the nation and the well-being of all peoples under God are insignificant.
I certainly consider actively supporting Romney to be far more problematic than actively opposing both Romney and Obama.
Yeah ok.
No. According to the above quoted letter by the Iowa Secretary of State himself:
“Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not “distribute” voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code.”
So no, apparently any one of us can not access the specific information Cruz used to threaten voters at any moment.
Boo! Are you threatened?
To be fair, it’s not like the mailer said “GO VOTE FOR CRUZ.” It was a mailer to encourage, albeit through social pressure/shame, people to go caucus instead of sitting at home.
Yes yes. Lying is something Jesus always found very humorus.
No.
And the irony of Cruz as fighter against Big Brother and the surveillance state and for the Constitution(!) and then using government records regarding the voting records of citizens and using it to shame and pressure them into caucusing for Cruz.
Plus, he advocated for Obama to parole the traitor Jonathan Pollard. Behind the scenes of course, because it doesn’t fit the phony persona he’s pitching to the hicks and rubes. He not only advocated for the traitor to be paroled, he promised a liberal group that he would seriously consider giving Pollard a full pardon if he’s president.
Not sure why Doug Wilson never mentions this, or why he thinks an “advocate” for a traitor would make a good president.
Not to mention the campaign telling caucus goers that carson had quit. Deceit runs through Cruz deeply.
And more comes in from the “I declare myself to represent the Christian Right so my campaign can do whatever it wants to win” campaign.
It looks like not only was the campaign lying about Carson being about to drop out, but it lied about the degree of its lying.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/05/carson-slams-cruz-over-iowa-voicemail-spreading-false-drop-out-rumor.html?cmpid=edpick&google_editors_picks=true
Love the idea of an intelligent Goth invading. Poor New Hampshire has been invaded by Massachusetts tax refugees who nevertheless continue to vote Democrat. “Live For Free” is too apt, alas.
I think it was Mark Steyn who said something like: “The Live Free or Die license plates look good all lined up in the Social Security Office parking lot.”
I remember when Wisconsin wanted to put “Eat Cheese or Die” on their license plates and weren’t allowed to.
“I want an Ostrogoth king dressed in furs with a spear of ash in his right hand and his well-worn copy of Hazlitt in the other.”
Goodwin’s Lemma, man: You’ve lost the argument when you refer to this tired and overused cliche. Repeating myself, twice.
#WouldThatItBecameOne
The way I see this is that both Hilliary and Trump went 0-1-1 in Iowa. They are two sides of the same coin, and I would be surprised if Trump’s candidacy wasn’t at its heart a dirty trick by Bill Clinton to get the GOP out of the election altogether. I can’t prove it, but hey–Trump consulted with Bill, and “Bubba” isn’t a political legend for nothing. Plus, Trump’s historic positions are awfully darned close to Hilliary’s. Do the math–he’s not any sane conservative’s guy.
Trump was very gracious in his concession speech. If you were to believe the characterizations of him around this blog, you would have expected a flying off the handle tirade. But this will never be admitted.
It’s amazing how well behaved asberger-ish people can be if there is someone available to trounce them soundly.
Just sayin’
“And hear the lamentations of their women..”
The squeals from Gawker, et al are delightful.
“…and, then the FBI indictment. Timing is everything these days.”
Well…..OK, ……but is there really ever a bad time for a Clinton to be indicted?
I didn’t think so.
I’d actually be good with today!????
I wish someone could explain to me, slowly and simply, exactly what is the issue with the emails.
Jilly, my dad was a career Naval Officer. The proper handling of classified , secret information was a big part of his care in submarines. In like fashion, other parts of the government take a life and death interest in the preservation of secret information. It is a Federal offense to mishandle secrete info, because the information is life or death for some involved. That Hillary, even by ignorance, had secret information outside the bounds of secret protocols , may have resulted in compromised policy, or even the death of innocent people. If innocents, agents or policies where compromised by… Read more »
“If innocents….”
It doesn’t matter *if* something detrimental happened to US interests, what she did was and is illegal anyhow.
Driving drunk isn’t punishable ONLY IF you have a car accident.
You are Correct Sir! :-)
Thank you!
Thank you, for your open and inquisitive mind.
An honest question is a sight to behold!
Let us know how you process this info. You are not , of course, obligated to see it, exactly the same way that I do.
I think it sounds like typical Clinton behavior. Both Clintons seem to me to have pathological narcissism. The difference between them is that he can come across as human and likeable. I think there is something Lady Macbeth-like about Mrs. Clinton. I didn’t tend to believe most of what the right wing media has said about her. (I don’t believe most of the left wing media either.) But what I did believe, and what told me all I needed to know about her, is that she screams and throws things at subordinates. Mrs. Clinton is Not A Lady, and I… Read more »
A raging queen can’t even rule herself!
Same for raging kings.
By contrast, white haired prayin’ Ladies, rule the world!
(like my mom!)
The classified information was on an unsecure personal server. A server that could be accessed by enemies, which could then use that information to the detriment of our national security. There was information on that server that was so top secret that it should not even have been on a government email system at all, let alone a personal one. Some emails even contained operational intel that could put real assets in the field at risk. The law is clear that possession of classified information on unapproved systems is illegal, whether it is marked as classified or not. General Patraeus… Read more »
Thank you, that makes sense.
Hence the jokes about subpoena-ing the Russians to get the emails that Clinton was refusing to cough up.
Okay, since you asked.Simple contains two parts: Part 1. Clinton and her top aides had access to a (Pentagon/DIA) classified network that goes up to the Secret level, as well as a separate system used for Top Secret communications. The two systems, the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS), are airgapped (not connectedto the unclassified system), known as the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet). You cannot e-mail from one system to the other, though you can use NIPRNet to send e-mails outside the government. Highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as… Read more »
Part 2: Again, only the pitcher decides what kind of ball he throws. No one else. Ever. Those who catch the ball never get to decide what the classification is of the ball that was thrown. Ever. The classification of information is not only based upon a marking on the document. It is also classified simply by the information itself, marked as such or not. At the very top of an NDA one can see that it is an agreement entered into by a person and the United States, and it is legally binding under penalty of multiple code sections… Read more »
And this, RFB, is why I keep you around!
Although I would like to hear RHE explain it!????
You mean sorta like: “Well, if you were driving up a mountain in your canoe and the wheels fell off, just how many pancakes would it take…MISTER WILSON, to cover that doghouse…c’mon now, stop lying…how many?”
Minor point, you left out the part about the syrup!
Otherwise, spot on! ; – )
I understand the pitcher analogy. So it would be no defense for her to say that she read the email and did not feel it needed to be handled as top secret.
I had a lot of Democratic party leanings until they became the abortion party, but I have always had trouble liking Hillary Clinton. In a way, it seems too bad that if she is going down, it is for this rather than serious, conscious criminal activity. Kind of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
Mrs. Bean, With all respect, au contraire. This is serious: Information containing NOC’s was placed in play, and more than likely compromised. These are (our) people working within the intelligence community with “No Official Cover”, who if their true connections are discovered end up with dirt naps. conscious: To reprise the aforementioned: “It takes a very conscious effort to move a classified e-mail or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to a personal e-mail account. It is “air gapped” on purpose. To even maintain a home server for this purpose constitutes… Read more »
Then I hope she gets what is coming to her. I expect people have lost careers for less serious infractions.
Thank you very much, I feel I have a handle on this now. I had supposed this could happen just through carelessness (which in itself would be inexcusable at that level). I still can’t really understand what advantage she could have obtained by doing this. She strikes me, however, as someone who is a law unto herself and exempt from normal regulations that restrain the rest of us. I appreciate your patient explanation!
That’s exactly it. That kind of “sloppy” implies that you don’t respect/think you’re too important for the rules that everyone else has to play by. Imagine, on a much smaller level, a bank teller who doesn’t bother to carefully count and double-check each transaction that comes through. One the one hand, she’s just careless. On the other hand, bank tellers have it drilled into them that their first responsibility is to ensure the security of their transactions and make sure everything is accounted for, so she’s fundamentally refusing to abide by the rules of her job and take proper responsibility… Read more »
You are more than welcome Ma’am.
“…what advantage she could have obtained by doing this.”
To avoid accountability. For the same reason that there was no permanent inspector general assigned to State during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the department. It is the longest time any department has gone without an IG.
It is probably no coincidence that David Kendall was General Petraeus’
attorney of record for his criminal acts regarding classified information.
Kendall is Clinton’s lawyer.
Trump really needs to start hammering Cruz for not just supporting Obama’s parole of the traitor Jonathan Pollard, but promising a liberal group that if he’s elected he’ill consider granting the traitor a full pardon.
Of which Hazlitt do you speak?
This was my guess:
http://fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson-2/
Are there more than one?
There’s also William Hazlitt.
Ah. Hadn’t heard of him until now. Thanks!
So which one do you suppose DW meant? ;-)
Cruz is gonna let you down, Doug, assuming he wins. He doesn’t care about people like us. He’s an establishment Goldman Sachs puppet.
Ugh. I hate spouting off true cliches.
I am not a Cruz guy, but I still try to be a truth guy with all the candidates I speak of, so please help me understand this constant accusation I hear about him. Let’s put aside for the moment that his wife works for Goldman, and that he has received loans (not donations) from them. What actually policy has Cruz supported, what bill has he voted on, or what other senatorial action has he taken that you could demonstrate was really just Goldman Sachs pulling the strings on a marionette? The list should be quite large, nearly exhaustive of… Read more »
He’s taken millions in loans which he failed to disclose within the time frame mandated by the Federal Election Commission. It appears he waited until after the Texas Senate primary to disclose his financial backing in order to avoid negative publicity. This makes sense as he originally billed himself as an anti-establishment, anti-Big Bank, small government maverick type. This information would have contradicted that. Of course, there is also the issue of his wife working for Goldman Sachs. I don’t know why people ignore that. Or the fact that she served on the anti-American Council on Foreign Relations for several… Read more »
ha ha, I love how you somehow read “Let’s put aside for the moment” as “Let’s thoroughly rehash” :)
So your practical, concrete case based on his actual, real world policy decisions that he is nothing more than a complete puppet of the big banks is entirely that, like a very large number of Americans, he wants to use military force to address ISIS. Got it. Thanks!
I wasn’t just restating the accusation about Goldman Sachs. I was showing the hypocrisy in this action considering his original stance toward them. I also mentioned his illegal failure to disclose the loans, which I might add, is an offense prosecutable by the Justice Dept. You don’t need a long list of policy positions to know he’s in the pocket of the banks when they’re actually giving him money and he’s trying to hide it. That seems pretty simple to me. I’m not sure why you want to just brush that aside. Forget ISIS. Cruz is a neocon who wants… Read more »
“It doesn’t matter if his policies support the banks or not, when he needed to borrow a very large sum of money, he borrowed it from a BANK! Instead of borrowing from…you know…all those other places you can borrow very large sums of money from” :) Now, you above assert that banks GAVE him money. Did they? I am only aware of loans, not donations. And the loans are paid back, so he doesn’t financially owe them anything. If there are also donations, that is a different thing, though receiving donations is only being “bought” if you then actually do… Read more »
He has received donations from Sachs too, about $70,000 so far. Of course, they give donations to most candidates (Bush, Clinton, and Rubio have all received more from Sachs than Cruz has, especially Bush/Rubio). But that’s likely largely because they previously viewed Bush and Clinton as more likely to actually win, and now view Rubio and Clinton as the most likely to win. As Obama proved, anyone other than a Paul/Sanders-type candidate is going to do the big banks’ bidding while in office, and a Paul/Sanders-type candidate isn’t winning this time around, or probably any time that I can imagine.
I’d rather see deal-makers in Washington than people dedicated to preemptive surrender.
Part of the reason vulgar, pragmatic Trump has received such fervent support is because the respectable and principled people hate our guts and act to destroy us. (And yes, this includes Rafael “Ted” Cruz.) As you may recall, the Pharisees were highly principled and respectable as well — and used both of those things to oppress people.
Jesus did have criticisms of the content of the Pharisees principles, but far more often his criticism is that they were NOT in fact principled. That they were hypocrites. They were stage actors pretending to be principled, heaping principled burdens on others that they were not willing to touch themselves. Jesus even instructed people to in fact listen to what the Pharisees said but not to do what they did (see Matthew 23). The problem is not that the Pharisees were principled, it is that they were NOT principled. I am making no application to politics here. You guys can… Read more »
This is in line with my criticism — the political establishment that claims to defend principles that benefit its constituents always manages to interpret them in a way that benefits its donor class instead.
Love ya Doug, but the only question that should be on the table is this: can your Ostrogoth king win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada in a general election. If Cruz can’t get even one single fellow U.S. senator to endorse him, how in the Sam Hill is he supposed to carry all five of those states? Republicans lose two, maybe even one, of those and it’s…shudder to think. Heck, even Rand Paul has one senator backing him.
Ask yourself, is there anyone worth having who is going to win all those states AND has senators backing him?
It doesn’t do use any good to find the guy with the most support if there’s no actual value in electing him.
Why don’t his fellow senators like him? If it is because he is too principled to compromise, that is one thing. If it is because he is really unpleasant, that is worth looking at.
Not sure anybody likes him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIuhdfmCzdI
Bringing up the senators’ support, or lack thereof, was just to illustrate how he can’t even rally those he works with-those who know him, assumingly, well. As far as overall support and ability to carry those swing states, it looks like a Rubio or Carson could pull it off and I personally see much value in them both. I would have no trouble voting for a Cruz or a Rand Paul, but I just don’t see them winning in a general election. Since 1964 most black voters have reflexively voted democratic. If Latinos ever get to that point (think Cruz… Read more »
Congrats Ted Cruz. First Canadian to win the Iowa caucus!
A. That’s not how citizenship works.
B. Doug, where did you that picture? It’s epic beyond belief.
Copyright hissy fit, here we come!????
The Cruz campaign did not start the Carson campaign suspension rumor. It was started by the media, primarily CNN. The first person associated with the Cruz campaign that mentioned it was Steve King on Twitter after the caucuses had started and after many people had already been reporting the rumor.
Here is a timeline of events:
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2016/02/cnn-not-cruz-staff-responsible-for-ben-carson-campaign-suspension-rumor/
Note to Ben Carson: If your campaign manager is in his fifties and has never been married, but has been sued for homosexual harassment, and you tell the media that you and he are “a package deal”, and if the guy who impersonates you on SNL makes you look extremely effeminate, and if Larry Flynt is offering up to a million bucks for information about the “very peculiar relationship” you two appear to have, it’s probably not a real good idea to tell the media on the first big night of your presidential campaign that you’re flying back to Florida… Read more »
Correction: Note to Ben Carson: If your campaign manager has no obvious qualifications for the job and is in his fifties and has never been married, but has been sued for homosexual harassment, and you tell the media that you and he are “a package deal”, and if almost all of your top campaign staff resign because they say he’s unbelievably incompetent but you refuse to let him go, and if the guy who impersonates you on SNL makes you look extremely effeminate, and if Larry Flynt is offering up to a million bucks for information about the “very peculiar… Read more »
I still stand with Rand. Call me a dreamer, but I’m not giving up yet.
I like Rand too, but it looks like he has just dropped out of the race.
Oh man, I didn’t believe you at first. I just looked it up. Noooo!!! Say it ain’t so Rand. Say it ain’t so!
I don’t want to send a deal-maker to Washington. I don’t want someone who knows how to work both sides of the aisle. I want an Ostrogoth king dressed in furs with a spear of ash in his right hand and his well-worn copy of Hazlitt in the other. Reminds me of this anecdote about Margaret Thatcher: Once during a party policy meeting a speaker started to argue that the Conservative Party should adopt a pragmatic middle way. According to John Ranelagh in Thatcher’s People, ‘Before he had finished speaking … the new Party Leader reached into her briefcase and… Read more »