Jim Gilmore won’t be appearing in tonight’s main event or even on the undercard “kiddie table” debate that will feature such luminaries as Bobby Jindal and Little Ricky Santorum. He’s already assured that his name will be on the ballot in New Hampshire and South Carolina, though, so you can’t say that he’s not a real candidate.
You might have to shed a tear for the man as you listen to him whine about the unfairness of the system. He seems to think he can win the nomination anyway by doing a lot retail politicking on the ground in the Granite State, but I have my doubts.
“I have people in New Hampshire say, ‘Well, gee, I didn’t know you were running,’ well that’s right because Morning Joe isn’t Morning Joe, it’s Morning Trump,” he said. “That’s right, so this is an opportunity to get in here and become known, speak to the people of this state, offer my candidacy as to what I want to do for the people.”
“I’m not some weirdo that’s out here just kinda running crazy, I’m the former governor of the state of Virginia,” he continued. “I’m the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. I am world traveled, I not only have the credentials of being the chief executive of a state but I have deep foreign policy credentials. I am a United States army veteran. I was the governor during the 9/11 attack when the Pentagon was struck. I have the credentials to deal with foreign policy issues that the other former governors simply don’t have. So I have a right to come out here to tell the people of New Hampshire they ought to be supporting me and to campaign for it.”
He makes a decent case for himself, but has he ever separated conjoined twins or hosted a top-rated reality television show? Is he the son and brother of former presidents of the United States?
Hell, even Rand Paul has a father who has run for president (more than once), and Mike Huckabee can play the bass guitar and has Chuck Norris on speed-dial.
Still, Gilmore has a point. He is a former governor. And he never ran a Fortune 500 company into the ground. I also doubt that he’s completely broke.
So, I guess he figures he deserves better than to be excluded from the debates.
Really, though, I think the voters deserve better than a choice between these losers, Gilmore included.
Gov Gilmore seems to be confused about who the voters are in the GOP primaries. They are fine with Xtrian, racist, anti-government or weirdo losers because that’s better than losing with a Dole, McCain, or Romney.
he may be right. but he’s even less important than the weirdos.
Perhaps ten minutes somewhere in the middle of it was all I could take. Each of them in turn seemed to say, “Audit the Fed.” (Moderators didn’t interrupt that chant with “the Fed is already audited.”
Oh, and Christie did mention that income inequality has increased since ’09 and is at historic highs. At least that is true, but whatever he and the others went on to propose to fix that likely make it worse.
Really, though, I think the voters deserve better than a choice between these losers, Gilmore included.
Watching the debate on Fox Business channel, it would appear that Republican voters are getting candidates consistent with the bullshit they are served. I’ve just seen an ad paid for by the American Action Network. It depicted the CFPB as denying loans and other financial benefits to ordinary Americans. Viewers were directed to call and take immediate action. Lies like those told by those on stage.
The best part was it portrayed Elizabeth Warren as a kind of Communist dictator, or something. Before long, Warren is going to be the most powerful Democrat in the Senate.
so pleased she plans to stay there
Me too, not least since she’s my senator.
And I am eternally grateful to Bernie Sanders for entering the race and shutting down most of the “Warren For President! Whether she likes it or not!” nonsense.
agree. b/c she’s a woman, no doesn’t/ didn’t mean no
OK, he was a governor, which is a reasonable credential. So was Bush and Perry. Current govs include Walker and Christie. That credential gets you in the door. After that, you need to perform above entry level, which Gilmore has not, to date.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF WELDING
W. Mattieu Williams, F.R.A.S., F.C.S.
From Van Nostrand’s Eclectic Engineering Magazine, Volume 11 (1874), pp.409-410.
In the address of M. Jordan, President of the “Societe des Ingenieurs” delivered at the annual meeting of the society in Paris, and reported in Iron, pp. 650 and 679, a novel explanation of the welding of iron is offered. M. Jordan says that welding “is a phenomenon exactly similar” to the regulation of water, the phenomena of re-gelation being these, that if two or more pieces of ice at a temperature not lower than their melting point, or preferably at a temperature much higher than their melting point, be pressed together, the liquid water adhering to their melting surface becomes solid at the places of contact, and thus the two pieces are refrozen into one. M Jordan very aptly illustrates the phenomena of regelation by the making of a snowball, telling us that this may be done “when snow is at a temperature not lower than 0 deg. centigrade, i.e. the freezing point of water. every man who has been a boy will confirm this, and remember that when the snow was very dry, and the temperature of the air below the freezing point, the snow-flakes would not cohere without the aid of much pressure and warmth from the hand, but that with sloppy snow during a thaw, he could make a hard icy snowball with ease. M. Jordan compares the making of the snowball by the children with the welding of the iron-ball by the puddler, maintains that the processes are identical, and applies Sir W. Thompson’s rather recondite explanation of regelation to the cases of iron and platinum welding.
It appears to me that this explanation is fallacious, as the conditions of solidification in the two cases are not only by no means alike, but are diametrically opposite, the welding of both iron and platinum being effected at a temperature considerably below their melting point, while the primary condition for the cohesion of two pieces of ice by regelation is that they shall be exposed to a temperature above, or at least, not below, their melting point. In order that regelation should be analogous to welding, it should take place at a temperature far below the freezing point. Now it is well known that under such circumstances regelation does not and cannot occur, and therefore it differs essentially and primarily from welding.
If it had been discovered that two or more pieces of iron, while in a furnace, raised above their melting point and streaming into fusion, would cohere when pressed together, and that this cohesion resulted from the solidification of their liquid surfaces, in spite of the melting heat of the furnace, we should then have an analogy with the regelation of melting ice, and M. Jordan’s conclusions would be justified. Regelation means the resolidifying of a liquid, or a special cohesion in spite of liquidity, welding means a special cohesion in spite of solidity, or apparent solidity. If M. Jordan had described them as examples of curiously opposite actions the comparison would have been more nearly correct. We might plausibly assume that, while the pressing together of two pieces of wet ice produces a solidification of the surface liquid, the pressing together of two pieces of heated iron has the opposite effect of momentarily liquefying the surfaces of contact, and thereby soldering them together. The plausibility of this explanation is increased by the fact that pressure develops heat, and thus the welding heat might, at the surface of contact, be momentarily raised to the fusing point, and then, on the removal of the pressure this liquid film might solidify and thus produce the welding cohesion. But even this theory is, in my opinion, too
learned. A far simpler explanation may be found, and we must never forget that when two or more explanations equally fit a given set of facts, the simplest is the best, and usually the true one.
In order to find a true analogy to welding we need go no further than the vulgar “sticking together” of two pieces of cobbler’s wax, pitch, putty, or clay. These are in a viscous or semi-fluid condition, and they cohere by an action similar to the transfusion or intermingling and uniting of two liquids. Iron and platinum pass through a viscous or pasty stage on their way from the solid to the liquid states, and the temperature at which this pasty condition occurs is the welding heat. Other metals are not weldable, because they pass too suddenly from the solid to the liquid condition. Ice, although it fuses so slowly, in consequence of the great amount of heat rendered latent in the act of fusion, passes at once from the state of a brittle crystalline solid to that of a perfect liquid. It passes through no intermediate pasty stage, and therefore is not weldable, or does not cohere like iron, etc., at a temperature below its fusing point.
It is usual to cite only iron and platinum, or iron, platinum and gold as weldable substances, but this. I think, is not correct. Lead should be included as a weldable metal. The two halves of a newly-cut leaden bullet may be made to reunite by pressure, even when quite cold. This is obviously due to the softness or viscosity of this metal.
Outside of the metals there is a multitude of weldable substances. I may take glass as a typical example of these. Its weldability depends upon the viscosity it assumes at a bright red heat, and the glass maker largely uses this property. When he attaches the handle to a claret jug, or joins the stem of a wine-glass to its cup, he performs a true welding process.
The chief practical difficulty in welding iron arises from the fact that at the welding heat it is liable to oxidation, and the oxide of iron is not viscous like the metallic iron To remedy this oxidation the workman uses sand, which combines with the oxide and forms a fusible silicate. If he is a good workman he does not depend upon the solidification of this film of silicate, as the adhesion thus obtained would be merely a soldering with brittle glass, and such work would readily separate when subject to vibratory violence. He therefore beats or squeezes the surfaces together with sufficient force to drive out from between them all the liquid silicate, and thus he secures a true annealing or actual union of pure metallic surfaces.
Cast iron or steel containing more than two per cent, of carbon cannot be welded. Why? I think I may venture to reply to this oft-repeated question by stating that the compound of iron with so much carbon is much more fusible than pure iron, or than steel with less carbon, and that it runs more suddenly or directly from the solid state into that of a liquid, and hence presents no workable range of weldable viscosity.