My father doesn't waste breath defending Obama or, at least overtly, wishing for a resurrected Robert F. Kennedy but he regularly surprises me with the depth of his contempt ("hate" is not quite right) for Perry, Bachman and Cain (and, inevitably, VPs-elect Marco Rubio and/or Chris Christie): stupid, crass, crude, mean, transparent charlatans.
I suspect, although we haven't much discussed it, that he thinks Romney is a lot like George H.W. Bush: an intelligent man with an interesting and potentially helpful set of experiences, who has studiedly shunned imagination and development of character for fear of alienating some stupid Jethro in Redneck Crotch, Nowheresville. Cough sure, let's reinstate capital punishment in Massachusetts cough.
In unrelated news, the only thing my father has ever said about Social Security or Medicare was remarking that he had to buy supplemental health insurance coverage to cover stuff that Medicare doesn't, so he may not be the typical 60+ voter.
And then they bought me a really sweet vacuum as a housewarming gift, thereby stimulating the economy.
That would be the vacuum on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party? Now you can run around the house with it and fill it!
I feel like "sure, let's reinstate capital punishment in Massachusetts" has so many syllables it wouldn't really sound like you were coughing anymore.
Tweet just now from an AP reporter: Perry said the Florida straw poll was important, a strong predictor of the GOP nominee. And we know he's a man who sticks to his beliefs.
When AP guys are prepared to put out things like this, you know an important line has been crossed.
So what does this mean? I mean, what's the importance of his sticking to his beliefs here? His believing that the poll is a strong predictor won't make it so.
Pawlenty is a chump. And Palin seems to be the smartest of the bunch, for sitting out this round.
And Palin seems to be the smartest of the bunch
Even a stopped clock...
8: Yep, but she's still grifting away on the possibility, however.
She has also seems to be trying to position herself as more of an economic populist than most of the other Republican candidates. I think she'll dine off that for the next 4 years.
My political troll of the day, lifted from Dennis Hartley over at Hullabaloo, but of course...
Even if it seems certain that you will lose, retaliate. Neither wisdom nor technique has a place in this. A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. By doing this, you will awaken from your dreams.-Tsunetomo Yamamoto, from the Hagakure
Better than berzerking, this here politics of redistribution revenge for thirty years of wage stagnation.
Awaken from your dreams, process liberals. You have nothing to lose but your opiate of the elites.
Andrew Sullivan this morning declared that he's more convinced than ever that Palin will get in the race, now that Perry has fallen from grace. Okay, Sully.
I'm not sure I understand why Stanley's parents' sentiments are mystifying. Obama has tacked a fair amount to the center, so right-leaners may find themselves liking him more than Republican nutcases, and left-leaners may find themselves disenchanted. Isn't Obama more or less counting on this, and figuring that the left-leaners won't in the end abandon ship? (The big problem with this is the number of Dem-leaning voters who may decide to stay home, and those who've become disenfranchised due to Republican voter law shenanigans.)
We need more data from Stanley's parents if we're to understand what they're thinking: why does Stan's dad fear Romney? If there were a better (by what measure beyond "not scary"?) Republican candidate, would he no longer be a solid BHO vote? Stan's mom I probably already understand, except for the voting-for-Dole thing.
Overall, though, it looks like both of Stanley's parents dislike extreme Republicanism/conservatism and are looking leftward, which looks like a weather vane type of thing to me.
I've thought that SP's play was to get in after these inconsequential debates with all the marginal losers are over, and then get out, complaining about elitists (especially the lame stream media going after her family), before any actual votes are cast.
How narrow is the window when she can be in (a) never losing a debate and (b) never losing an election? Maybe November/December? That should maximize returns over the next four years.
It would actually be pretty amusing to see Chris Christie and Sarah Palin both join in late in the game, and face each other in a debate. But eh, it's mostly about who holds the big influence and money bags and where they're likely to put those. It continues to surprise me that Romney is so disliked by those people, or so the narrative goes. He can't be running such a relatively decent campaign without big money, right? So who exactly is it that apparently hates him so much, and why?
15: I think Romney has a lot of the big money that passes for sensible/establishment by Republican standards, but just as much of the big money (viz. the Koches), maybe more, is as crazy as the base.
I am trying really hard not to wring my hands, Minivet!
If nothing else, when there's been a steady campaign to render the populace just plain stupid uneducated, this appears to be what happens. It really should stop even the promoters of stupidity short. They should be thinking: maybe we made a mistake here, or achieved our goal too well. These people are fucking nuts, or morons, and can no longer be controlled well enough (I think Boehner is beginning to figure this out).
17: Sure, and I when I say things like "the vast majority of Americans are incapable of self-government and should be put to work in the vast caramel paddies of the Pacific Northwest until they shape the hell up," I'm some sort of maniac who doesn't understand "democracy" or the "caramelization" of "sugar."
Oh, but to your point: yeah, Koch money, and Dick Armey's outfit, FreedomWorks. And Grover Norquist -- I've lost track of what big money operation he may be associated with. Norquist does a passable imitation of a thinking person, and I believe he stays away from any clear Tea Party affiliation, but he provides fuel.
16: Yes. When I mentioned anybody but Mitt in the other thread, I really meant the politically involved tea party types and neo-Birchers (who do have some big money behind them). I think the "establishment" wished there was a non-Mitt Mitt, but I think thy are going to be disappointed on that front.
And I can imagine Boehner bitching to someone like McConnell about the freshman Repub congressmen, "Don't these numbnuts understand that it's all about the Benjamins and the golf?"
20.last: As DS has been wont to say: they didn't get the memo.
18 is going to take me a few minutes. To understand.
I think a lot of people thought Perry was the non-Mitt Mitt, and all the talk about how he was an inept dope was just liberal spin. Sorry.
18 made me think of the migrant (largely Hmong) huckleberry pickers.
If Romney wins, listening to the squeals of those who thought that he would govern as a centrist will be, well, cold comfort for the disaster.
It's funny, as I get older I seem to also get more radical and less interested viewing in Presidential politics as sport. Paying attention to which particular airbrushed dick the party of reactionary idiots chooses as its standard bearer seems like an utter waste of time.
I am sympathetic to Bob's pro-beserker political strategy, but I want to see some real beserker out there with swords and chants to the old gods, not some metaphorical bullshit.
25: I certainly know what you mean, but it's actually not sport: the Republican primary race is going to have repercussions for who turns out for the general, with very important ramifications for the downticket races in the Senate and House.
If more detail isn't even more eye-rolling: Romney has a better chance against Obama in the presidential election, but probably won't pull in as many enthusiasts who would consequently vote in the downticket races as Perry would. It would be best if conservatives are so bored that they just stay home. See.
21, 22: I suppose bob has exceeded the reach of parody after all.
28: Oh, that was a bob thing? Went right over my head.
29: Megalomania, self-pity, disproportionate hostility masking more fundamental (and chemical) issues?
Actually there's a real question for us in Virginia (does that still include you, Stanley?). We have open primaries. Anyone can vote in either party's primary (but not both at the same time). Next year, pace Ralph Nader, there won't be a Democratic Presidential primary, so the Republican primary will be the only game in town. Should I walk over the four blocks on March 6th to vote for Romney over the crazies, on the grounds that he at least isn't? Or should I take Halford's view in 25 that they're all the same.
31:A good point, and boy howdy. We're also in VA, and I hadn't even thought in it, having come up with more restricted primaries as a fledgling voter.
Surely there are state and local Dem races worth voting on.
Should I walk over the four blocks on March 6th to vote for Romney over the crazies, on the grounds that he at least isn't? Or should I take Halford's view in 25 that they're all the same.
There is the opposed view to the one I outlined in 27.2: that Perry is preferable to Romney, because some significant number of right-leaning citizens won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Perry in the general, and will go with Obama. Whereas they would find Romney acceptable.
Independents are murky. That said, I'd probably go ahead and vote for Romney. Any vote that balances out a crazy vote is worthwhile. The biggest problem right now is a motivated crazy-Republican base, and an anemic moderate-Republican and Democratic one.
All these polls we're perpetually treated to matching Obama against Perry, or against Romney, or against generic Republican, should really include the option "Would sit that one out."
I dunno, wouldn't it make sense for those of us who live in open primary states to collude to split our votes evenly down the ballot, making it that much harder for any of the Repugs to emerge as a front-runner, thereby severely hampering their general election campaigns?
35: I'm having trouble thinking this through.
The idea of voting in a Republican open primary is for Dems to put our thumb on the scale in one direction or another, no? Not to cancel one another's votes out in any given state.
I could see going for Romney in, say, Virginia, and going for Perry in Minnesota; but that still effectively cancels out those states nationwide, leaving the closed primary states to make the decision.
Am I missing something? How does this result in making it harder for any given Republican candidate to emerge as a ... frontrunner ... oh. Okay, I think I see.
Doesn't the schedule of state primaries make a huge difference here? The earlier-primary states have a disproportionate influence on the way the rest of the states go.
33: They're on different dates. And are therefore different primaries for which one can make different choices as to which party's primary one cares to vote in.
35: The political class doesn't have objective criteria for who "wins" a primary, though. If five candidates each got 20% they'd chatter about how their favored candidate did better than expected.
38: Lesser candidates drop out, though, as their donations decline. They then throw their support to a frontrunner. Natilo's is a divide and conquer strategy (in terms of both popular support and donations), which is smart.
Independents are murky. That said, I'd probably go ahead and vote for Romney. Any vote that balances out a crazy vote is worthwhile. The biggest problem right now is a motivated crazy-Republican base, and an anemic moderate-Republican and Democratic one.
Those are empirical claims. But no evidence is cited or available. And I'd argue that the empirical assessment of political facts you'd have to have to make strategic voting worthwhile is basically impossible. The overall political situation changes over time, in unpredictable ways.
(An example: if it were absolutely clear, based on the economy say, that a generic R would win, you'd want to vote for Romney over Perry, since you want the marginally better man in power; if you knew the election would be close enough such that swing voters would be decisive, Perry over Romney as more likely to alienate swing voters. But how do you know situation will obtain? Even if you think you can make a guess in March, the same situation is unlikely to hold in November.)
Moreover, all of that is for what I think is at best a marginal difference. The Republican candidates are all evil monsters and will all govern as evil monsters. In terms of "electibility," the amount driven by personalities is small to begin with and it's also unpredictable as to what "personality" will be adopted by the mass media. Your view of which candidate is more or less "electable" is likely to be wrong.
That said, if you're not doing anything else on the open primary day, I guess I'd go in and vote for Romney. There's at least some chance that, unlike the other candidates, he wasn't affirmatively lobotomized.
Halford why do you discount the option of a protest write-in vote for The Ultimate Warrior?
Also you spelled "electability" wrong. And "electible".
Orthography is for losers. I make my own rules.
Also, the Ultimate Warrior is kinda overrated. If I was to protest vote, I would vote for the reanimated corpse of Macho Man Randy Savage.
"If I were" you subjunctive mood enforcing dickholes.
But how do you know situation will obtain?
Can I quote you on this?
As far as I know the Macho Man never harbored any political ambitions, though, whereas the Ultimate Warrior harbors totally fucking insane ones. And has a blog!
The Penultimate Warrior is my choice for veep. Where do I write that in?
48: mightier than the Swordultimate Warrior, at any rate.
"though, whereas" strikes me as a particularly grody mangling of the language. I forsooth apologiwith.
46: Information is free, man, freeeee!
More seriously to 40: downticket races. I said. Forget about "electability" -- I wouldn't try to second guess that -- but motivational speakers, so to speak, are significant. I have no cite for that.
||
The AP actually published an article on global warming that is pretty specific on who has it right and wrong and points out both how industry attempted to sabotage the science and howprominent Republican politicians are on the wrong side--The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?. So, good for them. However, I became aware of the article when I saw it here at my folks' place on the front page of my once-decent hometown newspaper. The primary headline was re-written semi-harmlessly to Americans refuse to face hot facts but then a subheadline was added that read, Global warming for real despite attempts to discredit by both political parties. I assumed AP had done its usual faux balance thing, but the article includes nothing whatsoever consistent with that statement. Now I have shame.
|>
Tweety and the Ultimate Warrior are blowing my fucking mind.
Whether or not the Ultimate Warrior is currently blowing, or has blown, Tweety, is left as an exercise for the reader.
That could arguably be read as either homophobic, anti-Tweety, or anti-Ultimate Warrior, so let me be clear. While I'm not gay, and have a girlfriend, I would 100% totally have sex with the Ultimate Warrior. If the Ultimate Warrior is sucking Tweety's penis right now, I say more power to both of them. That is my position.
If the Ultimate Warrior is sucking Tweety's penis right now, I say more power to both of them.
Kinda like when the Wonder Twins would bump rings.
There's at least some chance that, unlike the other candidates, he wasn't affirmatively lobotomized.
Excuse my standpiping, but is that a reference to a certain Michigan-remembered person, or was it accidental?
59: Hmm, Ford? Or Romney the Elder saying he had been "brainwashed" on Vietnam and killing his campaign in 1968 (or maybe he said it in '67)?
Michigan wears Upper Michigan like a lobotomy.
It was accidental.
That my 42 is similar to the Ultimate Warrior's OWN (One Warrior Nation) philosophy was also accidental, but in the way that Leibniz and Newton inventing calculus at the same time was accidental. Truth reveals itself through great men.
To be clear, I have no idea what Minivet is talking about.
Wow. Ultimate Warrior guy is something.
Upper
Michigan
Sure looks kinda dumb
But the rest of the state is a Mitt-en with a thumb.
Burma Shave
|| Good grief, but those idiotic magnet necklaces that every baseball player wears make me insane. |>
69: or perhaps we are all insane already, except the baseball players, thanks to the necklaces! Food for thought.
If the Ultimate Warrior is sucking Tweety's penis right now, I say more power to both of them..
I fully endorse this sentiment as well.
to 58: maybe one of you will hopefully turn into something cooler and more useful than "a bucket of water." that was always hella lame, way lamer than magnet necklaces.
Just to integrate my prior comment with the agreements thread, you have to create the reality you want. Voting for the left-most viable candidate in every Dem state and local primary race, for every position, is a necessary but not sufficient act to move the party leftward. I'm not sure those who would prefer to play silly and unpredictable games with the Republican primaries ought to be calling themselves progressives.
Under HG's agreement 2, of course, feel free to ignore this comment.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive, Charley. See 37 upthread.
Funny. It's like they want low turnout for the state and local races. Which would be an opportunity for people who want to get organized.
I'll reiterate my unshakeable belief that party primaries should always be restricted to registered members of that party. If you want a voice in a particular party's nomination process, then join the fucking party already.
75: Yeah, I agree. The last couple of times you'd mentioned this, I paused and was unsure, but you know: you are right.
This thread is on its last meager legs, but regarding Virginia's strange arrangement (open primaries, presidential and state/local primaries held on different days), I thought I'd throw out this thing from TPM on the state of affairs in Virginia, polling-wise.
I honestly don't know what to make of having presidential and state/local primaries on different days, by the way. That just seems weird.