PDA

View Full Version : Iowa Primary



IdleRich
04-01-2012, 11:39 AM
So Romney and Santorum pretty much share first place but what does it mean?

Leo
04-01-2012, 02:08 PM
for the GOP, it's going to be romney. it was always going to be romney, the rest is just noise.

IdleRich
04-01-2012, 03:00 PM
He is the most electable candidate isn't he? So the best choice from the Republican point of view. Or will his Mormonism affect his chances?

e/y
04-01-2012, 03:10 PM
surely the most electable Republican candidate is Obama?

/shit troll :)

does the Iowa result mean that Bachman is done?

IdleRich
04-01-2012, 03:21 PM
I hope not - she's the funniest one left in I think.

hucks
04-01-2012, 03:47 PM
Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone saying it doesn't matter anyway (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103?print=true).

Leo
04-01-2012, 04:22 PM
the far-right wing of the GOP have too many candidates to choose from (bachmann, perry, gingrich, santorum, cain at one point) and, when you throw in libertarian ron paul, that splits the anti-romney vote too many ways. if there was one far-right candidate, they would have had a better chance. romney's goal is to keep them all in the race for as long as possible because as all these candidates linger on, romney's establishment GOP superPAC backers collect more money and will systematically crush every new "surging" opponent.

i suspect the GOP elders are pushing for romney as the least-worst/vaguely plausible/least embarrassing candidate for 2012, but have no real expectation of beating obama. that's why all the strongest GOP candidates -- mitch daniels, chris christie, jeb bush (!), etc. -- bowed out this year. they've given up on 2012 and all have their sites set on 2016.

IdleRich
04-01-2012, 04:25 PM
All true I'm sure. Interesting ruling in Montana mentioned in that article.
(I'm replying to Hucks/Rolling Stone there)

IdleRich
04-01-2012, 04:28 PM
Spoke too soon - seems Bachman is suspending her campaign whatever that means.

trza
04-01-2012, 05:09 PM
Did anybody go?

Leo
04-01-2012, 05:59 PM
Spoke too soon - seems Bachman is suspending her campaign whatever that means.

first sarah palin, then herman cain, now this...comedians around the country are a little sadder today. please, rick perry, please stay in the race. while it's often easy to chuckle at newt, he doesn't have the potential for comedy gold like perry.

crackerjack
04-01-2012, 07:13 PM
Having seen Santorum blathering about the British "National Health Institute" and Reaganomics v Thatcherism last night I'd say he has comedy potential. Not as much as Bachmann though, obviously. He's also the official Murdoch candidate now.

Sectionfive
04-01-2012, 07:57 PM
I know plenty of proper batshit has come in from the cold since 9/11 but am I right in thinking those who control the gop have decided to sit this one out long ago. Is it a probably can't beat Obama this time thing or let the dems hang around a while longer and clean up the mess and get kicked out for it thing? I know it's easy to misjudge either way the conservatism/insanity in some parts of America but surely everyone at the top of the gop knows none of these people could be president.

Leo
04-01-2012, 08:31 PM
I know plenty of proper batshit has come in from the cold since 9/11 but am I right in thinking those who control the gop have decided to sit this one out long ago. Is it a probably can't beat Obama this time thing or let the dems hang around a while longer and clean up the mess and get kicked out for it thing? I know it's easy to misjudge either way the conservatism/insanity in some parts of America but surely everyone at the top of the gop knows none of these people could be president.

yeah, i think the latter (let the dems win this one). the economy is still going to suck for another few years and unemployment will stay high for a while, so republicans are glad to let the democrats have ownership of the continued slump, banking that things will be turning better as we approach the 2016 election and they can run a strong candidate to win at that point.

the other factor is there's a decent chance republicans will win the majority in the senate this fall. since they already hold the majority in the house of representatives, that will give then two of the three branches of government and pretty solid footing to stop any potentially positive plan from obama and the democrats for the next four years.

i think that's what makes people really disgusted about politicians and the political process here in the states: EVERYTHING is politically motivated. lawmakers no longer spend their time trying to help the country.

Ulala
04-01-2012, 08:40 PM
Lowering the tone time (minor derail): I take it all you fine folks know that Santorum is a massive homophobe/gay-basher, don't you? And that because of this, in a highly amusing act of revenge, 'Santorum' is now slang in the gay world for the mix of lubricant and shit that sometimes seeps out post-sex. (As in: "Ugh, there's Santorum all over the bed!")

As you were.

trza
04-01-2012, 09:08 PM
Bachmann had by far the best campaign to follow. She went to the best places and had the photo ops and small crows to prove it. Her campaign aides had some colorful pasts and controversies that could be described in detail elsewhere. There are twitpics from journalists of her standing on chairs at Pizza Ranches or Dairy Queen's in front of less than a dozen people. She also made it into one of the best places in all of Decatur County:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh308/thetrza/a528a952319011e1abb01231381b65e3_7.jpg

Mr. Tea
04-01-2012, 09:25 PM
^^Looks like a photo The Onion would use in some snarky piece about an individual location finally identified as "Real America".

And yes, heard about the new use for 'Santorum', brilliant. :)

Sectionfive
04-01-2012, 09:30 PM
Lowering the tone time (minor derail): I take it all you fine folks know that Santorum is a massive homophobe/gay-basher, don't you?

I assumed it was a precondition

Hard to lower the tone in politics thread regardless

lanugo
04-01-2012, 11:46 PM
Taibbi is spot on when he says that the two parties merely represent two versions of the status quo.

In the face of the blatant continuation, or rather expansion, of US military interventionism it is hard to point out any meaningful differences between the Neo-Con doctrine of the Bush era and the foreign and security policy under Obama - so, on top of the catering to powerful financial interests the GOP and the Dems also seem to agree on the necessity of illegal wars abroad.

Conveniently, with the concoction of such farcical concepts as "R2P" the Obama administration has turned the US war agenda into a righteous cause that liberals and progressives can be unabashedly enthusiastic about as well.

Not to mention the increasingly draconian restrictions of civil liberties and the ongoing dismantling of the constitution, as exemplified by last year's unlawful drone killings of US citizens and the recent signing of the National Authorization Defense Bill.

Anyone voting for either a Republican candidate (with the honourable exception of Ron Paul) or Obama must be completely delusional.

IdleRich
05-01-2012, 12:23 AM
Of course the two parties are two sides of the status quo but if I were a gay American and I rose above the "delusion" of voting for Obama I think I would kinda kick myself if Santorum or Perry became president.
Also, while Ron Paul is the only anti-intervention candidate, I'm not certain that anyone voting for the others is delusional (for that reason at least) - I suspect that a lot of them actually really like US intervention. When things aren't going well flexing a few muscles is probably a good way to feel good about how powerful America is again. And lots of people probably don't give a fuck about how interventionist (interventional?) their candidate will be as long as he bans abortion or whatever.

Mr. Tea
05-01-2012, 08:05 AM
Of course the two parties are two sides of the status quo but if I were a gay American and I rose above the "delusion" of voting for Obama I think I would kinda kick myself if Santorum or Perry became president.


Yeah, it's sad that the choice has to come down to picking the least worst but at the same time it's not helpful to reduce this to the bald statement that "they're all as bad as each other", when this isn't actually the case.


Choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a bad thing. The cliché makes it sound bad, but it's a good thing. You get less evil.

And as you point out, it's not necessarily even a case of maintaining the status quo, as some of the candidates think America is far too liberal and socialistic as it is and what to roll back many of the rights and freedoms that various mostly Democratic administrations have brought in over the years.

crackerjack
05-01-2012, 08:59 AM
Anyone voting for either a Republican candidate (with the honourable exception of Ron Paul) or Obama must be completely delusional.

Nothing honourable about the racist, anti-semitic, homophobe Ron Paul, though given his penchant for the conspiracy theories (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/ron-pauls-world/) beloved by the far right it's no surprise you think otherwise.

craner
05-01-2012, 09:26 AM
Well said, CJ.

luka
05-01-2012, 10:16 AM
john birch for president.

padraig (u.s.)
05-01-2012, 10:47 AM
other people have pretty much already said this, but the problem the Republicans have is the same problem they always have. to win the primary a candidate has to play as conservative as possible, but to win the general election they have to do exactly the opposite. the GOP needs someone it can at least halfway sell as a centrist but at the same time a large part of its base utterly loathes Mitt Romney types (for different reasons than most of us loathe him, that is) which is why you get almost literally insane people like Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, etc sticking around for a long time but never actually getting the nomination, b/c even most staunch conservatives know in their heart of hearts that it'd be almost impossible for any of them to win a general election. this isn't a new problem either, the GOP has been struggling with for at least 50 years, ever since the liberal/moderate wing of the party begin its endlessly protracted, agonizing demise. Barry Goldwater in '64 is one of the best examples of that tension - he was a lot closer to Paul than Santorum or Bachmann, essentially a libertarian + not overtly religious (tho the whole evangelicals hijacking conservatism thing was still 15-20 years off at that point anyway) but a nuclear hawk of epic proportions. he beat a liberal Republican (a Rockefeller, no less) for the nomination but he was totally unelectable. LBJ's campaign pretty much annihilated him w/this incredibly stark + brutally effective ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao), and he was crushed worse than anyone not named Walter Mondale. anyway the GOP - especially it's intellectuals - has mostly learned this lesson pretty well (anyone else remember how horrified the Republican literati were by the Palin selection?)

of course the Dems face the same problem but to a much lesser extent b/c the the left here is so toothless, or in the case of more radical elements almost totally divorced from electoral politics, so candidates can get away w/it more easily. i.e. Obama's lip service to the left before the election. JFK did the exact same thing in 1960, but far more cynically even (the Kennedys were real operators), to pick up the liberal Adlai Stevenson wing of the party then totally ignored it once in office.

padraig (u.s.)
05-01-2012, 11:28 AM
or in other words the Iowa Caucus results don't mean much, other than that Rick anal froth won the "I get to be the anti-Romney" sweepstakes. he's actually probably even worse than Palin or Bachmann in the "I'm a virulent homophobe in addition to being fucking crazy" category tho, so Obama's people should be rejoicing. their dream should be - almost certainly is - a Santorum nomination. Mitt Romney is just the kind of wax statue non-entity that could limp his way to a best of bad options victory by simply mouthing his (relatively) inoffensive mealymouth committee-concocted platitudes + riding discontent w/shitty economy, fragmented political system, etc etc. tho it must be said it's difficult to remember a candidate about whom his own party was less excited. even Kerry had at least a few proactive enthusiasts. I'm too young to remember Dukakis tho.

as to the point that there is little actual difference between the two - in any ultimate or larger or really meaningful sense, well of course, absolutely. there are plenty of smaller pragmatic differences tho - abortion or health care, for instance (neither of which splits exactly along party lines, but you know what I mean) - and just in terms of who's appointing judges or cabinet members, budget things, + so on, as long as you don't delude yourself about that larger sense. the small differences also become more important in local elections.

(also, 2nd that there is very little honorable about Ron Paul's long, shameful history of racebaiting + homophobia. tho I can certainly see how he would appear so next to the clowns he's been up against, the same way McCain did in '08 next to the odious likes of Giuliani or Mike Huckabee)

Leo
05-01-2012, 01:55 PM
In the face of the blatant continuation, or rather expansion, of US military interventionism it is hard to point out any meaningful differences between the Neo-Con doctrine of the Bush era and the foreign and security policy under Obama.

really? the neo-con doctrine calls for pre-emptive/proactive intervention into foreign countries where they think US interests could be at risk, or where they see an opportunity to "spread democracy." on the other hand, obama just had his military director leon panetta submit a plan to cut $450 billion from the pentagon budget, pulled troops out of iraq much earlier than conservative wanted and "led from behind" by not putting US boots on the ground in arab spring countries.

you don't see that as a huge difference?

lanugo
05-01-2012, 03:29 PM
Nothing honourable about the racist, anti-semitic, homophobe Ron Paul, though given his penchant for the conspiracy theories (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/ron-pauls-world/) beloved by the far right it's no surprise you think otherwise.

Oh, is that the same New York Times that in 2003 took the lead among Western media outlets in spinning the official government conspiracy theory of non-existent WMD's in Iraq?


really? the neo-con doctrine calls for pre-emptive/proactive intervention into foreign countries where they think US interests could be at risk, or where they see an opportunity to "spread democracy." on the other hand, obama just had his military director leon panetta submit a plan to cut $450 billion from the pentagon budget, pulled troops out of iraq much earlier than conservative wanted and "led from behind" by not putting US boots on the ground in arab spring countries.

you don't see that as a huge difference?

Well, don't you see that your characterisation of the Neo-Con doctrine is also largely applicable to the foreign policy of the Obama administration?

As the moribund state of the US economy makes restrictions on the defense budget inevitable, regime change operations may not any longer take the form of outright invasions as with Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush. However, US geo-strategy is still characterised by hegemonial ambitions and a total disregard for the sovereignty of foreign nations.

The case of Libya proves this. To be clear, it is a gross misconception to believe that the civil war leading to the toppling of the Ghaddafi regime was the result of a popular uprising similar to those in other Arab countries that have come to be known as the "Arab Spring" - and whether these events are authentic in terms of being genuine homegrown insurrections fueled by popular discontent is debatable in and of itself.

In Libya, the forceful crackdown of the Ghaddafi regime against armed insurgents (provably trained and equipped by foreign special forces) was falsely portrayed as constituting a "humanitarian crisis", which was then used as a pretext for the military intervention of NATO forces. Of course, the real humanitarian crisis only happened when NATO bombs rained down on Libyan cities, killing more than 50,000 civilians. The UN sanctioning and the shameful eagerness of its allies notwithstanding, this campaign was clearly an American military and intelligence operation. Conveniently, the US didn't need to have "boots on the ground" as their army of cleverly manipulated Islamist stooges was happy to act as NATO's infantry. Foreign policy under Obama has become a lot more devious.

Regarding the early pull-out from Iraq, I'd say that this measure was but a tactical manoeuver to relieve the stressed Pentagon budget and not some grand gesture denoting future restraint in military action. Or why would they establish a new military base in Australia and have Ms. Clinton pen an article in FR titled ""America's Pacific Century"?

IdleRich
05-01-2012, 03:49 PM
"Oh, is that the same New York Times that in 2003 took the lead among Western media outlets in spinning the official government conspiracy theory of non-existent WMD's in Iraq?"
Yes it is but that's totally irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of what is said in that link which is easily verifiable elsewhere. You could argue about the merits of the NY Times or you could say whether you think Ron Paul's is still the most "honourable" candidate despite his unusual ideas. Most of what he says shouldn't be too hard for you to swallow after all although I suspect you might want to take issue with the racial conspiracy stuff.

Bangpuss
05-01-2012, 06:14 PM
Obama won such a momentous victory in 2008 that it was clear it would carry him through to a second term, providing there were no real howlers, which there haven't been. The "seven things" he wanted to achieve mostly have been, if only in the faintest sense, like healthcare reform and banking regulations.

The one Republican the GOP would do well to choose has largely been forgotten amid the talk of "surges" amongst the lunatics. Jon Huntsman is the most sane and intelligent one other than Romney. While Huntsman may not have the money to beat Obama (or even Romney in the primaries), he is at least fairly moderate in his views and has a stunning record as governor of Utah-- with his approval ratings spiking at 90% due to his job-creation and tax-slashing. All this would give Huntsman a good chance against Obama.

The reason Huntsman hasn't been mentioned much is that he was scoring low in the polls when the likes of Perry, Bachmann, Cain (and Trump!) were still looking good. Now they're out of the picture, it's a smaller field. He also ignored Iowa, which doesn't really count for much compared with New Hampshire, where he has been campaigning relentlessly. As they say, Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents. A top-two finish in New Hampshire, which is possible considering he's already third in the polls, is very possible. If that happens, he'll get his "surge". And when people come to examine him against Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, they would be wise to choose the man most likely to beat Obama.

IdleRich
05-01-2012, 07:46 PM
How acceptable is he to the right of the party though?

trza
05-01-2012, 08:29 PM
How acceptable is he to the right of the party though?


He was physically outside of the country when the whole "tea part thing" happened, its like he came out of a time capsule from 2008 before his party veered off to the right. The guy is uncomfortable on the campaign trail and flails aimlessly in debates. The Daily Caller published a bunch of letters where he tells Obama how much he admires him. His fundraising is anemic and skipping Iowa only makes him look weaker.

He is wildly popular in China.

crackerjack
05-01-2012, 08:49 PM
He is wildly popular in China.

And among students and on blogs – just about the only two places in the world where people think libertarianism is a really good idea.



Oh, is that the same New York Times that in 2003 took the lead among Western media outlets in spinning the official government conspiracy theory of non-existent WMD's in Iraq?


*Huge yawn* Now, if you'd care to offer a definition of 'honourable' that isn't brought crashing down by the fact Paul's office previously spent a good deal of time and effort recycling the most hateful social bigotry of the far right, then I'll stop yawning and lend you my ears.

Bangpuss
05-01-2012, 09:34 PM
I'm not saying Huntsman is Julius Caesar, but he's certainly a more credible option than any of the others. The closeness to Obama is obviously a problem, but also indicates a certain level of rationality, compared with people who think he's a foreign Muslim socialist.

Leo
05-01-2012, 10:31 PM
...people who think [obama]'s a foreign Muslim socialist.

unfortunately for huntsman, that's the hardcore republican base who vote in primaries!

lanugo
05-01-2012, 10:52 PM
*Huge yawn* Now, if you'd care to offer a definition of 'honourable' that isn't brought crashing down by the fact Paul's office previously spent a good deal of time and effort recycling the most hateful social bigotry of the far right, then I'll stop yawning and lend you my ears.

I'm sorry to be so pedantic as to point out the NYT's own history of "dangerous conspiracy-mongering"; whatever the veracity of Paul's claims, surely they haven't cost as many innocent people's lives as the government lies that this particular newspaper was only too eager to propagate.

In all honesty, I have to admit that I didn't know about those ominous newsletters. However, having checked up on the story I'm not surprised to find that there is no conclusive evidence that Paul himself authored the racist and homophobic statements in question. Apparently, there were a bunch of ghostwriters contributing to the newsletter, one or several of whom seem to be responsible for these egregious ramblings. The whole issue was then blown up by the establishment media as part of a smear campaign. Granted, there are Paul supporters with an ideologically perverse background - then again, what is the ideological background of the bankers supporting Obama? Denouncing Paul as racist or homophobic because of some obscure decades-old newsletter clearly is an overly dismissive stance toward a politician whose merits have been largely ignored or disparaged by the mainstream media.

Paul is 'honourable' in the sense that, unlike all the other presidential candidates and Obama, he is the only one who publicly decries the ongoing demise of the Constitution - I've already referred to the indefinite detention and torture bill - and radically rejects an imperialist US military agenda that mostly serves the enrichment of powerful interest groups from the security industry and the military-industrial complex.

Concerning his alleged penchant for "conspiracy theories" - how can you apodictically state that his views on global institutions and current world-political events are wrong? Are you in possession of the absolute truth? Or do you just outright dismiss any interpretation that doesn't conform to the media consensus? Paul calling the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador a "publicity stunt" is a perfect example of his political integrity and personal frankness. Did you bother to look at the details of this story? Read this careful analysis (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27525) of the events and you will come to the conclusion that what Paul says isn't so implausible after all.

IdleRich
06-01-2012, 12:50 AM
"Paul is 'honourable' in the sense that, unlike all the other presidential candidates and Obama, he is the only one who publicly decries the ongoing demise of the Constitution"
The libertarian and hard-right use "unconstitutional" when they mean something they don't like (as parodied in that Onion headline about a man being prepared to fight to the death for the constitution despite not knowing what it says) - hence all the stuff about America being contitutionally a Christian country despite the exact opposite being true.
But more importantly, why should the Constitution be sacrosanct? Isn't it a bit stupid trying to run a modern country according to the exact letter of a document that is over two hundred years old? Maybe they should stop amending it and go back to the drawing board, getting rid of all that stuff about militias while they're at it.

Bangpuss
06-01-2012, 10:05 AM
The right does describe anything they don't like as "unconstitutional" or "unAmerican". And it is daft to hold the Constitution's more quaint provisions in such high regard. But the first amendment -- freedom of speech -- and the prevention of cruel and unusual punishment are obviously still relevant and important, and should be fought for vociferously. It's a shame they don't regard the death penalty, waterboarding, etc. as either cruel or unusual.

Ron Paul is a principled politician, if not necessarily honourable. When you have guys like Romney and Obama -- these shiny blank slates who let Wall Street write their own policies on them -- a guy like Paul seems refreshing. He says to lobbyists, "I'll take your money, but I'll be damned if I'm changing my position." So he has principles, and doesn't appear to be up for sale.

But the thing is, his principles are totally wild-west crazy! He has vowed never to raise federal taxes, and that federal income tax is unconstitutional. He wants to do away with all campaign finance regulation, which would allow corporations to buy candidates even more than they already do. He'd do away with federal healthcare provisions, and pretty much every other federal program, including education. He believes that state government is somehow inherently better than the federal government at delivering services, which I've never seen any evidence for.

But Ron Paul would also allow states to legalise pot, so he'd get my vote.

Bangpuss
06-01-2012, 10:13 AM
And I do believe the conspiracies about major news outlets deliberately ignoring Ron Paul. Look at this article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-campaign-newhampshire-poll-idUSTRE8030WR20120105

Rick Santorum comes in third with 8% is the story. Ron Paul isn't mentioned, even though he's second with 24%.

He scares a lot of people in high places.

IdleRich
06-01-2012, 11:41 AM
I don't understand this constant harping on about state being better than national controls. If you break everything down to that then ultimately won't you destroy the greatest nation in the history of the world (tm)?

Mr. Tea
06-01-2012, 12:50 PM
I'm sorry to be so pedantic as to point out the NYT's own history of "dangerous conspiracy-mongering"; whatever the veracity of Paul's claims, surely they haven't cost as many innocent people's lives as the government lies that this particular newspaper was only too eager to propagate.

I don't think you can write off someone's execrably bigoted views just because they've never given the order to invade another country.


In all honesty, I have to admit that I didn't know about those ominous newsletters. However, having checked up on the story I'm not surprised to find that there is no conclusive evidence that Paul himself authored the racist and homophobic statements in question. Apparently, there were a bunch of ghostwriters contributing to the newsletter, one or several of whom seem to be responsible for these egregious ramblings. The whole issue was then blown up by the establishment media as part of a smear campaign. Granted, there are Paul supporters with an ideologically perverse background - then again, what is the ideological background of the bankers supporting Obama? Denouncing Paul as racist or homophobic because of some obscure decades-old newsletter clearly is an overly dismissive stance toward a politician whose merits have been largely ignored or disparaged by the mainstream media.

If we're as generous as we possible can be to Paul, don't you think it's a bit odd that he never read any of the things being published in his name over the course of several decades and thought "Hey, that's a little strong"? In the very best possible case, he's still guilty of colossal negligence. And has he ever publicly retracted any of that inflammatory propaganda? On the contrary, he seems to spend a lot of his time in the company of people who hold views similar to those expressed in his newsletters.


Are you in possession of the absolute truth?

Nope, only you can make that heady claim, obviously.

vimothy
06-01-2012, 01:47 PM
I do find it interesting the way that people treat politicians on the other side of the partisan divide. Mention Obama's birth certificate / academic record / influence of Saul Alinsky / friendship with Ayers (at one time a communist terrorist) and your average NYT reader will roll his eyes. "Yeah... literally Hitler". But guilt by nudges and winks works just fine for the NYT crowd when Ron Paul is the subject. Doesn't he know people in the Birch Society? Doesn't he think the CFR rules the world?

crackerjack
06-01-2012, 02:11 PM
I do find it interesting the way that people treat politicians on the other side of the partisan divide. Mention Obama's birth certificate / academic record / influence of Saul Alinsky / friendship with Ayers (at one time a communist terrorist) and your average NYT reader will roll his eyes. "Yeah... literally Hitler". But guilt by nudges and winks works just fine for the NYT crowd when Ron Paul is the subject. Doesn't he know people in the Birch Society? Doesn't he think the CFR rules the world?

Oh don't be such a dick Vim. The stories about Obama's academic record and birth certificate were complete fictions, as you know. Paul's office did issue far-right filth for years and he did keynote the John Birch shindig just 4 years ago. These aren't winks and nudges. They happened.

e/y
06-01-2012, 02:11 PM
@vimothy

not really comparable things, are they?

edit: crackerjack said it much better

IdleRich
06-01-2012, 02:12 PM
I reckon a lot of people feel uncomfortable about the Ayers thing. And the birth certificate thing is such obvious bollocks that it's barely comparable to anything.

vimothy
06-01-2012, 03:18 PM
Oh don't be such a dick Vim.

I'm not saying that the two are identical, just that it's interesting to compare them. At any rate, the comparison doesn't contradict what I already believe, which is that people believe what they want to believe where stuff like this is concerned.

Obama has murky ties to a communist terrorist--or at least, that doesn't seem like a particularly egregious reading of what I understand to be the facts. Imagine that Ron Paul had murky ties to a neo-Nazi terrorist. (Perhaps he does)! Hard to see that they would receive symmetrical treatment in the NYT.

padraig (u.s.)
06-01-2012, 03:56 PM
Obama has murky ties to a communist terrorist

I'm sorry, but to suggest Obama has ties to a "communist terrorist" is patently ridiculous (+ frankly beneath you Vimothy, even if you're just trying to stir people up/make a rhetorical point). him (edit: "him" meaning Ayers, not Obama, in case that wasn't clear) + his wife have long, long since morphed into the kind of boring ex-60s radicals gone liberal whose entire raison d'etre is essentially to attend dreadfully boring faculty parties + fulfill right-wing fantasies about liberal academia. in Europe no one would bat an eyelash at them; Germany is probably full of the fuckers, I mean.

(on a personal note, I saw him speak a few years ago at a screening of a Weathermen documentary + he's one of the least threatening people I can imagine, very "trying to stay hip dad" (or grandad, more like) if you will. after the talk he went out for drinks w/some of the organizers + wound up flirting rather uncomfortably with some of the young, winsome female activists...)

droid
06-01-2012, 04:03 PM
I'm sorry, but to suggest Obama has ties to a "communist terrorist" is patently ridiculous (+ frankly beneath you Vimothy, even if you're just trying to stir people up/make a rhetorical point). him + his wife have long, long since morphed into the kind of boring ex-60s radicals gone liberal whose entire raison d'etre is essentially to attend dreadfully boring faculty parties + fulfill right-wing fantasies about liberal academia. in Europe no one would bat an eyelash at them; Germany is probably full of the fuckers, I mean.

(on a personal note, I saw him speak a few years ago at a screening of a Weathermen documentary + he's one of the least threatening people I can imagine, very "trying to stay hip dad" (or grandad, more like) if you will. after the talk he went out for drinks w/some of the organizers + wound up flirting rather uncomfortably with some of the young, winsome female activists...)

LOL, didnt he just serve on some board with the guy or something? And didnt the NYT initially break the Ayers story in 2001, and then again reveal Obama's 'connections' with him in 2008?

Vimothy's in good company though:


Goldberg falsely attacks NY Times Obama coverage
January 25, 2009 8:05 pm ET
SUMMARY: In yet another instance of mangling the facts to show purported media favoritism toward then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, Bernard Goldberg writes in his new book: "Finally, in the last month of the campaign, the [New York] Times returned to the Obama-Ayers story, but only after McCain and (mostly) Palin began making it an issue on the campaign trail." In fact, in what was reported as the "first time" Gov. Sarah Palin raised Obama's connection to William Ayers, Palin actually cited the October 4, 2008, New York Times story to which Goldberg refers.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200901250009

vimothy
06-01-2012, 04:06 PM
Obviously, he's no longer a communist terrorist. But why is the standard of evidence that he must still be a communist terrorist? Imagine, say, that Obama once wrote dubious radicalist screeds in his community newsletter. He's no longer the sort of person, it was the spirit of the age, etc, etc.

padraig (u.s.)
06-01-2012, 05:35 PM
Paul is 'honourable' in the sense that...radically rejects an imperialist US military agenda that mostly serves the enrichment of powerful interest groups from the security industry and the military-industrial complex.

you know who else warned Americans about the dangers of the military-industrial complex? a guy named Dwight Eisenhower. he also, wisely, made a concerted effort to kept the U.S. out of Vietnam. but somehow I don't think he's on your list of honorable heroes (tho maybe he is I dunno).

as far as Paul, I reckon he's more personally honorable than most of the people he's running against, at least in his refusal to pander, tho the same could have been said of Huckabee or on the other side, Kucinich. not coincidentally, none of them were/are seen as serious contenders. not to completely deny personal conviction, but not having much at stake really frees you up to speak truth to power (whatever your personal version of that may be).

as far as specifics, the racist, or at least playing heavily on racial fears, thing is pretty concrete. a brief timeline (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsletter-timeline-What-Ron-Paul-has-said). here's a link to 50+ scans of old newsletters (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html) for anyone who wants to muck through them. my impression is that at best he knew about it + let it slide, at worst encouraged it, + at a certain point decided it was a bad idea, probably for pragmatic reasons in making the transition from fringe character to national figure. homophobia is a bit trickier, I reckon he isn't a fan of homosexuality personally but is not in the virulent, hateful Santorum sense. he kind of walks a fine line - the one all Republicans have to walk sooner or later - between appeasing insanely homophobic evangelicals + making a kind of "dislike the sin, but sinner has personal freedoms" Libertarian-ish argument. here's a clip from 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE) where he artfully dances around the pointed questions of a full-on Bible-quoting homosexuality is evil interviewer (warning: the interviewer says some truly reviling shit, so be prepared).

the other, much bigger problem w/Paul is, of course, that most of his other ideas aside from all the M-I complex/anti-imperialism (tho he's really into Israel) stuff are totally fucking nuts, unless you're really into Ayn Rand + Ludwig Von Mises. oh + he's super against abortion.

padraig (u.s.)
06-01-2012, 05:48 PM
He's no longer the sort of person, it was the spirit of the age, etc, etc.

for one, Paul's transgressions are much more recent - some of those newsletters were put out while he was actually in office as a Congressman - or in the case of his at best still dubious views on homosexuality, still ongoing. for another, for all that Paul/his people want to distance him, they're his own, under his auspice. whereas Obama never actually wrote anything (or had it ghostwritten for him). he knows a guy - not exactly well either - who wrote/did stuff that ended decades before Obama met him.

you know I'm hardly a champion of Obama, or the Democrats in general. I'm just saying you're making an absurd, untrue comparison in order to make a point that is already widely accepted in general terms. I do get a real kick out of you making "the NYT crowd" out to be some snide liberal cabal (which has a bit of truth in it I guess) tho.

crackerjack
06-01-2012, 06:07 PM
I reckon he isn't a fan of homosexuality personally but is not in the virulent, hateful Santorum sense. he kind of walks a fine line

http://www.anyclip.com/movies/bruno/ron-paul-interview/

;)

IdleRich
06-01-2012, 06:49 PM
I'm not sure that reflects badly on Ron Paul though. I reckon I would have felt a little uncomfortable in that situation too.

IdleRich
06-01-2012, 06:50 PM
Last time around people said that McCain was too old but he was four years younger than Paul is now.

vimothy
07-01-2012, 02:52 AM
I'm just saying you're making an absurd, untrue comparison in order to make a point that is already widely accepted in general terms.

Hahaha--fair enough, mate.

But isn't there an arbitrary quality to it? The world might have turned out very differently. The nudges and winks would be going in the opposite direction. And the New York Times would be writing about them.

Bangpuss
07-01-2012, 01:07 PM
It's ridiculous to compare Obama being on an education board with Will Ayers with Ron Paul putting racist newsletters out himself. It would only be a valid comparison if Obama was once a member of the Weathermen himself, as Paul appears to be a racist HIMSELF, not having once had meetings with one.

Bangpuss
07-01-2012, 04:57 PM
This guy satirised Rand Paul pretty well during his Senate campaign. NeanderPaul says, "Abolish all laws!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN-bjjxvo5I

IdleRich
11-01-2012, 12:27 PM
But he beat Huntsman into third in New Hampshire (behind Romney) - so where are we now? Surely Perry and then Newt will be next to fall out (Santorum wasn't competing).
So Romney is red-hot favourite to get the nomination now and Paul looks like being his closest rival despite zero interest from the GOP and its media. What are the chances of him standing as an independent?

lanugo
11-01-2012, 03:28 PM
But he beat Huntsman into third in New Hampshire (behind Romney) - so where are we now? Surely Perry and then Newt will be next to fall out (Santorum wasn't competing).
So Romney is red-hot favourite to get the nomination now and Paul looks like being his closest rival despite zero interest from the GOP and its media. What are the chances of him standing as an independent?

I think at this point his official sprachregelung is that he doesn't have any plans to disassociate himself from the Republicans but that, generally, he has a disliking of stating things categorically.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be a smart move to go independent; he'd bring his base of staunch supporters and a reasonably substantial share of disillusioned GOP and maybe even Dem voters on his side, but in the end he'd be lacking vital establishment support which, who knows, he might have gained against all odds if he had remained a Republican candidate. So, by running independently he'd only split the Republican voter base which would ultimately play into the hands of Obama.

The prospect of either Obama or one of the GOP establishment candidates becoming president is truly dreadful. Given Obama's record though, I honestly don't know if US foreign policy would really become that much more hawkish under a Republican president - there's hardly any room for that.

For all I know, the social engineers behind the scenes may consider a "democratic" or "liberal" face to a continued US war agenda beneficial in terms of perception management of public opinion. People are still outraged about the war-mongering of the Bush years, but tend to ignore that the Obama administration has proven to be equally or even more belligerent.

Leo
11-01-2012, 07:14 PM
I think at this point his official sprachregelung is that he doesn't have any plans to disassociate himself from the Republicans but that, generally, he has a disliking of stating things categorically.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be a smart move to go independent; he'd bring his base of staunch supporters and a reasonably substantial share of disillusioned GOP and maybe even Dem voters on his side, but in the end he'd be lacking vital establishment support which, who knows, he might have gained against all odds if he had remained a Republican candidate. So, by running independently he'd only split the Republican voter base which would ultimately play into the hands of Obama.

The prospect of either Obama or one of the GOP establishment candidates becoming president is truly dreadful. Given Obama's record though, I honestly don't know if US foreign policy would really become that much more hawkish under a Republican president - there's hardly any room for that.

For all I know, the social engineers behind the scenes may consider a "democratic" or "liberal" face to a continued US war agenda beneficial in terms of perception management of public opinion. People are still outraged about the war-mongering of the Bush years, but tend to ignore that the Obama administration has proven to be equally or even more belligerent.

umm, actually...oh never mind.

lanugo
11-01-2012, 09:55 PM
umm, actually...oh never mind.

Run out of NYT-sponsored commonplaces and platitutes that redeem your darling Obama as some kind of authentic political hero, huh?

You brought up a couple of points in order to back up your claim that there are significant differences in the foreign and security policy between the Neo-Cons and Obama, and I responded to them.

Now why won't you engage with the issues that I have raised?

Specifically, in what way do you perceive the military campaign against Libya to be different from the wars of aggression that took place under Bush? Do you believe the intervention to have been genuinely guided by humanitarian motives?

What is your opinion about the curtailment and violation of civil rights and liberties actively pursued by the Obama administration, namely targeted assassinations of US citizens and legislation such as the NDAA that is an even greater step toward an authoritarian police state than the Patriot Act?

What do you say about the collateral damage rate of the drone warfare drastically expanded under Obama, which according to official figures costs about 30 non-combatants' lives in every strike? Is that justifiable?

And lastly, what about the sanctions against Iran imposed by Obama that under international law constitute an act of war? Do you believe the hype about the alleged secret Iranian nuclear weapons programme? Are we to believe the reports in this matter brought forth by the same intelligence services that manufactured false evidence of WMD's in Iraq?

luka
11-01-2012, 10:23 PM
For all I know, the social engineers behind the scenes may consider a "democratic" or "liberal" face to a continued US war agenda beneficial in terms of perception management of public opinion.

this is david harveys (marxist geographer) opinion.

Leo
11-01-2012, 10:43 PM
i've just given up on arguing with people who make wildly sweeping, borderline (or not) conspiracy theory generalizations, don't genuinely consider alternate opinions, come off as if anyone with another view is a naive sucker, and do it all with a snide tone. but everyone's entitled to their own opinion, so by all means have at it.

lanugo
11-01-2012, 11:38 PM
Alternate opinions? So far you haven't even formulated an opinion of your own on our point of contention. All you've done is listing a couple of recent news items that you seem to take at face value to mean that foreign policy under Obama was somehow less interventionist and militaristic. Then you simply denounce my attempts to actually interpret and incorporate these facts into a broader geopolitical context as "wildly sweeping, borderline (or not) conspiracy theory generalizations" - which, quite frankly, is probably the cheapest excuse of all to dodge a discussion and avoid having to make up your mind on your own.

Unless you actually make the effort to address and try to plausibly refute the issues I've raised your silence can only mean that either out of laziness or igorance or denial you choose to outright dismiss any position outside of Timesspeak official political discourse and label them in derogatory terms so as to be able to return to a closed-off bubble where preconceived and unquestioned mass media catchphrases define reality.

trza
12-01-2012, 03:58 AM
Obama's foreign policy and security decisions are based more on "positioning" for the general election. Along with handling the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are the highest issue-based poll numbers he has. He has positioned himself near the center of public opinion, whether his liberal supporters like it or not.

Team Romney had been planning to make confrontation with Iran the centerpiece of its foreign policy argument. It was his first point in Romney's post-caucus speech, aimed at both Ron Paul and Obama. His campaign was the first to blast out an angry press release when Obama announced the final withdrawal of troops from Iraq (a popular decision). Romney's stump speech includes numerous references to a "strong military" and plans to build huge numbers of new naval ships. His "positioning" isn't in the high popularity area on this.

lanugo
12-01-2012, 05:12 AM
Feeling more than a little embarrassed, I hereby recant my endorsement of Ron Paul.

My brother nudged me toward this truly astonishing blog called The Secret Sun (http://secretsun.blogspot.com/) and reading the two recent articles on Ron Paul (here (http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2012/01/clownshow2012-brother-ron-and-all.html) and here (http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2012/01/ron-paul-race-ritual-and-scottish-rite.html)) has been as much of a epiphany to me as one could possibly have sitting in front of a computer screen.

But let me quote some especially enlightening passages from the first of the two articles titled Ron Paul: Race, Ritual and the Scottish Rite:


Well, the Clownshow's back in town and from the looks of things it going to be clownier than ever before. We have a Wall Street underling in the White House who is attacked regularly by his opposition party as a "socialist," even though intelligent (read: non-racist) conservatives acknowledge he's governing as a classic Rockefeller Republican (with all that implies for parapolitics watchers, I might add).

[...]

Paul's mystique is built on being the supposed champion of the Silent Majority and coming in a weak third to the two of the lamest candidates in living memory-- and in a caucus where Independents and Democrats could register as Republicans and vote-- doesn't exactly bolster that image.

[...]

Even so, I'm not going to try to argue with Paul's Deadheads anymore. Why? Because I now understand the very sophisticated coded messages he's sending out there (more than they do, perhaps) and I think I better understand the powerful emotional response they instill now.

I was actually hoping he'd win so he could do maximum damage to the duopoly and expose the Clownshow for what it really is. Maybe he still will, but I feel a corner has turned. The soda's lost its fizz.

For all his talk of reason, Paul is hitting a bruised and disoriented Middle America -- particularly the white working class-- with a powerful, symbolically-charged emotional stew promising a return to antebellum Southern folkways and an America better described in the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution.

I certainly understand why this is so seductive in these days of Globalism and multiculturalism, even if I don't agree with it. But the fact remains that he's sending a different coded message to his fellow initiates.


Even so, with the fanatical support Paul has in the White Nationalist community the question has been raised if Paul himself is racist. I think this is the wrong question. What people are really asking if Paul himself is a bigot or a hater. I don't think he is.

I think Paul sees himself in a long tradition of paternalist Southern conservatives who understand the way the world really works, son, and think everything will return to its idyllic, antebellum state once that pesky, outside-agitatin' Federal Government with its sissy talk about "civil rights" is done away with for good.

In this, Paul falls smack dab into the old/new (Masonic) hierarchy of the South, which believes passionately in natural orders, natural laws and especially, natural hierarchies. Unfortunately, working class whites don't figure much higher than blacks in this natural order.

But of course the Masons-- Scottish Rite Masons, to be precise-- were at the top of the plantation Pyramid.

What Northern liberals never understood is that the Masonic Dixiecrats (who enriched themselves with New Deal millions and then turned around and shattered the New Deal coalition) were not drooling, foaming, bloviating racists as you might see in a Hollywood movie.

What they really hated were do-gooders and busybody outsiders who don't understand "the natural order of things."

Scottish Rite Freemasons like Albert Pike, Strom Thurmond (who kept a black lover who bore his child), Jesse Helms and Trent Lott invented the language of "state's rights" and "limited government" that Paul peddles everywhere he goes. Northerners might be totally baffled by this language but it strikes a deep and powerful chord for a lot of conservative Southerners (and now Tea Party rightists everywhere).

If this spiked your interest, read the full post and have your mind blown by the freakier, mind-boggling bits on Paul's Masonic connections and the ritualistic meaning of the specifics of his campaign trail.

This site is far-out fringe and yet it feels absolutely genuine and truthful compared to the slick and sanitised consensus media reality. Who'd have guessed how deep the rabbit hole goes...

padraig (u.s.)
12-01-2012, 07:08 AM
What are the chances of him standing as an independent?

not good, moreso for the GOP than for him, given that he can't expect to actually win. it is the worst nightmare of GOP policymakers I reckon. 3rd party/indie candidates only accomplish two things here. one obviously is splitting the vote of whichever major party they've broken off from (Nader, Perot, George Wallace*). the other, less hyped but maybe more important, is to change the tenor of the campaign + shift it closer to their own views, in the way that more radical views always shift the center of a debate. i.e. having a Wallace made it easier for Nixon to play on white racial fears while simultaneously denouncing extremism, a tactic many GOP campaigns of the last 40 years have since borrowed. smart guys like Paul - whatever else he is, he's a sharp guy, much sharper than any other GOP runner except maybe Newt - are fully aware of this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he sees this run as essentially a strategic move to both further libertarian views in the GOP (+ American) mainstream + to possibly set up his son, who unlike him is young enough to be a viable candidate, for a legitimate run in the future. if it wasn't Ron Paul we were talking about I would say he was also gunning for a cabinet spot in a Republican admin. tho can you imagine the hilarity of him replacing, say, Tim Geithner?

either way tho I reckon there will be some kind of eventual reconciliation - or at least understanding - between Paul + GOP leadership, circle-the-wagons to beat Obama. the question is how much of Romney's blood will have been spilled by that point (tho more by Newt + Santorum than Paul). cos Obama + his people, unlike most liberals, are sharks + if they catch a scent of blood they'll be all over it. put it this way: this campaign ain't going to feature much will.i.am + Scarjo singing Yes We Can.

*tho he was a really weird case for a bunch of reasons

padraig (u.s.)
12-01-2012, 07:41 AM
I hereby recant my endorsement of Ron Paul.

it is hilarious but also absolutely fitting that the reason you're disavowing Ron Paul is his Masonic connections rather than any of his actual politics.

tho, that said the blog you linked is absolutely great. a lot of the politics stuff is surprisingly on-point (like the bit about Obama being, or at least governing as essentially an old-school Rockefeller liberal Republican) + I reckon the whole Masonic/NWO/esoteric is more than a bit tongue-in-cheek I reckon, or rather in the sense that say Alan Moore would talk about that stuff. but more importantly anything that has separate categories devoted to Killing Joke + the X-Files (there is in fact a recent highly entertaining post on the relation of the X-Files to the current GOP primary) has my vote. not to mention the rest of it. Masonic Manhattan!

so thanks for that.

IdleRich
16-01-2012, 08:52 AM
Huntsman out now. That was a bit of a damp squib.

Bangpuss
16-01-2012, 03:41 PM
I don't understand why the candidates whose sole candidacy was mostly to throw themselves in the way of a Romney nomination endorse him as soon as they drop out. It's not as though they believe there's a potential job in a 'Romney administration' on the line. Or maybe they are as deluded as they show themselves to be, and they really think, a) Romney can win. And b) Their endorsement counts for anything when it comes to getting out the vote against Obama. I mean, the few people who actively support the likes of Gingrich and Perry will vote for anyone who isn't Obama anyway, regardless of whom their man endorses. I mean, when you think about a guy like Huntsman, he should have endorsed Obama. He was appointed by him as Chinese ambassador and appears to be in favour of more of Obama's policies than Romney's.

Since the remaining candidates are all careerist party hacks, I wouldn't be surprised if even Gingrich goes on to endorse Romney when his campaign finally wheezes out.

I suppose it just shows that all the hot air during their campaigns, where they vehemently disagree with each other, is just a big fake performance. They actually agree with about 90% of each other's policies -- like Obama and Hillary Clinton did -- but want to make it appear that voters have more of a choice than they do.

padraig (u.s.)
17-01-2012, 06:33 AM
I don't understand why the candidates whose sole candidacy was mostly to throw themselves in the way of a Romney nomination endorse him as soon as they drop out

first a lot of the bad blood is just grandstanding. that's how primaries (+ elections) work here, where you're voting for a person, not just for a party.

everyone wants to beat Obama so badly that ultimately they'll grin and bear it when it comes to endorsing a man most of them personally despise for good reason. there's also their own political position after the primary. if Huntsman endorsed OB he could forget about ever winning any major office, especially the presidency, as a Republican. and he sure ain't gonna win anything as a Democrat. Joe Lieberman in 2008 was old + didn't really care what bridges he burned (he's retiring next year at the end of his fourth Senate term). it also depends on their motivations for running in the first place. I doubt that Newt, for example, ever expected to win or even seriously contend past the initial stages. otoh running is a great way to revitalize your career as an author/talking head. Mike Huckabee got a show on Fox out of 2008. Sarah Palin got her entire raison d'etre out of it. Newt is also nearly 70, he's not worrying about 2016.

padraig (u.s.)
17-01-2012, 06:38 AM
here's an article in this week's NYT magazine about how divided South Carolina Tea Party types are (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/magazine/tea-party-south-carolina.html?pagewanted=all) over who they should back to oppose Romney, or if they should even back anyone at all. as well as some nice tidbits about how the GOP establishment is co-opting Tea Party activists to its own ends.

luka
17-01-2012, 06:44 AM
Gingrich to Juan Williams: 'I Know Among the Politically Correct You Are Not Supposed to Use Facts That Are Uncomfortable'

By Noel Sheppard | January 17, 2012 | 00:34
Change font size: A | A
Noel Sheppard's picture

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich had a rather testy exchange with Fox News's Juan Williams during Monday's debate in South Carolina.

After Williams accused the former Speaker of the House of being racially insensitive when referring to Barack Obama as "The Food Stamp President," Gingrich said, "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. Now, I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS: Speaker Gingrich, the suggestion you made was about a lack of work ethic, and I gotta tell you my email account, my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races, who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities. You saw some of this reaction during your visit to a black church in South Carolina.

[Audience boos]

We saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as The Food Stamp President. It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.

[Audience boos]

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. Now, I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.

[Audience applause]

Second, you are the one who earlier raised a key point. There's a, the area on I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven't built the road, they haven't helped the people, they haven't done anything.

[Audience applause]

So, one last thing. So here's my point. I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn some day to own the job.

[Audience applause]
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Despite his likely respect for his former Fox colleague, it was nice to see Gingrich do this.

As NewsBusters has been reporting for months the media are going to constantly bring race into the discussion to assist Obama's reelection.

The folks on MSNBC immediately following this debate basically said all the contestants lost because of racism.

As this is going to be a consistent media theme the next ten months, it is incumbent upon on the candidates to smack this blatant dishonesty down whenever it surfaces.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/17/gingrich-juan-williams-i-know-among-politically-correct-you-are-not-s#ixzz1jhBBsye4

luka
17-01-2012, 06:46 AM
Ha Ha..

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:11am.

Why even on FOX do they present the most liberal scumbag moderators they have for these 'debates'? Obama sits there with no challenge. GOP stop kicking your own asses. The Dumbocrats dont do that. What is wrong with you dipshits.?
Peace at any price.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur9RU

Why bureaucracy will likely destroy America... http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira50.html

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/17/gingrich-juan-williams-i-know-among-politically-correct-you-are-not-s#ixzz1jhBaVyfL

Bangpuss
17-01-2012, 05:05 PM
Thanks for that article, Padraig. I'd like to hear what Romney supporters like about their man, and if there are any such people who aren't also connected to large corporations. It's as though his electoral campaign, much like the Conservatives and Labour in the past, is to present himself as the only viable alternative to the status quo. If you say it enough, and if you get enough other people in the media to say it, people start to say to themselves, "Mitt Romney is the only solution we have to a second Obama term."

Of course, there are much better candidates, even in the Republican party. But they haven't been able to portray themselves as capable of winning an election. Much like the Liberal Democrats, I suppose, who suffer from tactical voting.

Leo
17-01-2012, 05:20 PM
some people support romney because they like the idea of a successful businessperson, and believe he can create jobs based on his business experience (even though bain often slashed workforces once they bought a company). he also hasn't expressed some of the far-right views on social issues that repel moderate/independent voters. and let's face it, he looks the part: a politician straight out of central casting.

padraig (u.s.)
17-01-2012, 06:17 PM
it really just boils down to him being the only GOP candidate (aside from Huntsman, who is Romney Lite minus the funding or organization) with a realistic chance of beating Obama in the general election. everything else is just syrup to make the bitter medicine of that fact go down easier. all his "strengths" are also weaknesses in some way or other. his successful businessman image is undercut by the even stronger image of him as a completely out of touch millionaire. it also screams Establishment, like everything else about him. his previous record on social issues (+ health care) alienates him from swathes of the GOP base but his current pandering to that same base doesn't win him many new supporters b/c everyone knows he'll just turn around and say the opposite to run against Obama. say what you will about Gingrich or Santorum - the former a bombastic hypocrite, the latter a deranged bigot - both of those guys have some actual principles, however much I personally disagree with them. Mitt has absolutely no principles aside from the principle of getting Mitt elected. he's like a wax statue of a politician brought to life by a focus committee of Republican Geppettos.

or in other words there is no proactive Romney case. just a least terrible option case.

vimothy
18-01-2012, 05:23 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/15/sunday-review/15SIEGEL/15SIEGEL-blog480.jpg

Leo
19-01-2012, 01:55 PM
turns out romney didn't win in iowa after all, a recount has santorum up by 34 votes. the republican establishment now calling it a "split decision", i'm sure that will get some tea party knickers in a twist.

and then there's this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gingrich-id-like-palin-in-my-administration-111341.html

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Newt Gingrich described Sarah Palin's comments about how she would vote for him if she lived in South Carolina as an "endorsement," and said he'd ask her to join a Gingrich administration:

"Gov. Palin is somebody who I think was a very good reform governor. She was extraordinarily effective negotiating with big oil. She did a good job in the state of Alaska. I think she’s a very articulate leader of the tea party conservative movement. I was honored and delighted last night when she said if she were in South Carolina, she’d vote for Newt Gingrich. I hope everybody who likes her decides she’s right. And I hope they vote for me.

"Certainly, she’s one of the people I’d call on for advice. I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I’m president, but nothing has been discussed of any kind. And it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss it at this time.

"I’m just delighted that she and Todd have been both of them so supportive of my candidacy. And they recognize that, you know, I’m a tea party Reform conservative. I’m not part of the Washington establishment. And I think that’s the signal that her endorsement last night really sends."

IdleRich
19-01-2012, 02:12 PM
But she didn't endorse him did she? She just said that if she were in South Carolina she would vote for him to ensure that the selection process went on longer and gave everyone a better chance to evaluate all the candidates. Plus he's obviously using "articulate" to mean something different from what I thought it meant.

Bangpuss
19-01-2012, 02:27 PM
Over on Rick Santorum's website (http://www.ricksantorum.com) -- his official candidate page, not this one (http://www.santorum.com) -- the race for the GOP nomination takes another tasteful turn. Rick is proposing a MONEYBOMB to propel him to the nomination, like a wad of semen spurting towards a hairy arse hole.

Interestingly, one of the perks of donating more than $100 to the only gay candidate in the Republican race (who of us hasn't already?) is that you get a free sweater vest. This part of his website is called Rock the Vest, and explains the vest's qualities: "Perfect for demonstrating solidarity with true conservatives, this vest is a great way to show your support for Rick."

May the vest man win!

Leo
19-01-2012, 02:44 PM
latest news is rick perry drops out today and endorses newt, which is a bummer for santorum.

i almost feel sorry for the guy: romney originally finishes 8 votes ahead in iowa and is declared the winner, yet when the recount shows santorum up by 34, they call it a split decision. apparently there are districts where votes were lost permanently, doesn't bode well for iowa's image as a bellwether for primary candidates when they can't get an accurate vote count or declare an actual primary winner.

IdleRich
19-01-2012, 02:50 PM
But if it's that close then doesn't each candidate get the same number of representatives? So it doesn't really matter - although admittedly it doesn't look very good.

Bangpuss
19-01-2012, 03:10 PM
A caucus isn't even a proper election, so it certainly doesn't bode well for the real thing in November. But the gerrymandering that has taken place in recent years, with Republicans enacting laws at state level to make it harder for minorities to vote, means if the election is close, we're looking at another Bush vs. Gore scenario. But I don't think Romney, or anyone else, will get close enough to Obama for it to matter too much.

Leo
19-01-2012, 03:18 PM
yeah, it's not an actual primary, but it (along with new hampshire) has historically acted as the big PR springboard for a frontrunner and set the tone for the early stages of the campaigns.

i'll miss rick perry's missteps and corndog photos, now he can go back to texas and declare war on turkey.

lanugo
19-01-2012, 04:30 PM
God, you guys discussing all this primary race gossip in good earnest is more ridiculous than people talking endlessly about their favourite reality TV show.

trza
19-01-2012, 04:31 PM
I was at the State Fair when Rick Perry got his Corn Dog on. I thought he had it all figured out. I read the whole issue of Texas Monthly with his image drawn in a Superman outfit, with his history of being handpicked from dozens of conservative Texas Democrats by Karl Rove over twenty years ago. He had avoided debates for his entire career, never losing an election while barely bothering to campaign. His advisers were Rove proteges and he was the only guy with the fundraising ability to match Mitt Romney in this cycle. Six months after his initial rollout, they all look incompetent.

IdleRich
19-01-2012, 05:02 PM
"God, you guys discussing all this primary race gossip in good earnest is more ridiculous than people talking endlessly about their favourite reality TV show."
Well it's kind of a soap opera and it's fun and... basically you're an irritating prick.

Leo
19-01-2012, 07:49 PM
and here's the latest episode of the soap opera...newt the mack daddy, who woulda guessed? try not to envision it, might put you off dinner.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-wife/story?id=15392899#.TxhzLJiXPFJ

lanugo
20-01-2012, 12:06 AM
Well it's kind of a soap opera and it's fun and... basically you're an irritating prick.

Why anyone would find this grotesque spectacle of fakeness anything but mind and soul raping is beyond me.

Point out the outrageousness of politics degenerating into entertainment and people become angry with you for spoiling their oh so ironic and refined ways of finding pleasure in the absurd.

Infinite Jest, anyone?

Leo
20-01-2012, 02:46 AM
Why anyone would find this grotesque spectacle of fakeness anything but mind and soul raping is beyond me.

Point out the outrageousness of politics degenerating into entertainment and people become angry with you for spoiling their oh so ironic and refined ways of finding pleasure in the absurd.

Infinite Jest, anyone?

what's "ironic" about the above conversation? a group of politicians contending to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world have spent the past few months saying and doing some very ridiculous things, i think that's worth discussing and mocking as needed.

also, i doubt anyone is "angry" at you. occasionally annoyed, perhaps, since your tone is often one of pretentious superiority, but not angry. just lighten up a little.

Bangpuss
20-01-2012, 01:29 PM
If you haven't already seen it, this week's Daily Show Global Edition on 4OD is fantastic on the subject of the primaries.

Bangpuss
20-01-2012, 01:47 PM
Also, Stewart made the point to Napolitano that we have often pondered: Why is state government inherently less tyrannical than federal government? And Napolitano gave a pretty good answer: Well, he said, the states would still have to adhere to the Bill of Rights. And there would still be federal courts. So Alabama could not roll back civil rights legislation because it would get struck down in the federal courts.

IdleRich
20-01-2012, 01:56 PM
But isn't that just a reason why it's not worse rather than a reason why it's better?
And it still sidesteps the idea that the person who climbs higher up the pole is presumably better than the person who doesn't manage to get higher than state level.

Bangpuss
20-01-2012, 02:10 PM
I agree with your argument mostly (since it's one that I often make). But I don't agree that higher levels of government always work better than local govs. Is the EU, for example, a preferable form of government than national governments? Would you sooner our healthcare be run by the EU? And is Peter Mandelson a favourable politician than someone like Tom Watson or Dennis skinner, simply because he climbed the greasy pole to become an EU commissioner?

There is a valid argument that the outer layers of government are furthest removed from the people they represent, and are more prone to cronyism and special interests hijacking the decision-making process.

Mr. Tea
20-01-2012, 02:17 PM
But I don't agree that higher levels of government always work better than local govs. Is the EU, for example, a preferable form of government than national governments?

Not sure that comparison is really valid - the EU makes no pretence to being a country, does it? Yes, it makes laws that its members (at least notionally) have to conform to, but the individual sovereignty of member states is respected.

IdleRich
20-01-2012, 02:17 PM
Yes but I don't declare that the EU is the greatest country in the world, that anything that doesn't fit with my views is Un-EU etc etc What I'm asking about is the contradiction between loving the US as a whole but not wanting it be governed as a whole.
Of course I don't really think that the higher you climb in politics the more talented you are - but that is the theory I suppose.

IdleRich
20-01-2012, 02:19 PM
Plus Mandelson isn't comparable to Obama cos he's not been elected.

Bangpuss
20-01-2012, 02:27 PM
But part of the US being the 'greatest country on earth' is the notion that it's a federal state. Part of the appeal is that states have a level of autonomy to decide their own affairs, but are protected by the umbrella of the federal government mostly for national security reasons. The reason Ron Paul votes 'no' to 99% of bills in congress is that he believes the Constitution -- and when you read it, he's right -- only gives a few explicit powers to the federal government. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that the US should still be governed by a bunch of guys' ideas codified in a document written in 1776, when they still had slavery and abortion didn't exist.

Bangpuss
20-01-2012, 02:46 PM
Great debate about this with Jon Stewart and Jim DeMint (R - South Carolina) http://www.putlocker.com/file/B7AAB16D6AC8437A#

Leo
20-01-2012, 03:18 PM
Great debate about this with Jon Stewart and Jim DeMint (R - South Carolina) http://www.putlocker.com/file/B7AAB16D6AC8437A#

all of jon stewart's extended/unedited interviews (which are always his best ones) are available to stream on the daily show website (http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews) i watched the demint interviews yesterday (all three segments run about a half-hour), good discussion but demint still doesn't acknowledge and address some pretty obvious points made by stewart.

the joe norcera interview is also good, about the economy/wall street/banks, etc. not bad for a guy who writes for such a universally discredited, biased rag. ;)

IdleRich
20-01-2012, 03:56 PM
To what extent is the constitution studied at schools in the US? In other words, how well does the average American know the constitution and what it really says? Also, to what extent are there disagreements about the meaning of important points in the document?
Is there a good website that summarises and interprets the constitution and its amendmentts?
How does one get an amendment?

Leo
20-01-2012, 05:04 PM
To what extent is the constitution studied at schools in the US? In other words, how well does the average American know the constitution and what it really says? Also, to what extent are there disagreements about the meaning of important points in the document?
Is there a good website that summarises and interprets the constitution and its amendmentts?
How does one get an amendment?

based on my experience, you might get into some detail about the constitution if you take political science courses in high school (and certainly, college) but the basic US history courses in grade school (ages 7-14 or so) give a very cursory overview, it's just one element in the entire landscape of american history. on average, i think americans have a very vague understanding of the constitution, some know more and many know nothing.

the rise of the tea party increased discussion about it, their view often being that any law, bill or judicial decision be specifically tied to the original intent of constitution. the far-right often portrays their efforts as a quest to preserve the constitution (expressed in language like "take back america", "return the countries to its traditional values", the good ol' days, etc.) and tries to position liberals as "progressives" who want to change things and break from original intent. but those discussions are still among the vast minority of citizens.

padraig (u.s.)
20-01-2012, 05:12 PM
But part of the US being the 'greatest country on earth' is the notion that it's a federal state. Part of the appeal is that states have a level of autonomy to decide their own affairs, but are protected by the umbrella of the federal government mostly for national security reasons. The reason Ron Paul votes 'no' to 99% of bills in congress is that he believes the Constitution -- and when you read it, he's right -- only gives a few explicit powers to the federal government.

that's pretty spot on. the Constitution not only gives the federal govt few powers (the "enumerated powers"), it also reserves all powers not explicitly given to the federal govt for the states. further, some of the enumerated powers - like those dealing with taxation + trade regulation - are pretty murky, which has provided the Supremes with much fodder over the last 2+ centuries. even in 1776 with a much smaller population/area to govern it was inadequate. in 1819 there was a big SC ruling (McCulloch v. Maryland) that gave the federal govt the right to pass laws beyond the original enumerated powers so long as those laws were meant only to advance those powers in ways that could implied from the Constitution, hence "implied powers", which unsurprisingly this has been a source of great, ongoing contention. clashes between central + local authority are at the heart of American history. the conservative resurgence of the last 30 years has largely been about rolling back the massive expansion of federal power under the New Deal + LBJ's Great Society.

more to Rich's point, I don't think the argument is so much for states as it is against powerful central authority. maybe there's a belief that local govt is more accountable, but when most conservatives or libertarians say smaller govt they mean smaller at all levels. at the most basic level many, if not all, Americans just believe strongly in the individual, the free market, all that, in a way that most Europeans don't, like it makes sense to most people in a Euro social democracy to pay higher taxes in return for free or at least subsidized health care, higher education, welfare, etc. I realize that may not be as true now as austerity kicks in everywhere but really it's still a basic philosophical difference of view.

and as far as the disconnect between "greatest country on Earth" and "i hate the government" you have to understand that the United States and the government of the United States are not the same thing to most people. you know, like how the loyalty of the Praetorian Guard was to the throne itself rather than whoever happened to be sitting on it at the time.

IdleRich
20-01-2012, 05:18 PM
But I just don't really see how the greatest country on earth can really be a country if your movements around it are restricted by the fact that your normal behaviour at home can make you a criminal elsewhere.

padraig (u.s.)
20-01-2012, 05:57 PM
To what extent is the constitution studied at schools in the US? In other words, how well does the average American know the constitution and what it really says? Also, to what extent are there disagreements about the meaning of important points in the document?
Is there a good website that summarises and interprets the constitution and its amendmentts?
How does one get an amendment?

most Americans are shockingly ill-informed about both their own history and pretty much everything having to do w/how their country is run, up to + including the Constitution. + yes, before someone says it, most Americans are shockingly ill-informed about nearly everything in general, it's just more embarrassing when it's in relation to the place they're citizens of. what Leo says w/r/t schooling is pretty accurate. high school generally covers the basics but you don't get into it on any serious level unless you go to college + elect to take a PoliSci course or two once there.

there have always been serious disagreements about interpreting the Constitution. parts of it - like I mentioned above - are just really ambiguous. that's actually seen as one of its strengths in ways but it's a double edged sword. strict Constructionism - by no means a fringe view as its held by multiple SC judges - is the equivalent of people who interpret the Bible word for word. tho really there's no such thing as a 100% pure strict Constructionist, in the way that there's no such thing as a pure Dogme filmmaker.

amendments are really, really hard to get passed. the method for doing so is both difficult + circuitous. this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Procedure) describes it well.

as far as websites I mean, it's all on Wiki. just going off google, here's something on the enumerated powers (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/congpowers.htm). I would just google + look into university sites, PoliSci depts, law schools probably have stuff, etc. also I would be happy to take a crack at answering any specific questions. not that I'm an expert or anything but I have taken a couple of those college-level courses and I think I at least halfway know what I'm talking about.

padraig (u.s.)
20-01-2012, 06:21 PM
But I just don't really see how the greatest country on earth can really be a country if your movements around it are restricted by the fact that your normal behaviour at home can make you a criminal elsewhere.

first let's be totally clear that "greatest country on earth" etc is not my personal view. I dunno if you remember my politics at all, but they certainly ain't that. I'm just trying to explain a point of view held by a lot of people.

as far as your point, that's the whole thing of it being a federation of individual states. think of it like the UK where Scotland, Wales + N. Ireland all have their own govts but also send MPs to the English Parliament. except that the states aren't (far-right rhetoric aside) subjects of Washington like the other UK members are of England. or maybe a better analogy is to the semi-autonomous regions of Spain and their relation to the national government. except, you know, minus the figurehead monarchy.

IdleRich
20-01-2012, 06:57 PM
Yeah, sure, that was a Tea Party phrase which I was contrasting with the Tea Party rhetoric towards big (or indeed any) government. Wasn't implying that was your politics at all.
Cheers for the info, gotta rush now but I'll read all that stuff about amendments when I get a sec - though intuitively it makes sense that it should be fairly hard to amend the constitution.

IdleRich
22-01-2012, 12:18 PM
All wide open again now I guess...

padraig (u.s.)
22-01-2012, 01:21 PM
yeah the angry little attack muffin unravels the mitten, he really came on strong over the last week. it's not quite a disaster for Romney tho. he was always going to struggle in a southern Tea Party stronghold. he'll have to win at least a couple of those kind of states to get the nomination of course. I dunno about wide open but Newt's solidly in it. Florida will be huge, obviously. I predict at least one serious gaffe (if only Perry was still around) as everyone tries to navigate the minefield of talking tough on "illegals" without completely alienating the Latino vote for November. Marco Rubio is supposed to be the magic cure-all there but potential running mates might not want to count on that (www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2012/01/ken-auletta-republicans-and-immigration.html). still think it'll be Romney in the end, no matter how much everyone dislikes him. Newt's capacity for self-destruction is nearly limitless. just when it seems like he's on top of the world he finds a way to implode in dramatic fashion.

Leo
22-01-2012, 04:50 PM
wonder if marco rubio will come out with a big mitt endorsement. that really blew up in the face of south carolina first-term tea party governor nikki haley, and now she's suffering the negative backlash for not having any influence on the results. will rubio take that chance? he could come out looking like either a hero or a lightweight, risky.

i still really can't imagine it being anyone but mitt, but the guy just can't seem to nail it down. popular indiana GOP governor mitch daniels has been selected to do the republican rebuttal to obama's state of the union address on tuesday, that's a high-visibility role that is often used to launch politicians nationally. daniels has already turned down the offer to run but maybe he's reconsidering. he's conservative and smart but not a far-right wingnut who turns off moderate/independent voters, would be a very tough opponent for obama. but maybe he (and christie, and jeb bush, etc.) are just waiting for 2016.

Sectionfive
22-01-2012, 10:37 PM
Not sure that comparison is really valid - the EU makes no pretence to being a country, does it? Yes, it makes laws that its members (at least notionally) have to conform to, but the individual sovereignty of member states is respected.

Only up to a point

vimothy
22-01-2012, 11:51 PM
Not sure that comparison is really valid - the EU makes no pretence to being a country, does it? Yes, it makes laws that its members (at least notionally) have to conform to, but the individual sovereignty of member states is respected.

Either the EU makes laws that its member states abide by, or it does not. If not, then it's clear that EU member states don't surrender any sovereignty to it. If so, then what does it mean to say that individual sovereignty is respected?

padraig (u.s.)
23-01-2012, 01:05 AM
don't think Rubio will come out w/endorsement any time soon, especially not before the FL primary. why would he? no reason to alienate potential running mates. also, lack of track record is actually big part of his allure, same as Obama or JFK as young senators. jumping into vicious primary bloodletting can only tarnish image. best to remain aloof. also as Senator less pressure on him than on a governor like Haley to come up w/timely endorsement.

as far as new GOP guys jumping in, no way, not for 2012. but jockeying for 2016 or 2020, hell yeah. Daniels is getting a bit long in tooth - he's 62 now - but Huntsman, Rubio, Christie, Jindal, Rand Paul (don't laugh), etc. long way off, of course. speaking of VP, it's a job that sucks, I dunno why any rising young star would take it.

Esp
23-01-2012, 01:17 AM
i still really can't imagine it being anyone but mitt, but the guy just can't seem to nail it down. popular indiana GOP governor mitch daniels has been selected to do the republican rebuttal to obama's state of the union address on tuesday, that's a high-visibility role that is often used to launch politicians nationally. daniels has already turned down the offer to run but maybe he's reconsidering. he's conservative and smart but not a far-right wingnut who turns off moderate/independent voters, would be a very tough opponent for obama. but maybe he (and christie, and jeb bush, etc.) are just waiting for 2016.

It would seem a fairly astute move to me for Daniels or Christie to enter now. Romney is flailing and Gingrich surely wouldnt survive the hammering he'd get once the DNC got going on him. The spin for the new candidate would be all about 'coming to the rescue' and the excuses would be easy to make if it didnt work. The media would be keen, not least because of the added drama, and so would probably amp the new candidate up as 'the real deal', if the new candidate was nominated and then lost to Obama, they would still potentially set themselves up as de facto nominee for the next election. Daniels and Christie are probably waiting till 2016 but the way things are going, a punt at this race seems as good a possibility as going up against a potentially stronger Republican line up next time round.

I thought Michael Bloomberg might get in the race as an independent, that would've made it really interesting. Hopefully Obama should win though if the Republicans carry on as they are.

padraig (u.s.)
23-01-2012, 01:58 AM
also was thinking about that dude upthread talking about reality TV + whatever. which on the surface of it, well no shit what an obvious point that everyone - including any candidate or political operator who's not an idiot - has been fully aware for a long time (since the beginning of politics as a thing, really). but more to the point, observing the whole circus with the detachment that comes from having less than zero faith in any of it, it's all very imminent critique, in a Gulf War Did Not Take Place kind of way. I mean it always has, just when I was younger I was so far outside the sectors of society that actually pay attention to + consume all this shit that I never thought about it. unfortunately I don't have the academic background to be able to really articulate this very well. that guy above also mentioned Infinite Jest, go read DFW's essay on going to the AVN awards if you dunno what I'm taking about it. the, like, terrifying real unreality of it. you know smart pop music critics were always taking about millennial pressure in the late 90s, or now it's the fear or whatever iteration of directionless amorphous existential dread + the outpouring of that which presidential races summon up from the depths. 2008 was horrible for that. anyway I'm a subpar luka over here.

so long as it's clear people think about these things on more than just a functional level, however reluctantly.

padraig (u.s.)
23-01-2012, 02:20 AM
It would seem a fairly astute move to me

no offense bro but it's almost literally impossible by this point. these guys have not only missed the actual primaries (or caucuses) of 3 states, they also would have had to register in many states months ago to be included on those states' ballots in upcoming primaries. which involves paying fees, getting petitions signed, etc. even if they could get onto ballots, where would their funding come from? what about the extensive organization required to actually carry out a campaign? it takes a long time + a helluva lot of $ to get all that stuff together. most people usually start their primary campaigning a year + a half or so before the general election (that is, May 2011) and the latest you can get away w/officially opening a campaign is October, b/c of aforementioned deadlines to get on ballots.

Bloomberg was a serious threat to run as an indie in 2008 but he's almost 70 now + seems pretty happy as mayor of NYC. the real scare for the GOP is Paul, who is granted even older but kind of an anomaly. seriously doubt he will tho for bunch of reasons, it ain't really analogous to Nader or even Perot.

Esp
23-01-2012, 02:26 PM
no offense bro but it's almost literally impossible by this point. these guys have not only missed the actual primaries (or caucuses) of 3 states, they also would have had to register in many states months ago to be included on those states' ballots in upcoming primaries. which involves paying fees, getting petitions signed, etc. even if they could get onto ballots, where would their funding come from? what about the extensive organization required to actually carry out a campaign? it takes a long time + a helluva lot of $ to get all that stuff together. most people usually start their primary campaigning a year + a half or so before the general election (that is, May 2011) and the latest you can get away w/officially opening a campaign is October, b/c of aforementioned deadlines to get on ballots.

Bloomberg was a serious threat to run as an indie in 2008 but he's almost 70 now + seems pretty happy as mayor of NYC. the real scare for the GOP is Paul, who is granted even older but kind of an anomaly. seriously doubt he will tho for bunch of reasons, it ain't really analogous to Nader or even Perot.

I agree the logistics of it make it extremely unlikely but if the calls for Daniels to run were to grow to a fever pitch after the SOTU response and the GOP were keen to make it happen logistically and organizationally, would you still say he'd be mad to run? I'm working on the assumption that Gingrich and Romney are 'best of the worst' candidates as far as Republican primary voters are concerned, maybe I'm underestimating their popularity in assuming that Romney/Gingrich supporters would instantly flock to a new candidate that looks to have a better chance of beating Obama.

IdleRich
23-01-2012, 02:32 PM
"Either the EU makes laws that its member states abide by, or it does not. If not, then it's clear that EU member states don't surrender any sovereignty to it. If so, then what does it mean to say that individual sovereignty is respected?"
The EU issues directives which ultimately have to become law in member states - however, the EU only has this authority over the UK because of an act of the UK parliament which can (theoretically) be repealed so I'd say that there is some sense in which individual sovereignty exists, at least in the case of Britain, I assume that this is the case for other countries.

Leo
23-01-2012, 03:00 PM
I agree the logistics of it make it extremely unlikely but if the calls for Daniels to run were to grow to a fever pitch after the SOTU response and the GOP were keen to make it happen logistically and organizationally, would you still say he'd be mad to run? I'm working on the assumption that Gingrich and Romney are 'best of the worst' candidates as far as Republican primary voters are concerned, maybe I'm underestimating their popularity in assuming that Romney/Gingrich supporters would instantly flock to a new candidate that looks to have a better chance of beating Obama.

even though i initially raised the possibility, i really don't see daniels changing his mind, particularly because he also cited family issues (apparently his wife is really against the idea). there's also no guarantee GOP primary voters would suddenly rush to a new candidate (that's what rick perry expected). the republican establishment has largely come out in favor of romney, it'll be really difficult at this point for them to dump him now for someone new. that would make them look really desperate, disorganized and weak as a party.

florida could be a watershed moment for who gets the nomination, demographics there are more reflective of the nation as a whole compared to iowa/new hampshire/south carolina. newt could get away with some things when speaking to south carolina evangelicals and far-right types that probably won't fly in florida.

trza
23-01-2012, 03:38 PM
Daniels wife left him several years ago, leaving him in Indiana with his kids, while she was with some guy in CA (I think). Some oppo researcher was shopping around the phone number and other information of the guy she was with, hinting at something scandalous. Haley Barbour was also rumored to have damaging oppo, even had an announcement and fundraising tour planned but cancelled just a few days in advance.

Leo
23-01-2012, 04:05 PM
ah yes, forgot all about that scandal du jour: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55459.html

padraig (u.s.)
23-01-2012, 05:46 PM
Haley Barbour would’ve also had problems cause of that whole thing where he talked about how awesome the White Citizens’ Council – essentially the Sinn Fein of the KKK – was and his longtime links to its successor the Council of Conservative Citizens’ (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/council-of-conservative-citizens). Not exactly the guy you want running against Barry O. oh + when he was a lobbyist (primarily for Big Tobacco) one of his clients was the Mexican govt, on whose behalf he lobbied for immigrant amnesty. Which I’m sure would have endeared him to many, many Republican voters.

padraig (u.s.)
23-01-2012, 05:54 PM
also I thought these were entertaining

9 Things You Need to Know About Rick Santorum (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/04/9-Things-You-Need-to-Know-about-Rick-Santorum.aspx#page1)

”As a young lawyer, he worked at the Pittsburgh law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart where he represented the World Wrestling Federation. In his most high-profile case, he argued that professional wrestling was not technically a sport, and therefore wasn’t subject to federal steroid regulations.”

15 Things You Don’t Know About Newt Gingrich (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/12/12/Newt-Gingrich-15-Things-You-Dont-Know-About-Him.aspx#page1)

Did you know that in 1981 Newt co-sponsored (with Barney Frank!!!) a bill to nationally legalize medical marijuana? Neither did I. Or that he is a former Sierra Club member (who, of course, wrote a book called Drill Here Drill Now a couple years ago)? Or that his doctoral dissertation (http://www.scribd.com/doc/74196290/Gingrich-Belgian-Education) was, of all things, an apologia for Belgian colonialism in the Congo (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-out-of-africa-and-into-iowa.html?_r=1)? I will truly miss this guy when his campaign inevitably bursts into flames.

Esp
23-01-2012, 06:15 PM
even though i initially raised the possibility, i really don't see daniels changing his mind, particularly because he also cited family issues (apparently his wife is really against the idea). there's also no guarantee GOP primary voters would suddenly rush to a new candidate (that's what rick perry expected). the republican establishment has largely come out in favor of romney, it'll be really difficult at this point for them to dump him now for someone new. that would make them look really desperate, disorganized and weak as a party.

florida could be a watershed moment for who gets the nomination, demographics there are more reflective of the nation as a whole compared to iowa/new hampshire/south carolina. newt could get away with some things when speaking to south carolina evangelicals and far-right types that probably won't fly in florida.

I think the PR element of Daniels entering could've been handled by the GOP but with the family issues as well I guess it is pretty much impossible.

As far as Florida goes; Gingrich wont be able to get away with the far-right rhetoric but he will likely shape-shift to suit the arena - focusing on immigration policy for instance. Gingrich is obviously benefiting hugely from the frequency of debates at the moment, Romney needs to land some punches tonight.

Sectionfive
23-01-2012, 10:24 PM
Obama is finished (http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/my-endorsement-for-president/)

Bangpuss
24-01-2012, 09:42 AM
In what must be one of the best, albeit doomed, campaign ads of all time, Norris made an appearance in 2008 to support Mike Huckabee for president: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

"My plan to secure the border? Two words: Chuck Norris."

Leo
24-01-2012, 08:57 PM
i just realized there's a gaping void in the election run-up to date (and no, i don't mean an electable GOP candidate): glenn beck.

he used to be in the news week in, week out for some wild-ass statement or another. i guess the move to his own subscription online show carries a little less gravitas than being on fox news, he hasn't been able to insert himself into the primaries narrative so far. assume he's santorum supporter, now that michelle bachmann is out.

Bangpuss
03-02-2012, 11:50 PM
Glenn Beck lost all credibility with even the GOP and Fox stalwarts long ago. I'm not sure what it was exactly that finally convinced people who didn't already believe it that he was a total nutjob. Maybe it was the whole Obama is a racist who hates white people led to advertisers pulling out, but the show limped on for a while after that. And by limp, I mean only about 20 times more viewers than Rachel Maddow. Although the smart money ran for the hills when they heard him say that shit about Obama being racist, I bet it still went down like a round of free beers among the hardcore Tea Party / Fox News screen lickers.

I read somewhere that by the end, the only thing keeping the Glenn Beck show on air was Jon Stewart's audience, who tuned in for the comedy. They just got bored of the joke. I could personally do with another stint of the Glenn Beck show, as another outlet for criticising Mitt Romney, albeit in totally unfounded accusations of him being a socialist who will turf Americans out of their homes and hand the keys over to illegal immigrants.

Leo
04-02-2012, 04:45 PM
romney endorsed by a billionaire birther blowhard who enjoys firing people on tv. yeah, that should help his image.

luka
05-02-2012, 10:25 AM
http://www.lordkilgore.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/prince-valiant-dragon.jpg

Sectionfive
07-02-2012, 03:01 PM
Romney's family misspell their last name in the greatest Freudian slip in history


https://p.twimg.com/AlCIM3OCAAAfVEs.jpg

Leo
07-02-2012, 09:10 PM
Romney's family misspell their last name in the greatest Freudian slip in history
https://p.twimg.com/AlCIM3OCAAAfVEs.jpg

and...it's fake: http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/208911-fake-romney-picture-circulates-on-twitter

darn internets.

IdleRich
08-02-2012, 08:43 AM
Would have fooled me - anyway, now Santorum is winning everything, I can't keep up...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/08/rick-santorum-victory-colorado-minnesota

How significant is this?

Leo
08-02-2012, 01:31 PM
those are pretty conservative states (ron paul second place with 27% in minnesota!), so i don't think mitt expected to do as well as he did in nevada/florida. that said, it was a bad night for romney and drags the race out as a tough slog. some of this might be protest votes from conservatives who know romney is eventually going to be the candidate but resent having the GOP establishment decree mitt as the nominee. maybe kind of a last-stand f* you message to the "power elites" of the party.

missouri was a slight oddity, since gingrich wasn't on the ballot (presumably all his votes went to santorum) and the state doesn't have any delegate attached to a win.

one interesting note: mitt outspent santorum 40-to-1 in minnesota and still came in distant third. ouch.

IdleRich
08-02-2012, 02:07 PM
But would you have predicted this two days ago? Nothing I read said it would be like this. I mean, Santorum has won more states (if fewer candidates) than Romney. The whole thing seems weird to me. Great political circus basically.

padraig (u.s.)
08-02-2012, 03:03 PM
it's certainly a shock. how much actual impact it has in the long run remains to be seen. the ludicrously byzantine method by which delegates are awarded means winning the popular vote doesn't necessarily guarantee him all the delegates in any of the 3 states. the Missouri win in particular is basically worthless. it's massive in terms of perception tho. very few people took Santorum seriously as a candidate but now they have to, at least for the moment. it's also highly embarrassing to Mitt as a loud reminder of just how thoroughly he is loathed by a large portion of his own party. ultimately it may actually serve Romney well as a wake-up call. after he crushed Newt I think there was a sense he could just coast the rest of the way. now the power of his money can be put into carpet bombing Santorum before the bulk of the primaries and Super Tuesday.

either way OB's people got to be like sharks in the water sniffing Romney's blood. or better yet Santorum, who got to be the dream opponent if you're Obama.

padraig (u.s.)
08-02-2012, 03:21 PM
those are pretty conservative states

I dunno if you mean just within the GOP, but Minnesota is actually very liberal overall. I mean, Paul Wellstone (RIP). it's gone Dem every election since '72. the other two are more iffy, but CO is nearly a quarter Latin (for voting purposes at least, I'm sure it's actually much higher) and Obama won it easily. he lost Missouri but it was so close that it was basically a push.

Leo
08-02-2012, 03:59 PM
yeah, was thinking of GOP (Bachmann!) but you're right, overall it's liberal.

luka
10-02-2012, 02:01 AM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/rick-santorum-the-crusades-get-a-bad-rap.php

santorum-the crusades get a bad rap lool!
got this from scott down the disco.

IdleRich
10-02-2012, 10:20 AM
“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) told a South Carolina audience yesterday. “And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom.”
Well, if by "our" he means the states then seeing as the US hadn't even been though of by then I'd say he's got a point... if by "our" he means Christians then... no so much.

Leo
10-02-2012, 04:56 PM
it gets better: on the road to decapitation!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZWqls5KE5d8#!

padraig (u.s.)
10-02-2012, 09:27 PM
it almost feels like Rick Santorum is on a mission to prove further with every waking breath just how terrible he would be in a general election. I will miss his insanity when the grim march of Romney inevitability resumes.

edit: sweet christ this dude really just will not stop saying crazy, self-damaging things (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-says-other-types-of-emotions-could-preclude-women-in-combat/2012/02/09/gIQAkiya2Q_blog.html). way to score points with female voters, bro.

on a different note here is a good New Yorker profile of Larry McCarthy (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/13/120213fa_fact_mayer), the GOP attack dog media consultant responsible for the infamous Willie Horton ad (http://youtu.be/EC9j6Wfdq3o) that used racial fear to propel Bush Sr into office in '88, as well as another thirty years worth of the lowest kind of political mudslinging. currently working for Mitt. the campaign that crushed Newt in Florida was his work. Rick S is surely next.

Ransbeeck
13-02-2012, 09:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk

Did he actually get fired? Google wasn't sure.

Leo
13-02-2012, 01:15 PM
i believe fox business sacked a load of their on-air lineup due to poor ratings, doing a big reboot, so not anything against him in particular. note that fox business -- their start up business news channel that's only been around for a few years -- is separate from fox news, home of o'reilly, hannity, etc. that's still #1 in cable news.

crackerjack
13-02-2012, 04:05 PM
Extraordinary (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-moves-ahead-in-michigan.html).

GOP is like a small child torn between what it wants and what it knows it really needs.

IdleRich
13-02-2012, 05:01 PM
How is that one minute Gingrich looked like he could have been a contender and now he looks like a bum (though he could never have had class)? Is this all down to Romney's so-called attack ads? That's pretty amazing if so... and will he be able to squash Santorum in the same way?

crackerjack
13-02-2012, 05:23 PM
How is that one minute Gingrich looked like he could have been a contender and now he looks like a bum (though he could never have had class)? Is this all down to Romney's so-called attack ads? That's pretty amazing if so... and will he be able to squash Santorum in the same way?

I'm not really sure exactly what happened to Newt in Fla, but this has been pretty much the pattern from the start. One candidate inherits the rightwing nutter mantel for a few days, maybe weeks, long enough to pick up a load of ABM votes before enough attention is focused on them to remind everyone what a scum/idiot/criminal he or she is.

Newt fell away cos he just can't win (he was only on top of cos of the odd debate win and cos his anti-rich populism struck a chord). Same will happen to Ricky boy, but presumably long term they can't go on like this.

IdleRich
13-02-2012, 05:27 PM
Yeah, it has rotated like that (the RWNM) but New's fall from grace seemed particularly spectacular given that there didn't seem to be anything specific (like forgetting which department you wanted to cut for instance) that had caused it.

padraig (u.s.)
13-02-2012, 05:29 PM
Gingrich is a house of cards that was always going to topple the minute someone went after it. just too vulnerable, too many enemies. the problem now for Romney is that 90% of the people who hate Santorum aren't going to vote in GOP primaries. whereas most people who hate Mitt will.

padraig (u.s.)
13-02-2012, 05:34 PM
Same will happen to Ricky boy

I dunno I would've thought so too but I'm not so sure anymore. you can't underestimate just who deep the anti-Romney feelings are. also Santorum, unlike Newt, is someone hardcore conservatives could actually rally around.

Leo
13-02-2012, 05:35 PM
gingrich's campaign is also pretty broke, making him unable to fight back in ads in a strong and timely manner, or travel around like he needs to.

also, as the economy starts to get a little better and the obama administration gets into it with religious leaders over birth control/insurance coverage, the GOP has shifted to social issues (aka the cultural wars), which is santorum's sweet spot.

Bangpuss
13-02-2012, 05:53 PM
I find Andrew Napolitano the most reasonable and intelligent person on the American right. The clip you posted could easily be a speech by a member of the Occupy movement or the Chomskyite left, in noting the conspiracy of two-party politics and the lack of choice for voters.

The best political documentary about how contemporary campaigns became mud-slinging propaganda wars is Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (can't find a link to it online -- anyone?). He was the guy who pretty much single-handedly propelled Bush 41 into the White House with his eerie attack ads on Dukakis, including this piece of evil genius:


http://youtu.be/wTdUQ9SYhUw

IdleRich
15-02-2012, 12:31 PM
I can't see this going over too well in Michigan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/14/crony-capitalist-auto-bailout-mitt-romney

Bangpuss
16-02-2012, 11:23 AM
As though part-ownership by the unions -- i.e. the workers -- is a bad thing. Presumably because those $2000 of healthcare for workers 'baked' into every car will stay there. Healthcare and pensions for the workers? Tyranny!

Leo
16-02-2012, 07:26 PM
i guess this settles it

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/02/megadeth-frontman-backs-rick-santorum-114539.html

padraig (u.s.)
22-02-2012, 07:31 PM
Killer Mike Breaks Down The 2012 Presidential Candidates (http://www.complex.com/music/2012/02/killer-mike-breaks-down-the-2012-presidential-candidates#1)

as if I needed more reasons to love Killer Mike. Mike is a supremely sharp cat. it's very on point.

luka
22-02-2012, 10:32 PM
satan is systematically destroying america.

luka
27-02-2012, 07:23 AM
Santorum says he ‘almost threw up’ after reading JFK speech on separation of church and state

trza
28-02-2012, 03:43 PM
Any predictions for how things are going to shake out in the next two weeks? If Santo wins tonight, he could win OH and probably every state between PA and CO. If he loses and fundraising slows, I still think he can sleepwalk and win PA, WV, OK, KS. I can't see Gingrich winning anywhere but the South, and Romney winning the Northeast, West Coast, Southwest, and getting all the delegates from VA.

crackerjack
28-02-2012, 03:57 PM
Apparently while campaigning in Michigan, Romney let slip his wife has two luxury Caddies. Then he attended a Nascar rally and admitted that he doesn't know much about the sport, but is interested cos some of his friends are Nascar owners.

He's determined to lose this election, isn't he.

padraig (u.s.)
28-02-2012, 06:57 PM
Any predictions

newt won't win anywhere (maybe GA, still unlikely). he's done. do not rush to give santorum the heartland. don't hand him PA either. he lost the 2006 senate reelection campaign by a huge landslide, many people there hate him. winning MI big will maintain his viability but we won't really know where primary is headed til Super Tues.

padraig (u.s.)
28-02-2012, 07:14 PM
read op-ed the other day by kathleen parker (GOP intellectual) suggesting employer contraception controversy was strategic move by obama admin to shift election from economic to social issues. seems unlikely but works either way. other problem for whoever wins primary is that economy, while not good, is not as terrible as it was in 08 (auto bailout looking very good), harder to attack obama there.

republican nightmare of brokered convention looms

crackerjack
28-02-2012, 08:00 PM
republican nightmare of brokered convention looms

If brokered convention it is, how likely is the prospect of white knight candidate? Jeb Bush was being flagged up in a UK paper the other day. Is it infeasible that could happen or just very, very unlikely?

padraig (u.s.)
28-02-2012, 08:52 PM
^can't imagine it happening but nothing's impossible. it'd be an unmitigated disaster for the gop. that's assuming jeb (or christie etc) even wanted any part of it, and why would they? the smart move is to wait for '16.

padraig (u.s.)
28-02-2012, 08:54 PM
there have been a few broker scares since the last one (Stevenson, 52), incl O + HC in 08, but all of them eventually fizzled. there's a good chance this one will too.

padraig (u.s.)
28-02-2012, 08:56 PM
either way if I was marco rubio I'd be dreading the VP calls. reckon he wants no part of this mess.

Leo
28-02-2012, 09:32 PM
http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-heilemann-2012-3/

from this week's ny magazine...the first 2/3rd of the article is stuff we mostly know about the toll this primary is taking on the GOP, the end is more interesting with what either a romney or a santorum loss will mean to the party's future.


What that would mean for the GOP would differ wildly depending on which of the two current front-runners, along with the coalition that elevated him to the nomination, is blamed for the debacle. “If Romney is the nominee and he loses in November, I think we’ll see a resurgence of the charismatic populist right,” says Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and author of a biography of Barry Goldwater. “Not only will [the grassroots wing] say that Romney led Republicans down the road to defeat, but that the whole type of conservatism he represents is doomed.”

Goldberg points out that this is what happened in 1976, when the party stuck with Ford over Reagan, was beaten by Carter, and went on to embrace the Gipper’s brand of movement conservatism four years later. So who does Goldberg think might be ascendant in the aftermath of a Romney licking? “Sarah Palin,” he replies. “She’s an outsider, she has no Washington or Wall Street baggage, she’s electric—and she’s waiting, because if Romney doesn’t win, she will be welcomed in.”

But if it’s Santorum who is the standard-bearer and then he suffers an epic loss, a different analogy will be apt: Goldwater in 1964. (And, given the degree of the challenges Santorum would face in attracting female voters, epic it might well be.) As Kearns Goodwin points out, the rejection of the Arizona senator’s ideology and policies led the GOP to turn back in 1968 to Nixon, “a much more moderate figure, despite the incredible corruption of his time in office.” For Republicans after 2012, a similar repudiation of the populist, culture-warrior coalition that is fueling Santorum’s surge would open the door to the many talented party leaders—Daniels, Christie, Bush, Ryan, Bobby Jindal—waiting in the wings for 2016, each offering the possibility of refashioning the GOP into a serious and forward-thinking enterprise.

Only the most mindless of ideologues reject the truism that America would be best served by the presence of two credible governing parties instead of the situation that currently obtains. A Santorum nomination would be seen by many liberals as a scary and retrograde proposition. And no doubt it would make for a wild ride, with enough talk of Satan, abortifacients, and sweater vests to drive any sane man bonkers. But in the long run, it might do a world of good, compelling Republicans to return to their senses—and forge ahead into the 21st century. Which is why all people of common sense and goodwill might consider, in the days ahead, adopting a slogan that may strike them as odd, perverse, or even demented: Go, Rick, go.

padraig (u.s.)
29-02-2012, 03:26 AM
mitt's freaking pulled it out, somehow. victory for sane people/bummer for barry o + gang.

@leo - don't think gop loss ensures sharp backlash. also palin has too much baggage. won't beat someone like christie.

padraig (u.s.)
29-02-2012, 03:31 AM
hilariously mitt won mackinac county by one vote, 667 to santorum's (wait for it) 666. to no one's surprise, the devil sides with romney.

IdleRich
29-02-2012, 09:29 AM
Seen Arizona and Michigan (especially) were close between Mitt and Santorum but what percentage did Newt and Paul get? I guess only twenty percent or so between them but I'd still like to know.

craner
29-02-2012, 09:58 AM
What Romney should do is choose Sarah Palin as his VP running mate.

Give me a call, Mitt, I'll be your aide.

craner
29-02-2012, 10:00 AM
Like John Kerry, he has an impressive, sane, good-looking wife. He is bound to lose.

Bangpuss
29-02-2012, 12:12 PM
Just when you thought mad old Uncle Ron was drifting back into obscurity: Bam! He comes out with the best political ad since Lee Atwater was throwing bombs at his boss's rivals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XKfuS6gfxPY

The fact that a GOP contender dares to compare US troops abroad to a Chinese communist invading force is pretty remarkable. Blows all that American Exceptionism shit that the mainstream of American politics has been peddling since Year Dot right out of the water. Finally we see some moral equivalence, and not just from the far-left liberal do-gooders.

IdleRich
29-02-2012, 12:26 PM
I can't believe that people are going to like it though.

Bangpuss
29-02-2012, 12:38 PM
Certainly not. Somebody is going to shoot him.

craner
29-02-2012, 12:49 PM
Finally we see some moral equivalence

You said this like it was a good thing.

Bangpuss
29-02-2012, 01:04 PM
Of course moral equivalence is a good thing. It's saying that when America unlawfully invades a country, that's no different from another country doing it to America. It's about America's actions not being excused or downplayed just because it's America committing them.

Leo
29-02-2012, 02:05 PM
Seen Arizona and Michigan (especially) were close between Mitt and Santorum but what percentage did Newt and Paul get? I guess only twenty percent or so between them but I'd still like to know.

AZ: Newt 16%, Paul 8%
Mich: Newt 6%, Paul 11%

newt is done, might make some noise in the south but not enough to matter. paul continues his bromance with romney.

IdleRich
29-02-2012, 02:20 PM
Thank you.

baboon2004
29-02-2012, 02:50 PM
That advert is awesome.

Leo
29-02-2012, 04:00 PM
@leo - don't think gop loss ensures sharp backlash. also palin has too much baggage. won't beat someone like christie.

yeah, i think the reference was palin off, but i do think the backlash is very possible. if either GOP nominee gets handily beaten by a president with 8+% unemployment and almost $4 gas prices, the GOP has got to face the cold reality.

the other issue is the ripple effect: if voters get turned off to the hard-right turn of santorum and romney's general romneyness, that could very well drag down GOP senate and house candidates as well. they ride the coattails of presidential races during good times but also get tarred during the bad times. with olympia snowe not running for reelection, it's harder for the GOP to gain in the senate and they could lose some house seats.

padraig (u.s.)
29-02-2012, 09:06 PM
^sure it's possible. the guy in your quote was saying it's a certainty tho. really what's going in is a battle for the soul of the gop, the hardline/evangelical/tea party etc v. the intellectuals/fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal/moderate, and it's happening very messily + publicly. there was always going to be a price to pay for pandering to tea party bullshit. the republican party is largely white + aging. it struggles to attract blacks, latinos, or women outside its base. those are generalities but largely true. that's not to say it will descend into irrelevance or cease to win elections but there are, as you say, cold realities to be faced.

snowe stepping down is not a good look for them either, tho evan bayh did the same it 2010 + was replaced by a republican.

padraig (u.s.)
29-02-2012, 09:12 PM
that paul ad is killer but it's also just a rehash of 80s red dawn bullshit, with an afghan/iraq metaphor tossed in

padraig (u.s.)
29-02-2012, 09:14 PM
I can't believe that people are going to like it though.

you'd be surprised

padraig (u.s.)
29-02-2012, 09:15 PM
his real mission anyway was to move his views closer to the mainstream, which he's certainly accomplished. now he can pass the torch to his son.

padraig (u.s.)
29-02-2012, 09:27 PM
Like John Kerry, he has an impressive, sane, good-looking wife. He is bound to lose.

also like John Kerry, he speaks French, which is the surest way to lose an election in America

Bangpuss
29-02-2012, 10:57 PM
his real mission anyway was to move his views closer to the mainstream, which he's certainly accomplished. now he can pass the torch to his son.

His son isn't half the principled politician he is though. After riding the wave of Tea Party activism into the Senate, he has since folded over the toilet paper and begun wiping his ass on the other side, keen to be buttered up by the GOP establishment. From running a campaign that basically wouldn't wipe its ass on a Mitch McConnell or Karl Rove endorsement, to practically asking them to come wipe his ass for him.

Bangpuss
01-03-2012, 09:25 AM
Turns out Romney didn't win Michigan after all. He tied with Santorum, so they get equal delegates. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/romney-santorum-half-michigan-delegates

When are Americans going to learn to stop announcing election results before they're through counting?! It's happened twice in the GOP primaries already where they've declared a winner, only to backtrack. And then there was the famous 2000 incident where Fox News decided the winner by blurting it out on air before the votes had been recounted properly...

crackerjack
01-03-2012, 10:12 AM
Turns out Romney didn't win Michigan after all. He tied with Santorum, so they get equal delegates. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/romney-santorum-half-michigan-delegates
.

BBC news was still talking about Romney as the winner an hour after I read about the equal delegate score on Twitter. Not only is it poor to keep pre-calling elections, they should be explaining the difference between winner-takes-all primaries and those that allocate delegates proportionately.

Bangpuss
01-03-2012, 10:31 AM
And the Guardian gets in on the act, with an op-ed column that starts with the assertion that Romney won Michigan: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/29/romney-no-moderate-republicans-electability

IdleRich
01-03-2012, 12:28 PM
Wow, that's bad isn't it?
I took this (along with what I've read elsewhere) to mean that Michigan was a winner takes all primary.


The legendary football manager Bill Shankly once summed up what Mitt Romney must have felt after Tuesday's watershed Republican primary contest in Michigan. "If you are first you are first," Shankly reflected. "If you are second you are nothing."
But it's actually just a load of bollocks.

Bangpuss
01-03-2012, 12:42 PM
I have made a Guardian comments profile just so I could vent spleen about this. But after posting my comment, I quickly realised why I don't do this sort of thing. Even on the Guardian, you are communicating with idiots, as this response to my initial comment identifies (my original comment is in inverted commas):

Flawedlogic
1 March 2012 11:18AM
Response to LGParker, 1 March 2012 10:39AM

"Could the Guardian please stop repeating the mistakes of other news organisations, such as the BBC, which claim that Romney 'won' Michigan. He received more of the popular vote, but he and Santorum receive an equal amount of delegates. This makes it a tie."

If we follow the same reasoning than Mr Obama should not be President as he received less of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton. Should we advise all news organisations, such as the BBC, which claimed that Obama "won" the Democratic nomination that it was all a mistake and that Hillary Clinton should be President?

faustus
01-03-2012, 02:31 PM
Michael Steele compares the Romney campaign to Star Wars:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUMUlm5MWhk

Leo
01-03-2012, 04:30 PM
didn't think this was worth a new thread so sticking it here...andrew breitbart's father-in-law is (was) orson bean??

padraig (u.s.)
01-03-2012, 07:29 PM
@bangpuss - not quite a tie. MI awards most delegates by congressional district, similar to states' electoral votes in gen election. santorum actually won slightly more districts - basically everything outside detroit - but romney got more delegates, I believe b/c his average margin of victory was much higher (many of santorum's wins were very narrow). there are some at-large delegates awarded proportionally to the popular vote but for some reason only 2 of them can vote at the national convention so the rest are worthless. MI is also being penalized by the national GOP for moving it's primary date up w/o permission so some of the district delegates can't vote either + are thus worthless. + yes, primaries in this country are hopelessly overcomplicated. here's a concise explanation (http://www.freep.com/article/20120229/NEWS15/202290476/Congressional-district-results-prove-to-be-close). also here is a map of who won where + by how much (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120228/SPECIAL01/120228003/Interactive-map-Primary-election-results-by-congressional-district?odyssey=mod|mostview).

padraig (u.s.)
01-03-2012, 07:41 PM
even a virtual tie is a romney victory tho. santorum has little hope of winning in the west coast or SW (except maybe NV) or NE so he has to decisively win big heartland states like MI, OH, IL (as well as the south). he also must keep winning to maintain his viability (+ thus $). we'll know after Super Tues if he can drag it out to august.

padraig (u.s.)
01-03-2012, 08:10 PM
His son isn't half the principled politician he is

you could also view that as the infiltration of libertarianism into the GOP. 15 or 20 years ago it would've been inconceivable for RP to run + pick up a slew of 2nd + 3rd place finishes. he's gone from a Larouche-style fringe character to basically a mainstream politician. true his son doesn't have his stature, but he doesn't have his baggage either. + the time is ripe. the GOP has not had this many crazy people in its ranks since the peak of john birch society cold war hysteria. they've basically hijacked mainstream party leadership + flown it into a cliff.

padraig (u.s.)
01-03-2012, 08:13 PM
the irony is that William F. Buckley spent his whole life trying to disassociate the GOP from the fringe, kooks, extremists, racists etc, so successfully that it took them nearly 40 years to sneak back in.

padraig (u.s.)
01-03-2012, 10:06 PM
email from my mom: "I'd prefer Satan to Rick Santorum, he'd certainly be more reasonable and a lot more fun"

trza
01-03-2012, 10:15 PM
Ron Paul held a campaign event in the poorest zip code in MI, and sent a campaign letter in Arabic aimed at the largest Arabic American community in the USA in Detroit. I would have thought he would win at least one county in the UP, eh?

Bangpuss
02-03-2012, 02:34 PM
PLUG ALERT! This is me writing: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/01/long_hair_the_final_political_frontier/

Leo
02-03-2012, 02:56 PM
PLUG ALERT! This is me writing: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/01/long_hair_the_final_political_frontier/

that's so cool, nice job! well done, congrats.

Bangpuss
02-03-2012, 03:06 PM
Cheers man. Pretty happy with it. Hopefully they'll have me again. Feel free to wade into the comments and defend/demolish me... There are a few hissy comments but hopefully the editors don't take too much notice of them.

Mr. Tea
02-03-2012, 03:21 PM
Interesting. Do you think Hezza could have succeeded Thatcher if he'd had his magnificent mane trimmed back?

Bangpuss
02-03-2012, 03:59 PM
It's a tough call. Heseltine's was too divisive and non-conformist to be taken to heart by the Tories. I think the electorate would have loved him, though, much like they love Boris. Voters like rebels more than politicians.

crackerjack
03-03-2012, 10:46 AM
It's a tough call. Heseltine's was too divisive and non-conformist to be taken to heart by the Tories. I think the electorate would have loved him, though, much like they love Boris. Voters like rebels more than politicians.

But voters like Boris cos he's in on the joke. Hezza was vain and devoid of humour when it came to himself – he famously hated the Tarzan joke, devised by Steve Bell (I thnk) and later picked up by John Major.

padraig (u.s.)
09-03-2012, 12:10 AM
we'll know after Super Tues if he can drag it out to august

yes he can. ST a pyrrhic victory for mitt - can't win in south, can't win evangelicals, can't win blue-collar, can't win hard right. paul getting 41% of vote in VA a massive embarrassment. OH a repeat of MI (barely wins despite massively outspending everyone, only wins urban areas - i.e. where dems are strong in gen election, loses EVERYTHING rural to santorum). still likely winner but santorum has a shot, certainly will make it a contest, esp if newt +/or paul drops out + he picks up most of their votes. next few weeks mostly southern states that will likely go to santorum (or newt as spoiler). mitt will almost certainly win west coast, + UT of course. TX will be huge.

padraig (u.s.)
09-03-2012, 12:11 AM
basically threat of brokered convention looming ever larger

padraig (u.s.)
09-03-2012, 12:14 AM
also for anyone who don't know newt's being kept in race entirely by the $ of shelden adelson, his billionaire casino magnate sugar daddy. freaking super PACs.

Leo
09-03-2012, 02:29 AM
romney is REALLY lucky newt had adelson (and an enormous ego), i'd love to see him drop out and have santorum-romney go one-on-one (paul is not really a factor, is he? he only got 41% in VA because santorum and newt weren't on the ballot).

IdleRich
09-03-2012, 11:08 AM
Can someone (Padraig, I know I keep asking but you're good at this) explain what a brokered convention would mean?

padraig (u.s.)
09-03-2012, 05:23 PM
^a candidate has to win 1144 delegates in the primaries to secure an outright majority. the first vote of the convention will then automatically give him/her the nomination. if if no one has 1144, delegates are released after that first vote to vote for whomever they want, i.e jockeying among party factions + power brokers to secure those votes. before the primary era (basically 1800s-WWII), smoke-filled room (literally) deals were the norm, trading political favors for support. it's a complete subversion of the popular vote, + I really don't think it would go over well with today's voters.

padraig (u.s.)
09-03-2012, 05:32 PM
here's a delegate count (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates)

~1500 left, romney needs ~1/2 to get to 1144. possible but not a lock. dunno how each state awards delegates (all to winner, proportional, etc) so not sure exactly what he must win to get there. CA (mitt) + TX (iffy) by far biggest prizes, then NY (mitt?) + PA (??). still a lot of midwest + southern states where mitt will struggle tho.

padraig (u.s.)
09-03-2012, 05:38 PM
oh also I forgot about superdelegates. most states have a couple. they're not bound by the popular vote so they don't count in that 1144. sometimes if a candidate is really close they can put him/her over the edge on that 1st vote + avoid a brokered convention. anti-democratic as hell but there's american electoral politics for you.

padraig (u.s.)
09-03-2012, 05:42 PM
@leo - paul's a spoiler. consistently pulling ~10% of vote. santorum would likely pick up more of those (tho some of paul's base might just stay home). VA embarrassment for mitt b/c 41% for paul is largely a protest vote against him. yet another reminder of much gop base loathes him.

crackerjack
10-03-2012, 11:43 AM
^a candidate has to win 1144 delegates in the primaries to secure an outright majority. the first vote of the convention will then automatically give him/her the nomination. if if no one has 1144, delegates are released after that first vote to vote for whomever they want, i.e jockeying among party factions + power brokers to secure those votes. before the primary era (basically 1800s-WWII), smoke-filled room (literally) deals were the norm, trading political favors for support. it's a complete subversion of the popular vote, + I really don't think it would go over well with today's voters.

That's a crazy system. I assumed candidates were simply eliminated in order – last, ie Paul, goes out first, then his delegates vote for whomever they (or, if they're super-loyal, RP) want. But, crucially, that delegates stay with their man until he's eliminated.

What you've described is, well, as you've described it.

IdleRich
10-03-2012, 01:41 PM
"^a candidate has to win 1144 delegates in the primaries to secure an outright majority. the first vote of the convention will then automatically give him/her the nomination. if if no one has 1144, delegates are released after that first vote to vote for whomever they want, i.e jockeying among party factions + power brokers to secure those votes. before the primary era (basically 1800s-WWII), smoke-filled room (literally) deals were the norm, trading political favors for support. it's a complete subversion of the popular vote, + I really don't think it would go over well with today's voters."
And at this stage a new candidate could enter?

padraig (u.s.)
10-03-2012, 07:42 PM
^yes. don't think they'd elect a new candidate but at a brokered convention anyone can be nominated. the smart guys (christie, jeb, etc) want no part of Obama.

padraig (u.s.)
10-03-2012, 07:44 PM
there is some Palin talk but it's highly unlikely

crackerjack
11-03-2012, 09:55 AM
there is some Palin talk but it's highly unlikely

Though potentially hilarious.

Leo
11-03-2012, 01:18 PM
apparently, julianne moore really nails palin in the hbo film "game change." i've seen some clips, she has the accent, mannerisms and attitude down pretty well. woody harrelson does a good steve schmidt as well. (btw, schmidt does really good commentary on msnbc, smart and no bullshit.)

IdleRich
11-03-2012, 05:01 PM
President in Iron Sky looks a bit like her as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_IndUbcxc

Bangpuss
12-03-2012, 01:24 PM
For a moment I thought that Iron Sky trailer was one of those this-is-what-will-happen-if-Obama-gets-a-second-term political ads from someone like Newt Gingrich. NAZI ALIENS ALLIED TO IRAN WILL INVADE AMERICA, RAISE TAXES AND ABORT YOUR UNBORN CHILDREN.

Bangpuss
14-03-2012, 02:18 PM
Funny fake article about Mitt Romney reviewing a restaurant. Strangely enough, Mother Jones isn't usually a satirical paper. Maybe the guy who wrote it desperately wants a job at the Onion. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/mitt-romney-olive-garden-grand-forks

padraig (u.s.)
14-03-2012, 06:35 PM
for anyone still keeping score:

-santorum wins MS + AL but pretty close (MS basically a 3-way tie) so it's not too bad for mitt
-mitt meanwhile sweeps american samoa* + HI, still leads rick santorum 2-1 in delegates
-newt will soldier on his grim march of irrelevance, driven by megalomania + fantastical delusions of being picked as a compromise candidate at an open convention
-brokered convention feeling more + more inevitable. mitt can't separate but no one can take him down either
-what a clusterf**k

*bewilderingly, we let our colonies vote in primaries but not in the actual election

padraig (u.s.)
14-03-2012, 06:57 PM
also, only loosely related but must post:

last night OB took your PM to a college basketball game. since most of you are probably unfamiliar w/march madness I will explain in terms of football. every year 64 teams are chosen to play for the national title. ~40 of those teams are the top ones in the country. the rest get automatic berths for winning the preliminary tournaments of their inferior conferences (i.e. as lower leagues are to the EPL). it's kind of like the F.A. Cup (plenty of david over goliath upsets) + Champions League rolled into one, only better. a few years ago for $ reasons (more games = more tv = more $) the field was expanded to 68, with 8 of the weakest teams having to win "play-in" games to get in.

which is all to say, OB basically took Cameron to the equivalent of QPR playing Wolves to avoid relegation. consider yourselves disrespected, ye people of England.

IdleRich
14-03-2012, 07:25 PM
"*bewilderingly, we let our colonies vote in primaries but not in the actual election"
That makes no sense whatsoever - but is pretty much par for the course in this circus. I love the insanity and stupidity of it all.


"which is all to say, OB basically took Cameron to the equivalent of QPR playing Wolves to avoid relegation. consider yourselves disrespected, ye people of England."
I think that taking an Englishman to any basketball game is an insult.

e/y
14-03-2012, 07:33 PM
I heard 'Dave' speak while at the game on NPR, he sounded amusingly uncomfortable.

crackerjack
14-03-2012, 08:26 PM
consider yourselves disrespected, ye people of England.

Is that better or worse than the handful of DVDs he sent a flunkey down to Tower to buy for Gordon Brown? (And did anyone ever find out what GB got?)

Anyway, just wait till Cam takes the O to a Villa match. Hopefully Alex McLeish will still be in charge.

padraig (u.s.)
15-03-2012, 10:35 PM
taking an Englishman to any basketball game is an insult

yes rich it is an insult. an insult to basketball.

padraig (u.s.)
15-03-2012, 10:42 PM
also this:

http://cdn.politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/newsweek-david-cameron.jpg?cda6c1

padraig (u.s.)
15-03-2012, 10:48 PM
handful of DVDs

hey now, it was a collection of classic american cinema. chinatown! godfather I and II! if that's not a great gift I don't know what is.

(GW, of course, gave him a sweet bomber jacket. just the kind of thing gordon brown would wear)

e/y
15-03-2012, 11:03 PM
''BY NIALL FERGUSON''

heh

Sectionfive
16-03-2012, 12:07 AM
I heard 'Dave' speak while at the game on NPR, he sounded amusingly uncomfortable.

He did a press conference with our lad last week in which Comeron sounded the least human of the two.
Some achievement I can tell you

crackerjack
16-03-2012, 12:44 AM
hey now, it was a collection of classic american cinema. chinatown! godfather I and II! if that's not a great gift I don't know what is.

(GW, of course, gave him a sweet bomber jacket. just the kind of thing gordon brown would wear)

The always reliable Daily Mail insists GB actually did BO all right.


The Brown and Obama exchange of gifts came in March 2009 when Mr Brown visited the White House as prime minister. He presented the President with a black and gold pen with a pen holder made from the wood of HMS Gannet, a British sloop used to fight slavery.
It was an expensive gift given that, together with a Winston Churchill biography by Martin Gilbert and his book Churchill And America, the total value came to £10,300, according to a register of foreign government gifts to U.S. federal employees in 2009.

Leo
16-03-2012, 01:55 AM
i remember the ipod thing being a little weird, but i guess obama made up for it:


Obama in London: This time, the president opts for a more traditional gift for the queen
May 24, 2011|By Christi Parsons and Michael A. Memoli | Washington Bureau

On his first visit to Buckingham Palace in 2009, President Obama gave Queen Elizabeth II an iPod. Given a second chance Tuesday, his gift for the British monarch was decidedly more traditional.

According to the White House, Obama gave the queen a collection of rare memorabilia and photographs in a handmade leather-bound album that chronologically highlights her parents' visit to the United States in 1939.

faustus
20-03-2012, 08:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

not bad

padraig (u.s.)
22-03-2012, 08:17 PM
your weekly update from the greatest country on earth:

-mitt (unexpectedly) CRUSHES rick s here in illinois. possibly disastrous for santorum - big momentum killer for him, + mitt finally has big signature win
-next up is louisiana, which santorum will win comfortably, but after that april is full of NE states that mitt will likely sweep or at least win most
-santorum must win PA + at least make solid showing in NY to remain viable (other april states he as a real shot in: WI, MD)
-if not romney could start wrapping this up in may. i.e. brokered convention looking bit less likely, mitt solidifying as actual front runner. but we shall yet see

padraig (u.s.)
22-03-2012, 08:29 PM
also normally never watch speeches but other night watched most of mitt's IL victory speech + ~1/2 of santorum concession. the inanity/hilarity of it (not that dem speeches are better) damn near propelled me into a manic state of giddiness. like staring directly into the sun.

padraig (u.s.)
05-04-2012, 10:51 PM
interMittent update:

-romney crushes santorum again, in both WI + MD, near certain nominee
-apr 24 next big date. 5 states. mitt will easily win CT, RI + DE, probably NY too. more than ever santorum must win PA + make strong showing in NY.

IdleRich
06-04-2012, 02:00 AM
From this point - why is Santorum still in the race? What's the upside for him (and same question for anyone else other than Romney who is still competing)?

padraig (u.s.)
06-04-2012, 04:36 AM
^they're hoping mitt falls short of the 1144 delegate threshold (still feasible, if pretty unlikely). if that happens, open convention, newt gives his delegates to rick s in return for a cabinet position or something. that has to be what newt's been banking on all this time (well, or his gargantuan ego) + what rick s is now.

Bangpuss
07-04-2012, 01:53 PM
It's also kind of a tradition that the winner at least considers his closest rival in the primaries to be his running mate. But the way this campaign has been fought, along with ideological bridges neither of them would be willing to build, I can't see Romney offering Santorum a place on the ticket while the guy still has a hole in his ass. For Santorum, the closer he gets to Romney, the more money he'll be able to raise for the campaign next time around. All the 'smart' Republicans have apparently written off 2012 already, just like a lot of Labour supporters have written off the next election with Red Ed as leader.

Incidentally, did anyone see the BBC documentary about Mormonism, by the same guy who lost his rag with Scientologists a few years back? I didn't realise Mormonism was so controlling and cult-like. Apparently the young Mitt Romney wasn't just a run-of-the-mill Mormon, he was a fucking BISHOP! There was an interview with this woman who became pregnant out of wedlock. She appealed to Wizard, sorry Bishop Romney, and asked what she should do. He basically told her, give it up for adoption or get your slutty ass out of the church.

Leo
10-04-2012, 07:26 PM
as long ago predicted, it was always gonna be romney:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/santorum-to-suspend-campaign-120127.html

padraig (u.s.)
10-04-2012, 08:44 PM
^to no one's surprise


at least considers his closest rival

yeah not happening this time (tho don't always happen anyway - GW + mccain in 00, clinton + jerry brown in 92, etc)


the more money he'll be able to raise for the campaign next time around

that ain't happening either. everyone, including his supporters, agrees he's totally unelectable. he'll never get establishment $ or backing, + if the tea party/evangelical right/etc couldn't force him through against the weakest GOP nominee in 50 years it just ain't happening. especially in 4 years when the GOP field will be loaded with charismatic (i.e. un-mitt like) guys - christie, jeb, rubio maybe - who can stare down santorum on conservatism but w/o any of his craziness or overt bigotry.

padraig (u.s.)
10-04-2012, 08:59 PM
+ as far as mormonism it is interesting that it's been a total non-issue - neither (unlike jfk's in 1960) was santorum's catholicism - and there are many, many fucked up +/or bizarre up things about mormonism but, yunno, welcome to religion in general. the megachurch focus on the family evangelicalism that propped up santorum is worse in plenty of ways.

Bangpuss
16-04-2012, 04:50 PM
Holy Mitt! Candidate actually reveals deceit (to a small group of private donors already in on the scam, admittedly). http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/what_mitt_won%E2%80%99t_say_in_public/singleton/

Bangpuss
28-04-2012, 04:40 PM
So Herman Cain has decided that he does comedy better than he does running for president. Can't believe he agreed to do this: http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/shows/featured/the-daily-show/videos/inside-the-political-curtain-with-john-oliver-herman-cain-the-daily-show-762341/