Campaigns/Elections

Axelrod Stays Classy With Romney/Hitler Comparison

|

Two men who take politics seriously.

"The Mittzkrieg in Illinois isn't terribly inspiring," David Axelrod tweets this morning, "so turnout may lag. But the sheer volume probably has been grindingly effective."

Axelrod, chief strategist for President Obama's re-election campaign, was most recently seen bellyaching about the "coarsening of our political culture" on CNN. He's been all over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's case as the Republicans close in on tomorrow's Illinois primary. 

I've never fully grokked the image of Obama is a bomb-throwing Alinskyite Bolshevik – partly because proponents of this theory define Alinskyite stealth strategies as stuff like "divide and conquer the opposition," "ridicule and slander your opponents," "win elections rather than lose them," and other tips that don't exactly sound like the best-kept secrets of the Shaolin temple. 

David Axelrod can neither comprehend nor control a world where access to Photoshop is universal.

I also don't understand visceral reactions against Romney, who in my experience is a resolutely likable figure unlikely to generate visceral reactions of any kind – let alone calls for his assassination from a member of a major newspaper's editorial board

Axelrod is a practiced mudslinger however, and his experiences in the Land of Lincoln have left him well prepared for the kind of mega-Godwin stupidities of a general election. 

In this crazy, rapidly changing, twitterpated world where people can look at the internets on their telephones, it may be too much to ask for any semblance of logic from political operatives. But I'm used to comments like Axelrod's being cause for much clucking about the loss of civility from people like, well, Axelrod. 

It's just worth pointing out: a) two can play at that game; b) you know who else had a neatly combed moustache and a dangling forelock; and b) with a little trimming and a slight darkening of Axelrod's care-grayed whiskers, the truth really comes out. 

What a return to civility would look like: 

Advertisement

NEXT: Europe Nixes Solar Power Subsidies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Axelrod and others on the left do this because they know that NO ONE in the mainstream press will call them out, mostly because many of those same press members are in agreement.

    The Hitler comparison is so over-used as to have become cliche. It should be summarily challenged by ANY media outlet, left or right, but when a guest is saying things the host agrees with, expecting class and professionalism is like looking for a virgin in a whorehouse.

    1. I really wish people would take it easy on whores. Comparing them to the vintage media is as unfair and cliche as the Hitler comparisons.

      At least whores provide value for the money invested.

      1. Here, Here. Whores, unlike politicians and pundits, are the salt of the earth. You get exactly what you pay for.

        1. No, not always. I see you do not read TheEroticReview.com

    2. Even if the claim that “Mittskrieg” was a Hitler reference wasn’t a bit of a stretch (“blitzkrieg,” or blitz, is more often used nowadays in reference to a football strategem than anything relating to the Nazis), isn’t the writer who is shedding crocodile tears here about the alleged coursening of our political rhetoric, also the same guy who routinely refers on this site to the people who’ve lost their homes to the banksters as “deadbeats”?

      1. Shorter Steven Smith: How dare you point out that Axelrod is a hypocrite, you hypocrite?!

  2. You know who else took politics seriously?

    Oh, nevermind.

    1. Nancy Pelosi?

    2. Barack Obama?

    3. Rutherford Hayes?

      1. W.E.B Du Bois?

  3. “Mittzkrieg”… I wish I’d thought of that one.

    1. “Can you survive the Mitzkrieg”

      Going to have that riff stuck in my head all day.

      1. “What do you think of Mr Hilter’s politics?”

        “I don’t like the sound of these ‘ere boncentration bamps.”

  4. Axelrod looks like Keynes.

    1. oh, that’s just low

    2. Just channeling his inner Goebbels.

  5. Saying that this election is the most acrimonious ever is a requirement of any political aparatchik on either side in any given election. And maybe it really is acrimonious for those in the thick of it.

    For the rest of us however, it is just another meaningless fixed wrestlemania featuring a card of wholly indistinguishable contenders.

    1. This is the first time that most voters aren’t voting for someone but are voting against someone!

      1. I certainly can’t think of ANY other election where people were voting against a candidate (not even one who isn’t running)

        Not one. Not even in 2008.

    2. Oh, the contenders are distinguishable. They are pushing quite different brands of statism.

      1. No, they really aren’t.

        1. If you can’t tell the difference between a Pusher and an effing no-good Shover, then there’s no hope for you, my frend.

    3. Saying that this election is the most acrimonious ever is a requirement of any political aparatchik on either side in any given election

      Self-fulfilling prophecies are a requirement, as well.

  6. Obama needs to add a murder spree if he is going to be any sort of serious commie. Right now, he is like a weak tea Mussolini.

    1. I believe you need to look up “murder drones”. Or do you mean he needs to rack up the body count higher than 4 or 5 figures?

      1. He murdered Osama bin Laden too.

      2. Yes, bigger body count. He isn’t even competitive with Lenin yet.

        1. The Nobel Peace Prize got him a -10,000 corpse credit. He probably will have to start strangling hookers every night to get in the plus range.

          1. Nobel Prize does not ~= Time cover?

        2. Yes, bigger body count. He isn’t even competitive with Lenin yet.

          He’s competing with Che for hipster douche commie icon of the century.

      3. Stalin did not even have to add murder outside the Ukraine to tie Hitler’s all-European “record”. If Obama does not pick up the pace, his face will never be on a t-shirt alongside Stalin and Mao.

  7. Axelrod is a singularly loathsome and despicable human being entity.

  8. You know who else was resolutely likable figure unlikely to generate visceral reactions of any kind?

    Crap, forget that one too.

    1. Ayn Rand?

    2. How about John P. Flannery II, the man with the most punchable face in the worlds?

  9. How long has the hyperbole of calling conservatives “fascists” and liberals “socialists” been going on?

    IIRC, the Birchers called Ike a commie.

    1. But you are a socialist you little fucking weirdo. It is not hyperbole when it is true.

      1. And you’re a fascist cocksucking moron.

        Case closed.

        1. Spare you sexual fantasies Shreek. You are the most violent bigoted, nasty person to post on here. If you had the opportunity to do it where there wasn’t much risk, because taking a risk would require balls which you clearly don’t have, you would be out in a brown shirt stomping in head for Obama if they asked you too.

          1. Hardly. He just gets your goat.

          2. Hardly. He just gets your goat.

            1. Ooopsie.

            2. That is exactly what he would do. MNG occasionally gets my goat. Shrike never does. And that is because MNG will occasionally make a good point. Shrike in contrast is just a genuinely bad guy.

              1. You’re being far too kind, John.

              2. So people who viscerally hate Bush are “bad guys”? I don’t claim to know Shrike personally and he gets annoying at times, but I think many of us share his feelings even if we are more mature in the way we express it.

                As far as I’m concerned, Bush is a war criminal who tread all over the Constitution and should have been impeached and arrested. Then again, Obama’s not significantly worse or better.

        2. but Shrike, in all seriousness, you ARE actually a socialist right?

        3. Needs more christfag.

          1. also, christfag.

            1. Are there such creatures as “christ-dykes”? How about “christ-breeders”?

      2. That is an impostor. Everybody knows real shrike thinks conservatives are “fascists”. How a bunch of Keynesians in snappy uniforms become the opposite of Keynsians in drab uniforms is still a mystery to thinking people.

    2. When those labels can now be so easily switched, I’m not so sure it is hyperbole.

      1. When Bush nationalized dozens of banks I didn’t call him a socialist although it was the #1 socialist move in my lifetime.

        1. Exactly – the socialist actions of Bush and the fascist actions of Obama speak far louder than the fascist/socialist labels.

          1. You do realize fascism is the baby of the right. Get your hand out of the oxi-bottle and open a book. Better yet click on over to the digital national security archives read the transcripts of Nixon’s and Kissinger’s phone calls. Compare their crimes and Reagan’s to Obama’s. See if the black man is so easy to call a nigger–er, fascist, Kenyan, communist, keep your code words straight damnit!–after a history lesson. Never mind.

        2. I don’t care what you called it; given your lack of understanding, it doesn’t matter what you think. Every post you have ever contributed on the events of that time have only reinforced the fact you are clueless about what actually occurred.

          1. Why were you upset over that, shrike? Or did you applaud Bush’s bank-nationalization?

    3. Fascist’s are not righties they are lefties. The stepbrothers to socialists and communists. There’s no way on earth a socialist or communist would ever sign a treaty with a fascist if he was a rightie.
      The right is their enemy. This hoax as gone on for too long. The left started to call the Nazi’s fascist to distance themselves from the fact Nazi’s were national socialists. They also started calling them righties do distance themselves even further because in the 20th century and beyond… the worst thing in the world is to be a Niazi or should I say, National Socialist.

      1. “Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center”–
        –Benito Mussolini

        Fascism does not fit on a left-right scale. It sits somewhere near the bottom center of the Nolan Chart, sliding towards bottom left as time goes on. I suspect that, had Hitler held power for another decade, Germany and Soviet Russia would have been largely indistinguishable.

        The Nazi were pretty clearly fascists, too.

        1. No self respecting Nazi called himself a Fascist and vice versa.

        2. I think fascism is remaking the Nolan chart to depict your position as the most reasonable and making every other view illegal. If you can do that, you’re fascist.

      2. Exactly – two sides of the same nasty leftist coin. Hitler versus Stalin was a family feud.

        1. Trying to place it on the left-right spectrum is pointless and is only a tool that people use to beat their political opponents with.

          1. I would argue that the left-right spectrum itself is worthless. I mean, what the fuck makes something a “rightist” policy versus a “lefty” one? We’ve got a lot of shorthands that attempt to make sense of the senseless, but they aren’t really much help in the long run, because the “left” and “right” don’t really MEAN anything, as they themselves are shorthand terms that came into being to describe a political system that has no real meaning in modern politics. It’s like having an graph where the values of x and y aren’t listed: it tells you nothing of any value.

            Ditch the classification altogether, I say. Authoritarian vs. Libertarian, collectivism vs. individualism, etc. are far better markers, as they actually describe what is being measured.

        2. —“Exactly – two sides of the same nasty…coin”—

          IIRC, Hoffer made exactly this point in “The True Believer” Nazi’s, Communists and socialists of all stripes recruited heavily from each other because the mindset of the members was essentially the same, statism.

        3. And both were favorites of right wing corporate America. You fucking idiot. Read a book.

      3. This hoax as gone on for too long

        The real hoax is using as a political model a single axis with fascist/right and communist/left as the endpoints. At the very least, relabeling the endpoints statist and individualist would be a huge improvement without introducing the dual axis complexity that libertarians favor.

        1. Redefining “right” so that all forms of statism don’t qualify as being on the right is silly, if only because it means all the statist neo-cons, Reagan, and every other big-government person on the right is now on the left. That’s just dumb, and all for what, exactly?

          The fascists that tried to take over the US in a failed coup weren’t socialists.

          1. The fascists that tried to take over the US in a failed coup

            I missed that party. When did it happen, exactly?

      4. That model goes back to Stalin pronouncement that put his Communism on the Left and everything else on the Right, including Social Democrats. This while he was ordering Red Socialists in Berlin to vote with the Nazis in all matters.

        If your whole world is socialism, the formulation works. In reality, it falls apart when free market advocates show up.

      5. Nazi’s were authoritarian through an through. This generally lies far to the right. Socialist or Communist really has no bearing on anything really. Germany shut itself off from the world when it tried to take it over, so it makes sense the economy had to change to Socialism. It’s not like they could order up some airplanes from the USA or anywhere else when they showed their hand.

        Derp.

        1. Socialist or Communist really has no bearing on anything really.

          Ten of millions of dead human beings would differ with you on that if they were alive.

          Derp indeed.

  10. Axelrod and others on the left do this because they know that NO ONE in the mainstream press will call them out

    How can you say that? I bet Mika Brzfluffski was consumed by stammering dudgeon over this.

  11. It’s not fair to compare Axelrod and Hitler. Hitler had much better hair.

    1. And was a much more inspiring speaker.

      1. And a much better artist.

        1. And a much snazzier dresser!

    2. You know, it wouldn’t shock me to learn that the Nazis called for more civility from the Jews at some point in their rise to power.

      1. Absolutely they did. That was how it worked. They would beat the living shit out of their enemies and then when their enemies tried to fight back, they would invoke the law and civility against them. All you had to do was get a sympathizer in law enforcement or if failing that intimidate the cops.

        The whole “appeal to civility” from your enemies while completely disregarding it yourself is straight out of the fascist playbook.

    3. Better mustache, too.

  12. You know who else used strategies like “divide and conquer the opposition,” “ridicule and slander your opponents,” and “win elections rather than lose them”?

    Forget it. You know Tim, it’s no fun when you pre-Godwin your own article.

  13. Peyton to Broncs – says NBC.

    1. Fuck that. We have a QB, thank you.

        1. I hope Manning chokes in the first round of the playoffs again. Then the Broncos can sit and know that they actually went farther with Tebow.

        2. Hey, Jesus’ Best Pal took the Broncos to the playoffs. He’s a good team leader, and by all accounts a genuinely decent human being. I’ll take him any day over an overpriced Manning spawn.

          1. I like Tim Tebow…as as fullback or a tight-end. He has no business running an NFL offense.

            Manning will make for a good transition for Denver until finds a real under-25 QB.

            1. This. If Tebow moves to TE, he could sit and learn behind Clark for a couple of years, then step up with a much shallower learning curve than QB. He’s played QB for at least 10 years and it hasn’t clicked yet, time to try something else.

              1. Yeah, well, his numbers in college were actually very good. His passing numbers. Personally, I think the attempt to change him into a prototypical NFL QB was a mistake. If an organization lets him do his thing and builds around that, I could see him being more successful in the NFL.

          2. There is the scenario where they take Manning and keep Tebow. I don’t think Manning has more than two years left, healthwise. There are worse examples out there for Tebow to learn from, after all.

            By the way, Manning is a great QB. Conventional wisdom about him is complete crap. Didn’t last season show how little he actually had around him? Easily the best pure QB since Marino.

            1. Not gonna happen. Tebow’s already on the block per “reports”.

              1. Yes, that’s the most likely scenario.

                1. Manning > Tebow

            2. Tebow to the Fins. They ain’t used to winning, anyways and he’d sell out 5-8 games for them.

                1. Just point to the part that’s not true, and I’ll apologize.

                  1. Tebow would be a good addition to a lot of rosters. Even if he never becomes an elite QB, his presence will sell a bunch of tickets. And think of all the press coverage when he chooses a wife, loses his virginity, cheats on his wife and gets caught with a gay prostitute doing meth.

  14. Axelrod – self-hating Democrat.

    1. There’s another type?

  15. Unless there was more than the Mittzkrieg comment, I don’t think Axelrod can really be accused of comparing ROMNIAC to Hitler.

    Blitzkrieg is pretty commonly understood to denote any onslaught of operations for the purposes of overwhelming the target. Like merchandising campaigns around the release of Twilight movies.

    1. Please tell the court when you stopped being a Nazi, Mr. Akston.

    2. I’m with you, Akston. My Godwin-threshold is set far higher than this.

      1. I casually refer to my enemies as Nazis. When I go to a restaurant, and a waiter is slow to take my order, I refer to him as a Nazi. When I don’t get a raise, my boss is a Nazi. When a favorite TV show gets cancelled, the network executive is a Nazi.

        Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the Naziest of them all?

        1. I believe the proper term is “othering”. Othering is just another way of being a Nazi.

          1. Anyone who distinguishes between subject and object is basically Hitler.

            1. Wrong, you Nazi. They aren’t basically Hitler. They are literally Hitler.

              1. No, no, no.

                It’s “they are LITERALLY WORSE than Hitler.”

                1. Hitler can be worse than Hitler. In other words, it’s Hitlers all the way down.

                  1. So Hitler can be literally worse than Hitler?

                    Mind = blown.

                    1. Yes. Using crossing symmetry and Regge behavior, scientists can formulate a consistent S-matrix for infinitely many Hitler types, so that there is no elementary Hitler. In other words, Hitler bootstraps Hitler, infinitely.

                2. I’m in flavor country. It’s a big country.

    3. exactly. Blitzkrieg was a military strategy — and a very effective one at that. It has been used for numerous comparisons since then, and it is not an insult.

      According to wikipedia, the football “blitz” is named after Blitzkreig.

      1. So is Shock and Awe. But he chose Blitzkrieg. Because Hitler.

        1. So you’re saying Axelrod was being generous by comparing ROMNIAC to Hitler rather than a leader who was infinitely worse than Hitler?

          1. Literally infinitely worse than Hitler…

        2. So the thread turns back to Manning.

          1. There are Patriots fans who I have heard Godwinning Manning.

      2. Wait, so football players have been Nazis all this time, right under our noses? Insidious!

  16. What if Axelslime put bombsights over Chicago and attributed it to Romnicon?

  17. Thank You….I’ve been telling everybody for years that Ax looks like Hit. Now someone has put pen to paper, or Photoshop to uplaod, or whatever…you get the point.
    National Socialists in the 1930’s they socialized medicine, nationalized car companies, created fall guys that must be destroyed. Yep, pretty much sounds like the Democrats to me.

  18. I’ve never fully grokked the image of Obama is a bomb-throwing Alinskyite Bolshevik ? partly because proponents of this theory define Alinskyite stealth strategies as stuff like “divide and conquer the opposition,” “ridicule and slander your opponents,” “win elections rather than lose them,” and other tips that don’t exactly sound like the best-kept secrets of the Shaolin temple.

    I don’t know which “proponents” you are listening to, Tim, but the ones I hear cite the strategies that, you know, Alinsky actually advocated, in like, the books that he, you know, penned himself. Isn’t reading a prerequisite for your job, Tim?

    1. Okay, you SF’d that link. I got the Hunger Games as the first result.

    2. Crock Pot Cooking by R. King and M. Smith?

    3. It’s known as The Law of Cavanaugh’s Folly, i.e. Tim knows just enough about any given topic he chooses to write about to embarrass himself.

  19. And I’m sure the President will call Mittens and they will weep together at the cruelty of the hired partisan tool.

    “Let me be clear, I don’t want my daughters to live in an America where presidential candidates are slandered and bad mouthed by slimey partisan hacks. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to suppress all discussion of presidential candidates. The airways and intertubes will be cleansed – for Malia and Sasha – and all the other children. God Bless America.”

    1. So they got control of the Internet. I need to be more careful around here–Big Brother might be watching.

      1. Let’s just hope he has his pants zipped while he watches

  20. I think Mittzkrieg is more a reference to the overwhelming nature of the military assaults Hitler invented rather than calling Mitt Romney a fascist.

    I’m sure Axelrod’s an asshole for many reasons but I don’t think this is among them.

    1. Let’s not give undue credit to Hitler. The concept was an older one, but the plan executed by the Nazis is probably best attributed to Heinz Guderian. I don’t think he was even a Nazi, though, of course, he fought for them.

      1. Thank you.

        The only military tactic that the Little Corporal invented was the idea of not retreating when units were about to be surrounded. Losing entire armies was apparently preferable to giving up some Russian wasteland.

        1. I’m sure even “hold your position pointlessly even unto death” can’t be considered an innovation attributable to Corporal Shicklegruber. Somewhere in history, another egomaniac must have employed it.

        2. The only military tactic that the Little Corporal invented was the idea of not retreating when units were about to be surrounded

          When dealing with Western Europe, this is a winning strategy.

          When dealing with Eastern Europe… not so much.

          1. Some of it was balls. See 1936 take back of land taken by Versailles treaty and given to the french socialists.

      2. I beleive the roots of blitzkrieg (lightning war) were born in the latter stages of WW1. The Germans developed a plan to more effectively coordinate artillery with infantry assault, so that the assault troops (storm troopers) would be at the allies lines as soon as the artillery barrage lifted. IIRC, they were able to make significant gains where the tactivs were employed but were hampered by the relatively immobile artillery used, lack of radios, etc., to exploit very deeply.

        Of course, the advent of real airplanes (the Luftwaffe of WW2 was primarily designed to support the advance of the army, as a flying/mobile artillery platform) not to mention tanks employed en masse (unlike the French who deployed them piecemeal) allowed blitzkrieg to achieve stunning results. It was widely copied afterward – or should have been.

        1. I think the roots definitely came from WWI, which the Germans (like everyone else) wanted to avoid repeating. Even preceding wars had their influence–the quick conquest of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War, for instance.

          Still, tanks and aircraft hadn’t revealed their true potential that early on.

          1. I think the roots definitely came from WWI, which the Germans (like everyone else) wanted to avoid repeating.

            Except that everyone else was trying to repeat WWI in the face of the German onslaught, which is what made the German onslaught so effective. Maginot line? An industrialized entrenchment.

            1. Any surprise France went crazy trying to get nukes?

        2. It was widely copied afterward – or should have been.

          As with any offensive strategy, it is possible to defend against blitzkrieg.

          Not sure I would agree that what you described from WWI would qualify as blitzkrieg, more like just trying not to telegraph a frontal assault quite so blatantly.

          1. Didn’t say it was blitzkrieg, just that the roots of blitzkrieg came from WW1 and was lacking the appropriate level of technological capability.

            1. Let’s not forget that hitler was a big fan of dishonest abe and the latter’s willingnes to wage total war, whehter it be on southern civilians, slaves or indians, plains or otherwise.

            2. Blitzkrieg is the philosophy of breaking through weak points in a line, advancing rapidly through the break and bypassing strong points to disrupt an enemy’s forces from the rear. One might say that chariot charges from 3000 years ago constituted blitzkrieg within the limited scope of a battlefield. The strategy doesn’t require a particular technology other than one that provides increased mobility.

              My point about WWI was that the nations who had fought the battles early in the war eventually figured out that the reason that the battles were so horrifically bloody was that extensive artillery barrages before an offensive allowed time for the enemy to reinforce the segment of the line under barrage so that by the time the infantry charges began, the defense had had plenty of time to prepare.

              1. Later in the war, the combatants experimented with reducing the warning given to the defense, but that has little to do with the strategy of blitzkrieg other than ensuring that a chosen weak point stays weak up until the attack began.

                The blitzkrieg strategy intimately involves rapid exploitation of a breakthrough, something which didn’t happen in WWI.

        3. If anybody presaged blitzkreig in WWI, it was the Brits, who first used massed tank attacks to breach German lines.

          Of course, their tanks were terrible, so they weren’t able to really fight a war of maneuver with them.

  21. Go fuck yourself, David Axelrod!

  22. As usual the complaint isn’t the substance, it’s the everpresent whine that comes from conservative and libertarian circles that liberals aren’t living up to their own standards. (While “we” of course don’t have any standards to live up to–here look at this Axelrod/Hitler photoshop job. And Obama is a Marxist. So that makes us better, because we’re not hypocrites about civility, having none in the first place!)

    1. the complaint isn’t the substance, it’s the everpresent whine that comes from conservative and libertarian circles that liberals aren’t living up to their own standards.

      Shorter Tony- “It’s OK when WE do it.”

      1. That is always my point. Try and keep up, libertard.

        1. Douchebagsezwhut?

          1. Not sure the “try and keep up” Tony post is a spoof. He really IS that arrogant.

    2. We’ll complain about substance if and when Axelrod makes a substantive point. Hold your breath, mmkay?

      1. Oh there’s plenty of substance here, hidden beneath a layer of pointless whining. It’s that liberals occasionally don’t live up to their own standards of civility, therefore you ought to vote totally against your own best interests and for those guys who don’t bother trying to have standards in the first place.

        1. It’s that liberals occasionally don’t live up to their own standards of civility

          “Occasionally?”

          It is to laugh.

          “going back at least to the 1960s, when a prominent Democrat politician got a pass from the media for abandoning a young woman (possibly pregnant by him) to drown in his car. The same man went on to later fame as the top slice of bread in a “waitress sandwich,” and yet was so lionized by the Left that not that long ago, at the time of his death, a woman(!) wrote that Mary Jo Kopechne might have been happy to undergo the terror as her lungs filled with the brackish water of Martha’s Vineyard had she only known what a great legislator he would turn out to be.”

        2. therefore you ought to vote totally against your own best interests and for those guys who don’t bother trying to have standards in the first place.

          That was Axelrod’s point? So you’re saying we shouldn’t vote donk? Because I’m assuming Axelrod was telling us to vote for his guy, and you’re making that sound like a bad thing.

          1. A Team Blue upper-level goon (Axelrod) and a regular, ordinary Team Blue minion (Tony)… in complete agreement???

            What are the odds. Shocked, shocked I am.

    3. Douchebag returns. How refreshing.

  23. “win elections rather than lose them,” and other tips that don’t exactly sound like the best-kept secrets of the Shaolin temple.

    You forgot, “Buy low, sell high”

  24. Whenever I go to a restaurant, I ask to be seated in the “Nazis only” section.

    1. AKA “non-smoking”

  25. My preferred outcome Manning-wise is this:

    Manning gets “hurt” in August and spends the season sitting in Bowlen’s (does he still own the Donkos?) skybox counting his money and tweeting the sidelines, while Indianapolis blows a gigantic pile of money on the next Ryan Leaf, causing Jim Irsay to die of a brain embolism induced by smack cut with Pop Rocks.

    1. From your lips to God’s ear. With the addendum that Tebow gets traded to Oakland, who crushes Denver twice.

      1. Tebow! Everyone drink!

      2. I realize you’re being fecetious, but I doubt Denver would be dumb enough to trade Tebow within their division. Hell, probably not within their own conference. In all likelyhood they’ll keep Tebow since Manning only has a couple of years left in him and use him for some “wildcat” type of plays every once in a while.

        1. Well… probably not in their own division.

          “Now that the Miami Dolphins have moved on from Peyton Manning and lost out on free agent quarterback Matt Flynn, there’s another name that continues to percolate just below the surface who could be a major draw for Miami.

          Tim Tebow.

          For the Dolphins to acquire Tebow, the Denver Broncos first had to acquire Peyton Manning.”

          1. I think trading Tebow would be a really dumb move on Denver’s part. For one thing some of their fans will revolt (not just over Tebow, they’ve made a habit the past few years of trading a lot of decent players). It would be better in the long run to keep Tebow, use him for an occasional option/ wildcat play while he learns from Manning how to run an “NFL offense”. Then when Manning retires in a couple of seasons (assuming he doesn’t get his neck broken before then) Tebow might be ready to take over and play more like a real QB.

            1. I think it would be dumb to keep him. Signing Peyton provdes the perfect excuse to do what they wanted to do all along, which is to get rid of a pretty lousy QB. “Peyton Manning!” will be a lot easier to sell to the fans than “Kyle Orton!”

            2. If “what is best for a team” were used as a decision making heuristic, the world would be a different place.

        2. “Fecetious.” That could be a neologism of awesome power. Feces + facetious.

          1. It was supposed to facetious. Thanks Captain Pedantic! (God I hope I didn’t just misspell pedantic).

            1. *to be facetious. Shit! I keep giving you more ammo!

            2. No, no, I’d have ignored the typo (I’ve had more than a few) altogether, except that I like the new word, fecetious (“treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate feces casting”).

              1. Is there any deliberately appropriate time to cast feces if you aren’t a monkey?

                1. Why, yes, yes there is.

              2. In that case feel free to borrow my new made up word.

              3. See, Pro Lib, typologisms like “fecetious” are why there’s RC’z Law.

                1. But without observer-based neologisivision, the typo means nothing!

  26. Civility is only expected of Republicans and their campaigns. Libs and Dems are free to run the ***k all over the place telling lies, calling names, and sending out their crack media elites to smear the GOP front-runners at will.

  27. vote totally against your own best interests

    I never get tired of that one.

    MOAR FREE SHIT, PLZ!

    Thanx, AFT.

  28. We are not inhibited by a false conscience. Our numbers grow every day!

  29. In this crazy … world

    You a psychiatrist, Cavanaugh?

  30. So wait. Now making a pun on Blitzkreig = Hitler comparison?

    Somebody better inform the NFL, among others.

  31. OK, I’ve read the OP twice, other than “Mittzkreig” what’s the “Romney/Hitler comparison”? I’ve used the actual words “blitzkreig” and “blitz” numerous times over the years (including to describe my own litigation strategy in a case) and never thought I was comparing anyone to Hitler.

  32. This post is sort of silly: it implies some sort of sincere criticism, as if this was an actual Hitler comparison, and then proceeds to undermine that criticism by not treating it with any sincerity itself.

    Where’s the there, there? Weigel is right: this is the political equivalent of a soccer player collapsing in agony when no one actually touched him.

  33. lol now thats funny dude.

    http://www.Anon-Planet.tk

  34. I’m sorry, we’re supposed to be more civil than the left, but I have to say this: David Axelrod looks like some weird guy who goes to high school girls’ volleyball games, even though he doesn’t have a daughter on the team. Trust me, there are some of those.

  35. That’s a hilarious pictoral juxtaposition. What’s good for the goose…

  36. Axlerod must have issues about looking so much like Adolph Hitler. The fascist philosophy is the two is the same also. Poor guy. He is so ugly.

  37. Axisrod knows all about putsches and blitzkriegs.

  38. Eez theeze not a trolley car?
    Yes, theeze is a trolly car!

  39. Hey Drew, try this on: Obama, Axelrod and the left in general are so full of shit with their astounding hypocrisy that nothing they do surprises anybody anymore. They are so far beyond a parody of themselves that it is not possible to mock them more than they unintentionally mock themselves. If there were justice in this world their heads would literally explode when they said and did the shit they do and say and the remaining dipshit lefties would be required to clean up the bloody pulp.

  40. Search results for “blitz” on reason.com

    reason.com/archives/2012/03/14/kony-2012s-old-fashioned-war-propaganda/1

    reason.com/blog/2009/07/06/reason-morning-links-congress

    https://reason.com/blog/2012/01…..ta-dispute (THIS ONE WAS YOU TIM)

    https://reason.com/archives/200…..ng-history

    reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/mitt-romney-likes-the-defense

    reason.com/archives/2007/02/01/editors-note-the-next-two-year

    You suck.

  41. You know who else was like Hitler?
    Hitler!
    Oh wait…

  42. A very good article.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.