Arizona Representative race feat. Ben Quayle

[Snowboarder Bo]

Obviously his family name recognition is helping him along, but what are his chances of winning?

Does he have any original thoughts in his head, or does he parrot the same conservative mantras as every other con? I'm guessing he's just as vapid as his parents and that he's using the Tea Party momentum because he's an opportunist, but I only know what I read in this AP story.

In the campaign ad, the 33-year-old Quayle faces the camera directly and begins by saying, "Barack Obama is the worst president in history."

[Bricker]

Absurd.

But I don't remember your rolling eyes when people claimed George W. Bush was the worst president in history, and that is also an absurd claim.

[dalej42]

He likes the nightlife.

He pretends to be a family man.

He is trying to use his name to get a seat in congress. Dan Quayle only showed up at the Senate to use the gym, so Ben figures it will be easy to parrot the party line and be another empty suit.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Absurd.

But I don't remember your rolling eyes when people claimed George W. Bush was the worst president in history, and that is also an absurd claim.

In the history of history? Probably not.

In the history of the United States? Well...

We'd probably derail this thread.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Absurd.

But I don't remember your rolling eyes when people claimed George W. Bush was the worst president in history, and that is also an absurd claim.

You prolly just don't remember because you're old; I heard that happens to people sometimes. Lawyers too.

Anyway, to return to talking about Ben Quayle: is there any way to prove the Brock Landers columns were written by him? Like, maybe he got paid for it?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But I don't remember your rolling eyes when people claimed George W. Bush was the worst president in history, and that is also an absurd claim.

It's one hell of a sight closer of a claim, and at least arguable. Your "Dems do it too" response is, in this case, inappropriate. You may try again if you like. Maybe with Reagan?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Would you disagree that Bush is the worst President in modern history?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Would you disagree that Bush is the worst President in modern history?

Yes.

But I wouldn't sneer at someone who advanced the claim; even though I wouldn't share that ranking, I can see a good faith argument for the proposition.

[Snowboarder Bo]

RNATB and Bricker, please take your debate about GWB someplace else.

This thread is about Ben Quayle's candidacy. Stop trying to threadrape.

[Chronos]

That photo with the kids is definitely sleazy, and if word gets out and it's handled right, could alone be enough to sink his campaign. He's still in a fairly large primary field, right? That leaves plenty of folks who can call him on it.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

This thread is about Ben Quayle's candidacy. Stop trying to threadrape.

But the Democrats do it too!!

This thread has been Bricked by the Bricker.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

RNATB and Bricker, please take your debate about GWB someplace else.

This thread is about Ben Quayle's candidacy. Stop trying to threadrape.

Congratulations on your promotion to moderator.

So is your thread about Quayle, specifcally, or is there any part of it that suggests that it's absurd to call Barack Obama the worst president in history, no matter who's doing the calling?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Congratulations on your promotion to moderator.

So is your thread about Quayle, specifcally, or is there any part of it that suggests that it's absurd to call Barack Obama the worst president in history, no matter who's doing the calling?

Congratulations on your promotion to threadraper.

What is the thread title?

What questions did I ask in the OP?

What question did I ask in my next post?

Why don't you try answering a question, instead of threadraping?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

What is the thread title?

" Arizona Representative race feat. Ben Quayle."

And let me help you by fleshing out a couple of arguments that readers might find in your questions, and refuting them:

Since the title of the thread is " Arizona Representative race feat. Ben Quayle," it's inappropriate to mention anything or anyone else. Rejoinder: not really, especially since (a) threads evolve all the time, and (b) this particular thread invites the reader to conclude that Quayle's ludicrous claim about Obama is ludicrous per se, as opposed to simply objectionable because it's Quayle making it.

What questions did I ask in the OP?

"What are his chances of winning?"

-and-

"Does he have any original thoughts in his head, or does he parrot the same conservative mantras as every other con?"

Since I asked only those questions in my OP, all responses should be limited to answering those questions.

Rejoinder: not really, especially since (a) threads evolve all the time, and (b) this particular thread invites the reader to conclude that Quayle's ludicrous claim about Obama is ludicrous per se, as opposed to simply objectionable because it's Quayle making it.

What question did I ask in my next post?

"Is there any way to prove the Brock Landers columns were written by him? Like, maybe he got paid for it? "
I, as the OP, am entitled to ask further questions, which are automatically legitimate. No one else is, unless those questions support my argument.

Rejoinder: well, you know by now.

Why don't you try answering a question, instead of threadraping?

Because, as much as you would love this to be an echo chamber, where reponses uncritically support your central thesis, that's not going to happen.

Frank and others mistake my post for a "Democrats do it too." And of course that's not accurate. My point is not that Democrats do it too, but that when these Democrats do it, your reaction is not remotely negative. That is, your OP invites us to believe that there's something inherently wrong, stupid, foolish, about calling Barack Obama the worst president in history. And it is -- I agree.

But the OP also invites us to conclude that the condemnation arises solely from the error -- that is, as a neutrally-minded arbiter of historical fact, he'd be equally outraged at ANY such misstatement of fact.

And that is manifestly untrue, and deserves exposure.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Why don't you try answering a question, instead of threadraping?

Quite frankly, you used the example of Quayle calling Obama the worst President ever as support for "Does he have any original thoughts in his head, or does he parrot the same conservative mantras as every other con? I'm guessing he's just as vapid as his parents and that he's using the Tea Party momentum because he's an opportunist, ...", and then you followed his quote with a rolleyes.

The question "... what are his chances of winning?" is a well that you poisoned all by your lonesome.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Frank and others mistake my post for a "Democrats do it too." And of course that's not accurate. My point is not that Democrats do it too, but that when these Democrats do it, your reaction is not remotely negative. That is, your OP invites us to believe that there's something inherently wrong, stupid, foolish, about calling Barack Obama the worst president in history.

Your post compared the statement to a (hypothetical) similar statement about George W. Bush, and thus invites us to believe that there is something inherently wrong, stupid, foolish, about calling Bush the Younger the worst president in history, as if those statements were equal. There is not, and they are not.

And, at this point, I am most definitely veering into what should be a different thread, and will rein myself in.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Frank

Quite frankly, you used the example of Quayle calling Obama the worst President ever as support for "Does he have any original thoughts in his head, or does he parrot the same conservative mantras as every other con? I'm guessing he's just as vapid as his parents and that he's using the Tea Party momentum because he's an opportunist, ...", and then you followed his quote with a rolleyes.

The question "... what are his chances of winning?" is a well that you poisoned all by your lonesome.

Not really. There's a factual answer to that question in the form of current polls, and there's people's opinions on the race who might have local coverage of events and/or be better informed than I am. This article is the first I've heard of him, so obviously there's a lot I don't know.

If someone want's to counter my example with some non-vapid non-demagoguery, feel free, but so far all I've seen from him are conservative platitude's and the ridiculous opinion offered in his ad.

[elfkin477]

Quayle and I were only babies when he was in office, but doesn't pretty much everyone, even people who voted for him, agree that Jimmy Carter was a worse president?

[Snowboarder Bo]

<deleted>

[Snowboarder Bo]

dammit i missed the edit window

was gonna say:

His website blames our economic woes on the Democrats, and then offers up Tea Party/Republican friendly platforms.

Ben Quayle’s Blueprint for Job Recovery

1. Keep the Bush Tax Cuts
2. Cut Capital Gains Tax by 50%
3. Cut Corporate Income Tax by 50%
4. Eliminate the Death Tax
5. Repeal ObamaCare
6. Right-To-Work America
7. Cut payroll taxes by 35%
8. Stop Government Spending

Like I said, nothing new here.

Notice "death tax". Notice that cutting taxes is all he's about. Notice he wants to undercut voluntary trade associations in the workplace. Notice the vague and stupidly unrealistic point #8.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Can he spell potato?

[Blank Slate]

This is the video of the campaign ad wherein Quayle makes his silly claim about Obama. It's hard to believe, but this guy appears to be even more vacuous than his dad. And wtf is the weird little dip he does in the middle?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Frank

Your post compared the statement to a (hypothetical) similar statement about George W. Bush, and thus invites us to believe that there is something inherently wrong, stupid, foolish, about calling Bush the Younger the worst president in history, as if those statements were equal. There is not, and they are not.

Actually, I contend it is wrong, stupid, foolish, to call Bush the Younger the worst president in history -- not to mention abysmally ignorant of history. We did not descend into civil war, as James Buchanan's indifference led us into in 1859. Nor we we experience the divisiveness and infrastructure destruction of Andrew Johnson's "Reconstruction."

This Wiki article does a good job of collecting various scholar and historian surveys addressing the quetion. In NONE does Bush 43 rank the worst; Harding, with his Teapot Dome scandl, Franklin Pierce, Buchanan, and Johnson consistently appear as the worst, rotating that honor amongst themselves.

Are you aware of any serious survey -- historians, scholars, or indeed simply a survey that asks Democrats and Republicans in even numbers -- that ranks Bush the worst?

[Marley23]

The OP paved the way for the Bush vs. Obama topic, but that subject has been done to death and it's outside the scope of this forum, which is about 2010 elections. Drop that subject or take it to Great Debates and let's get this thread focused on Quayle's race in Arizona.

[Bricker]

Well, Quayle is running for a GOP-held seat in a GOP-leaning district in Arizona, so much of his battle is winning the August 24 primary, and he's the lead fundraiser for that race, and he's pitching himself as hard-right, which seldom seems to hurt GOP primary candidates.

Against that, we have the idiocy of his ad. But as my comments anove highlight, people seem to object to idiotic claims strongly when they disagree with their underlying thrust; outlnadish claims that reinforce the bias of the listener are treated with much more equanimity.

All of this speculation would fade with the introduction of some poll numbers, but I don't seem to find any.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Bricker

All of this speculation would fade with the introduction of some poll numbers, but I don't seem to find any.

I found this, in which Quayle is second after Undecided. When I tried to get a link from the originating newspaper, the story about the poll was in a subscriber-only section.

Ten candidates!

[George Kaplin]

This is the video of the campaign ad wherein Quayle makes his silly claim about Obama. It's hard to believe, but this guy appears to be even more vacuous than his dad. And wtf is the weird little dip he does in the middle?

That video is fucking brilliant! I love the bit where he says he's gonna "Go to Washington and knock the hell outta the place!"

What the fucking fuck? The guy looks like Kenny the Page's evil twin. He couldn't knock the hell out of a piñata that was sitting on a chair. What a chump.

[Blank Slate]

I guess he stands up at 0:20? But he doesn't seem to get any taller. At first I thought he was busting a little "going to D.C. to kick ass" move.

[straight man]

Originally Posted by Frank

I found this, in which Quayle is second after Undecided.

Sure, but Undecided has a history of disappointing results on election day. He just polls high, then... drops.

d&r

[Bryan Ekers]

Did Quayle support his claim about Obama with some well-reasoned arguments? I have to admit, regardless of any personal feelings, a president who has not yet served even half a term would have had to ignite World War III or something comparably destructive to the U.S. to qualify as worst ever.

[Captain Midnight]

Dan Quayle was one of the dumbest politicians in my lifetime. Not an evil guy, and probably a decent person. But hell, the man was i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t. The late night comedians loved him because he constantly put his foot in his mouth or up his ass everyday, usually in front of a moving camera.

Here are five pages of quotes from V.P. Dumbass, I mean, Quayle.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...an_quayle.html

This guy even made an issue of the show "Murphy Brown" when the lead character got pregnant without a father in the picture. Quayle tried to make some, again, dumbass point about being a single parent, but the alternative is abortion, and he was against that too. He mentioned Murphy Brown in a speech about the then recent LA riots. Quayle was such a tool that everyone laughed and mocked him (again).

Quayle was such a drain and an embarrassment on the administration that some wanted to drop him from the ticket in 1992. However, the perception would have been that Bush made bad decisions and was indecisive. Probably if Bush had a competant V.P. (like James Baker for example) who wasn't such a fool, he might of squeaked out a victory over Clinton in 1992. Maybe, maybe not.

Quayle is now an investment banker, and the chairman of the international division of Cerburus Capital Management. Now, what this guy does for this company is up to debate. I mean, WTF, who is the CEO, Alvin Greene?

Now, I think he plays golf in Arizona, sits on some boards and gets a pension. Now, Mrs. Quayle is a smart woman who actually should of been the elected official, so I can only hope that the son got some smarts from her.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

Quayle is now an investment banker, and the chairman of the international division of Cerburus Capital Management. Now, what this guy does for this company is up to debate. I mean, WTF, who is the CEO, Alvin Greene?

Meh. Companies will often hire someone like Quayle and give him a fancy title just so they can say, "Hey, look we got an ex-VP of the United States working for us," which I guess would serve to give them added visibility as well as an air of prestige.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

Meh. Companies will often hire someone like Quayle and give him a fancy title just so they can say, "Hey, look we got an ex-VP of the United States working for us," which I guess would serve to give them added visibility as well as an air of prestige.

Plus it helps that Cerebus Capitol Management is something of a Republican rich man's plaything, which appears determined to become an arms manufacturer.

Oh, and the CEO isn't Alvin Greene, it's Steve Feinberg.

Steve and Gisela Feinberg are prolific donors to the Republican Party and related organizations.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Good summary and links at The National Ledger.

Following the link to the (un)official election results, it looks like Mr. Quayle has the lead amongst Republicans, and since there seem to be 42,000 Republican voters to about 17,000 Democratic voters, I'd say Mr. Quayle might have a shot at getting elected. Maybe.

Of course, I note that this 33 year old had to call in his parents to fight his fight for him at the very last minute. Not the kind of guy I'd want in Washington representing my interests, but hey, that's just me.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Good summary and links at The National Ledger.

Following the link to the (un)official election results, it looks like Mr. Quayle has the lead amongst Republicans, and since there seem to be 42,000 Republican voters to about 17,000 Democratic voters, I'd say Mr. Quayle might have a shot at getting elected. Maybe.

Of course, I note that this 33 year old had to call in his parents to fight his fight for him at the very last minute. Not the kind of guy I'd want in Washington representing my interests, but hey, that's just me.

That's a shame. I know he had a shot with you before he had to call his parents.

By the way, I think it's admirable how often you vote for Republicans.

How often was that, again?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That's a shame. I know he had a shot with you before he had to call his parents.

By the way, I think it's admirable how often you vote for Republicans.

How often was that, again?

If you don't know how often, how do you know that you think it's admirable?

It's exactly the same number of times that I've voted for Democrats, btw.

How about you?

And what relevance does that have to this thread at all?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

If you don't know how often, how do you know that you think it's admirable?

It's exactly the same number of times that I've voted for Democrats, btw.

How about you?

And what relevance does that have to this thread at all?

When you said, "Of course, I note that this 33 year old had to call in his parents to fight his fight for him at the very last minute. Not the kind of guy I'd want in Washington representing my interests, but hey, that's just me," you invite the reader to infer that but for Quayle's decision to have his parents help his bid for office, you might have considered voting for him.

I'm tweaking you by suggesting that this is far from the truth, that in fact very little could have caused you to vote for Quayle.

Your further commentary leads me to believe you've never voted in a state or federal election.

As for myself, I've voted for Democrats before. I voted for Obama, in fact.

[Chronos]

When you said, "Of course, I note that this 33 year old had to call in his parents to fight his fight for him at the very last minute. Not the kind of guy I'd want in Washington representing my interests, but hey, that's just me," you invite the reader to infer that but for Quayle's decision to have his parents help his bid for office, you might have considered voting for him.

Or it could have been "I already had plenty of reasons not to vote for him, and here's one more".

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Or it could have been "I already had plenty of reasons not to vote for him, and here's one more".

Having a former Vice-President of the United States come in and campaign for you is a no-brainer, whether he's your father or not. I'll certainly find plenty to chide Quayle for during his Congressional career, but this isn't it. Was it unfair? Was it dishonest? Was it cheating? The answer to all those questions is, "No."

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Frank

Having a former Vice-President of the United States come in and campaign for you is a no-brainer, whether he's your father or not. I'll certainly find plenty to chide Quayle for during his Congressional career, but this isn't it. Was it unfair? Was it dishonest? Was it cheating? The answer to all those questions is, "No."

Unfair? No
Dishonest? No
Cheating? No

Was it indicative of an inability to stand on his own two feet, despite being 33 years of age, and indicative of a need to run to Mom and/or Dad or some other authority figure in his life whenever everything doesn't go just his way? Or is it just especially vexing to all because as a Congressman, he'd be in a position to help himself, his parents and his parents' friends?

See, if this was a case of calling in the former VP for a ringing endorsement, that would be one thing. But it wasn't that one thing, it was another. This was a father taking umbrage at his son's predicament.

Originally Posted by Dan Quayle

I took my fair share of outrageous slams in politics, but Steve Moak's vicious smear against my son is over the top and unprecedented.

Mom got in on the act as well.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Quayle

In the 35 years that I have been involved in Republican politics, I have never seen a Republican try to personally destroy another Republican in this way.

Plenty of other people, sure, but never another Republican!

I will make the bold prediction that should Mr. Quayle somehow someday find himself sitting in the US Congress, he will be clueless and little more than a lackey for his family's rich and powerful friends.