Republican Nomination: The Middle Game?

I'm continuing this from an already-continued thread about the Republican Nomination. (The first message was about Herman Cain!) The last one was called "Republican Nomination: The End Game." But it is? I see a slog.

Questions:

1. Who is going to win? Is Gingrich now on top, with Romney fading fast? Or will Gingrich's ascendance fuel a backlash?
2. How long is it going to take? Will Santorum drop out before Florida, when he sees the writing on the wall, like Perry did before South Carolina?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/21/newt-gingrich-s-surprise-win-in...

I don't think the experts can answer the questions you just posted Tim.
Personally, it is my opinion that Romney will be the presidential candidate. Not sure how the Republican party is going to get rid of Newt. That's a question to ponder.
Don't think that Santorum will drop out before Florida. The process has been such a rollar coaster ride, I would imagine that Mr. Santorum thinks that he has just as much of a chance to sway the voting block as Gingrich does. My guess would be that Santorum will leave after Florida if he does very poorly.

Don't think a candidate will be chosen (at least publically) till the very end and it is going to be a very close call with Romney winning.

I think Santorum will stay in the race as long as he can. He's the last candidate espousing traditional Republican social values. He will want to stay in to wait for the inevitable Newtsplosion. Moral Majority types may be willing to go with the idea that it's not the actual social values a candidate practices, but the ones he speechifies on that matter, but if anything else comes out about Newt's private life, it will derail his candidacy. I suspect Democrats are hoping that nothing comes out for several months.

Romney, I don't know. I'm not sure that the Republican establishment gets to call this one. He looked better from far away, didn't he? And now that he's not debating with lunkheads like Perry, his difficulty in thinking on his feet (or even preparing adequately) is hurting him.

Social Republicans may get to decide this one and a serial adulterer is less suspect than a rich Mormon guy. Ordinary Republicans can imagine wanting a younger, hotter wife but they can't imagine being a Mormon (Mormons excluded, of course, but the Evangelical voting bloc is a lot bigger and more vocal).

One Newt
One Mitt

Just thinking that a Gingrich-----Obama election is going to look too much like a McCain ------ Obama election and that the party will not want that to happen.

Palin bashed Christie for criticizing Newton. http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/01/23/sarah-palin-slams-chris-christie...

I didn't catch the debate tonight. Any learnings?

6
Go to the clip, and watch the fat man sweat:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/romney-gingrich-argue-about-what-is-an...

7> Gingrich is a bumbling fool when he doesn't have a lathered up audience to cheer his brutish one-liners. His ego was significantly deflated by the crickets that came out whenever he opened his mouth to speak. The "superior" debating skills vanished. His continued insistence that he was employed as a historian by Freddie Mac grows ever more preposterous. I was impressed how Romney dug in on the circumstances that led to Newt's dismissal from House leadership.

~8
"Gingrich is a bumbling fool when he doesn't have a lathered up audience to cheer his brutish one-liners. His ego was significantly deflated by the crickets that came out whenever he opened his mouth to speak. "

Fortunately, Gingrich isn't a poster to Librarything forums, or this post would be awash in red flags. It would be, wouldn't it? I mean, I saw the numerous red flags in the Texans are "intellectual retards" thread.

Oh, and, "pearls."

>6 timspalding:
There is nothing to learn from these guys ! They are who they are.
Watched Maher the other night :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Roemer
Roemer was a guest. His comment : "Romney is the 1% and Gingrich is the lobbist who got him there."

It is a shame that money is the deciding factor. Gingrich just got another $5 from a wife of some casino mogal.

Having said that, I stopped watching the debate when Gingrich speculated that Castro was going to some place other than heaven, as I don't think that Gingrich is or should be a judge as to the character of others.
He looked like an idiot.

Romeny was in "full attack" mode. Haven't seen that out of him before.

Ron Paul...same old same old.

Santorum just grins a "what the hell are you going to do about it" grin while the others are speaking.

There were no serious Republican candidates in the debate last night.

Okay, here's my assessment:

Neither Santorum or Paul will drop out any time soon. Their campaigns aren't based on any sense of reality to begin with, so I don't expect either of them to bow to reality now and realize they are finished.

Well, okay, I think Paul knows, but he doesn't care. He's got his own agenda to purse with his campaign, but that agenda doesn't seem to have ever actually included "win the nomination", so the fact that he's not going to win the nomination isn't really a factor.

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to live in a fantasy reality detached from our own. If, by some chance, he did win the nomination, I think he'd likely lose to Obama by a very wide margin. I think that if he is angling for a Vice-Presidential nod he's also deluded, since he'd bring so many negatives to a ticket with Romney or Gingrich that they would probably offset any positives he brings.

Gingrich may win the nomination if he can actually display his vaunted debating skills, although those seem to have deserted him recently. He pretty much has to do everything right and can't really afford any missteps from here on out if he hopes to win though. I think that's probably not a plausible prediction for Gingrich though - his history of putting his foot in his mouth is too well-established to think he won't do it again. I think if he does win the nomination, he will lose in the general election, and lose badly. He just has too many negatives that are being overlooked by Republican voters right now that will turn off the Independents that are necessary for victory.

Romney is still the most likely winner in my opinion, but he's going to have to work for the nomination more than he thought he would. I don't think he can win the general election, but he'll make the race competitive, which the other remaining candidates probably can't even do.

>11 StormRaven:

I don't know. I could see Santorum dropping out before, if his numbers are below 10%, and after if he finishes in fourth place or a distant third.

Wanna bet?

But winning the nomination isn't the only reason to keep campaigning. If Paul can keep winning delegates then he may be thinking that he has enough votes at the convention that he can get a plank in the platform to return to the gold standard.

Santorum may be thinking that if neither Romney nor Gingrich get a lock on the nomination before the convention that he could have some power to swing the nomination or become the compromise candidate.

13: Possibly. I think that both positions demonstrate a detachment from reality though. The U.S. will never return to the gold standard - especially not under Republican watch. It would mess with the interests of too many groups that have powerful lobbies.

12: Betting on the actions of a person who seems to live in a reality different than our own? No way.

There is no way in hell Romney will let the pasty fat Georgia boy steal this away from him. He will hold on like grim death, and unleash a barrage of character attacks like you've never seen. Gingrich will go up like the Hindenburg!

Either that, or Mitt will send some white boys with skinny ties to "detain" Newt and Callista in their room at Motel 6. Hell, according to wife number 2, Newt was primed and ready for polygamy anyway, and we know he'll change religions faster than he can shed his scaly skin. He'll end up retiring to a compound in Texas, and we'll never hear from him again.

Wouldn't it make a great Tarrantino movie? Tagg and the boys holding Newt down in an alley, while a perfectly coiffed Mitt gives him a swift kick to the peaches with his $900 black leather loafers.

snarky blow by blw comentary here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/republican-debate-tampa-florida-live...

13: Possibly. I think that both positions demonstrate a detachment from reality though.

Aside from the platforms themselves (which I don't care to comment on here), you make a mistake in assuming that the point of staying in the election is to win it.

19: You're misunderstanding me. I think that the non-winning possibilities espoused here for Santorum and Paul demonstrate a detachment from reality. Paul will never get what he wants into the Republican platform, and Santorum will never be a kingmaker.

#20: Paul will never get what he wants into the Republican platform

But that's not his goal either. His goal is a long-term shift in the public debate. Ron Paul single-handedly put the issue of the Federal Reserve on the map and draws cheers from Republican debate audiences when speaking against military interventionism. Considering that Ron Paul has won the under-30 vote in every state (including winning second place in the NH Democratic primary), perhaps it's not so much a "detachment from reality" as it is a detachment from short-sightedness. Dennis Kucinich certainly couldn't have dreamed of accomplishing as much within the Democratic party at the height of anti-Bush sentiment.

Ron Paul single-handedly put the issue of the Federal Reserve on the map and draws cheers from Republican debate audiences when speaking against military interventionism.

Is this really any different than 2008? He started the 2008 primaries as the only guy in the race with the Federal Reserve as one of his primary issues, and now in 2012 he's the only guy in the race with the Federal Reserve as an issue. Have any of the other current potential nominees taken up his mantra that the Fed needs to be eliminated? Do you really think that anyone outside his core of dedicated supporters agree with him on this?

Ron Paul strikes me as being the human equivalent of the old adage about Brazil: "Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be." Similarly, Ron Paul is the candidate of the future, and always will be.

~22
"Is this really any different than 2008? He started the 2008 primaries as the only guy in the race with the Federal Reserve as one of his primary issues, and now in 2012 he's the only guy in the race with the Federal Reserve as an issue. Have any of the other current potential nominees taken up his mantra that the Fed needs to be eliminated? Do you really think that anyone outside his core of dedicated supporters agree with him on this?"

Well, actually, after spending his academic life writing largely upon questions of optimal monetary mechanisms, see, e.g. Money Mischief A Monetary History of the United States The Optimum Quantity of Money, etc., and after proposing one reform after another to rein in the FED, the Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, eventually came around to the position that the FED was beyond reform and should be abolished. But, you know, cranks like Nobel Prize monetary theorists are beyond the pale of true intellectuals.

>22 StormRaven:
I think you are missing the point. Ron Paul's agenda may very well be just to have his say about certain issues, even though he had no chance of winning the presidency. Given that he tends to stay in the primaries a lot longer than many of the other front runners, he has an available platform.
At least that is my take on Paul. His message does seem to be more popular with younger voters...which might be the entire point of his presence in the debates.

Ron Paul's tangents are entertaining. They stand in stark contrast to the doom and gloom and negativity of the other candidates.

24: No, I'm not missing the point. I'm saying that I just don't see Paul's message having any substantial impact on the national debate. Beating the drum for Federal Reserve reform isn't changing the national debate if everyone else is ignoring your mantra. For the most part the other candidates in the running for the nomination don't even engage Paul because they are busy hectoring each other. This should tell you something: they don't think he's worth bothering with or that his message is anything to be concerned about.

>11 StormRaven:
Gingrich... his history of putting his foot in his mouth is too well-established to think he won't do it again.

GINGRICH-BIDEN 2012!

Have not been watching these debates but my past experience with republican presidential aspirants and their views on military interventionism is that the more wars they have in mind the happier their audiences are.

Almost as soon as the troops were pulled out of Iraq--Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and Romney wanted them right back in. And this isn't to pick on Ron Paul because on this issue he is absolutely right but within his own party he is spitting into the wind.

>26 StormRaven: "This should tell you something: they don't think he's worth bothering with or that his message is anything to be concerned about."

But, Ron Paul, does....and that is the point.

Perhaps he is right and the others are wrong ?

Ron Paul is the Republican's Ralph Nader.....and somewhere in the mantra are some truths.....though there are few who seem to think they are important....they themselves feel that their message is worth putting out there.

>28 lriley:
" And this isn't to pick on Ron Paul because on this issue he is absolutely right but within his own party he is spitting into the wind."
Since this is a country that allows them to have a platform, they are present against all odds. I don't agree with a great deal of what Paul says but I admire his tenacity. The fact that both Nader and Paul have messed with the voting odds in an otherwise two Party system, should be encouraging.....

Yes indeed.....he is tugging on Super Man's cape ;)

But, Ron Paul, does....and that is the point.

Sure he does. But if nobody else cares then it is kind of hard to credit him with doing anything to create "a long-term shift in the public debate".

I don't think Paul has shifted the debate regarding the Fed. Once the new administration begins, watch how few people will talk about abolishing the Fed. Watch how even fewer will come out in favor of doing so. There, no debate.

As for isolationism, that has always drawn followers from the left and right.

Something - I don't know if it was Ron Paul - DID make the Fed a high-profile topic. Remember those proposals to alter its governing legislation, audit it more, and subject its monetary policy decisions to Congressional review? That was a year or so ago. I don't recall the fate of that proposed legislation, but at the very least it was seriously considered in DC.

EDIT: Here we go, Wikipedia on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. This one seems to have been principally about auditing (which is stupid since the Fed voluntarily solicits audits from independent auditors all the time anyway, but never mind; this is politics, not reality).
The first House version had 319 co-sponsors and the first Senate version had 32.

>30 StormRaven:
It isn't a fact that "nobody" cares. The fact is not enough people care and this may be situational. Paul seems to be popular with many young voters. Perhaps that is the only point Ron Paul cares to make ?

Not even sure that there has to be a point.....after all, I watched the state of the union address and then listened to the Republican rebutal......I don't think that the Republican's listened to Obama's speech....they accused him of NOT doing what he said he was trying to do......(this after making sure that he accomplishes as little as possible) What is the point of this ? To me it seems to have no point at all other than personal gratification.....which is probably the same point behind Ron Paul's campaign. Different points but one is as nonproductive as the other....

33: It isn't a fact that "nobody" cares.

I wasn't clear. The "nobody" I was referring to were the other candidates for the nomination. The three other candidates are engaging one another and Paul is off talking to himself. He's a non-factor in their eyes.

Again, I think you're wrong, SR. Paul's role, if nothing else, is that of gadfly. And the fact that we're currently addressing civlib questions at all during this cycle is almost solely attributable to him.

~30

"Sure he does. But if nobody else cares then it is kind of hard to credit him with doing anything to create "a long-term shift in the public debate"."

Yept, he and that loser Goldwater........ No impact at all, either of them.......

Now Richard Nixon and LBJ, those were winners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972 Ah, I forget, how did that turn out.......?

~If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up his sleeve, then nothing is cool~

"...on Wednesday, Newt "grandiose is my middle name" (it isn't) Gingrich took those truisms on to a whole new, extraplanetary level. Speaking to an audience on Florida's Space Coast ahead of the state's primary next week, the big-thinking Republican hopeful turned his science fiction fantasies into a hard and fast campaign promise.

"By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American," he said. According to Talking Points Memo Gingrich went on to say that the base would be used for "science, tourism, and manufacturing" and to create a "robust industry" modelled on the airline business in the 20th century." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/jan/25/newt-gingrich-moon-base

#34: The "nobody" I was referring to were the other candidates for the nomination.

They have, but admittedly they were throwaway references. Michelle Bachman once claimed that she reads Ludwig von Mises on the beach and Perry answered a question regarding the most important thing he's learned from another candidate by mentioning Paul's stance on the Fed. If politicians are the be-all-end-all of public debate, is there a single DC politician that has voiced opposition to SOPA or PIPA?

#37: Newt "grandiose is my middle name" (it isn't) Gingrich

Isn't it "Hussein"?

#38

Yes. Quite a few.

Yeah, you walked into that one.

Eh, it was a throw-away reference. Not that I can find anything other than Chris Dodd expressing post-supporter remorse.

http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update

As to how many of those are only responding to public opinion, I can't say. That was a 2 second google.

Well, the future of SOPA and PIPA will likely be similar to the past of the PATRIOT Act. Most of the ideas in that Act were proposed repeatedly in past Congresses but "everything changed" with 9/11. For instance, many Americans threw away any good sense they may have previously possessed and begged to have their fathers in Washington PROTECT THEM. Do you feel protected yet? Has daddy made everything better?

The lead up to the second Iraq War is proof of how gullible a massive amount of Americans can be. It seems like at least 80 % of the public bought into Bush/Cheney's horseshit and Colin Powell's so-called pictorial evidence. I can remember getting in a very violent profanity driven discussion with these two yahoos at work and wondering whether I was going to have to fight them on the spot and potentially get fired. They didn't like my thoughts and they wouldn't leave it be. One of them I remember remarking since I didn't want to go to war against Iraq that I should go live there. The Fox news propaganda machine pretty much leading the rest of the media (including their major rival CNN) around by the nose in choruses of let's go get them--did all they could do to create all that hysteria. The Patriot Act fit right in with it. If you were a real American and didn't have anything to hide--Why would you worry about it?

Well ten years down the road we as a country have been paying for that--at least the 99% have. For that reason alone one should be very wary of the whole republican field of potential wannabe presidents--with the exception of Paul in this case.

~44

And how long did it take your fellow workers to come to their strongly held opinions? I suspect, not long at all. After all, people who spend most of their leisure time watching sports and engaging in other "fun" activities really don't have a clue about how the world of public policy and economics works. There occurs what is widely touted as "the ultimate crisis facing our Nation" and they will swallow any propaganda line.

With all the flack being fired at Gingrich (deservedly, IMO) I wonder if Romney might be held in an even tighter embrace by the Republican establishment just because he's NOT NEWT GINGRICH.

#45: The Bush administration propagandized for the Iraq war for a solid year before it actually started. It's all in how they framed the debate. Everything from suggesting Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda to alleging violations of baseless UN resolutions, they had a hook for everyone from right-wing revenge jocks to left-wing UN-geeks.

~47

Oh, so your counter is that it takes a year for an overwhelming majority of Americans to believe in a crusade that has absolutely no basis in fact?. I wonder if it took Hitler that long to convince "everyone" of his theories about The Jews or Lenin that long to convince everyone of his theories about The Perfidious Capitalist Kulaks or..... Yept, probably did. I stand corrected. Mass insanity takes a year rather than being instantaneous. So the following is not exactly correct:

"On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot."

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/16.html

#48: OK. That was a rather manic way of saying you agree with me.

I don't know if I agree with you or not. My point was that most people, at least most Americans, are sufficiently uneducated about the basics needed to make even the most fundamental political decisions that you can sell them anything. Including things that were thought to be fundamental to their political traditions for hundreds of years (e.g., torture is barbaric and cowardly). Hence, the quotation from 1984.

Your modification, apparently, was that it takes a campaign over many months and with various "hooks" for various interest groups - but you seem to basically agree with the basic thesis. Is that right? It is hard to tell when you express your views so briefly.

#45--no it didn't take long (and my point of view at least around where I live were not very popular at that time) and actually the Bush/Cheney rationalization for Iraq--particularly Colin Powell's address to the United Nations could have been scripted out of Graham Greene's Our man in Havana where vacuum cleaner parts are photo shopped into appearing to be potential missile sites with the difference that Powell's intelligence was presented as evidence to the whole world whereas in Greene's book it's kept secret (to be acted on) by Britain's intelligence services.

American's love the idea of being 'the world's leader'. They love seeing their military in action. Tyrants deposed. Not much stomach for high body counts if they're our own. Every soldier these days seem automatically raised to 'hero'. I was in the military for four years. They were mostly normal kids--young people--not usually the best (grade wise) of their high school classes--prone to drinking and recreational drugs--chasing girls and sports. They swore, they spit, they got into fights at bars, they weren't always well groomed. The demands I suspect are much higher on soldiers/sailors now than when I was in but people are not thinking rationally when they turn them all into a collection of superheroes. They make mistakes and so do their leaders. They are humans after all.

Off on a tangent I suppose but our political leaders need a bit more circumspection when it comes to putting troops into combat--especially situations not likely to have much or any effect on our own national interests.

N.W.A. (Newt with Attitude), straight outta Compton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/newt-gingrich-rap-song-florida_n_123916...

#50: I don't think it's as simple as flipping a switch. But various people do have a predisposition to interpret a situation a certain way, each for their own reasons, especially if you hit the right buttons.

#52: Oh, that's just sad. It's not even about anything. At least the Ron Paul rap song is catchy, though I don't care for the truther and pro-border bent.

~53

Let me restate for the third time: It is "nice" if you have the manipulative skills of a Goebbels, but it really isn't necessary. If you have a citizenry that is sufficiently ignorant about how government, the economy, and politics actually works, you can sell them anything. Maybe certain things under certain circumstances take longer than other things, but they can be convinced if you are merely somewhat persistent. Indeed, they can become so convinced that mere facts will not dissuade them.

Take for instance the Afghan war. The facts are these:

(1) Anyone who had read anything about Afghanistan knew that the country was just a collection of tribes and that one imperial power after another had tried unsuccessfully to conquer and rule it for the last 200 years. (Hint for the kindergarten set: You can't conquer and rule a "nation" that is a collection of tribes, because there is no central authority and the tribal leaders won't obey ANYONE who believes that he is the central authority.)

(2) The excuse for the Afghan war was that the purported central leader at the time wouldn't "turn him (Bin Laden) over NOW". Remember the headlines on your daily paper? Of course, said leader said he really didn't exactly know where Bin Laden was located (a claim that is wholly believable given subsequent events and what was previously know about the politics and geography of the country) and that he'd like to see the evidence against him before he just turned him over to certain death. The response was "You can't see the evidence, that is classified. TURN HIM OVER NOW, OR ELSE."

(3) The Taliban as the enemy came later - after we had invaded and the Taliban objected to just turning the country over to the nice Americans.

(4) Bin Laden was, of course, never found in Afghanistan and the same President who had justified the invasion on the basis of capturing him subsequently declared that "he isn't really an issue."

How long did it take most Americans to become uneasy about this obvious fraud? Try ten years of meaningless deaths of Americans and tens of billions of dollars. Most Americans, even today, simply don't remember the above history.

We've also become used to following an ideology and to adhering to it as a whole. We've forgotten that it's always more complicated than that and a person should be thinking enough to say that while they agree with x, they aren't sure about y and would prefer a different approach to z. Of course, as Americans, we really like our world to hold a clear cut, yes or no answer to everything. Government bad. Military good. Gay people bad, money good, deficit bad, etc...

What's interesting is when you talk to someone who is highly partisan to one political party or the other (America's binary--there can be only two). I've met an ardent Democrat who strongly believes in the right to bear arms and people who have voted Republican their entire lives who don't think poor people have brought it on themselves. We're all more nuanced than that, even that guy with a confederate flag bumper sticker on his pick up truck.

Despite Newt's sudden, seemingly viable candidacy, I'm not sure we can just dismiss most people as idiots.

#54--the only thing to quibble with here is that instead of tens of billions of dollars it was hundreds of billions--perhaps even a trillion + and mostly borrowed from the future (or not budgeted then). Considering the financial predicament we find ourselves in today I at least wonder whether all the market crashing at the end of Bush 2's term in office would have caused quite the tailspin that it has.

Some people still continue to persist in their end times daydreaming. The Bush/Cheney crusade for that is what it more or less is to those who believed it in then and still believe it now made a lot of multinationals rich. It offshored tons of capital. It has caused many people to lose their livelihoods if not their lives. It has accomplished virtually nothing worthwhile for 99.9% + of our population. Pure theater and those who believed all these lies should be ashamed of their gullibility because it gave our leaders at the time carte blanche to destroy lives (including our own military) and shatter our economy and all to their own benefit.

There are a lot of people in this country of ours who spit on what they call intellectuals--thinking--'oh, these people think they're smarter than everyone else'. Intellectuality starts with the ability to take a step back and consider things without bias. One of it's roots is non-conformism--not to be herded into thinking something just because that's where the trend seems to be going.

"those who believed all these lies should be ashamed of their gullibility"

I guess that's me. Ol' shameful, gullible me.

Newt: Liar (Mitt).
Mitt: Liar (Newt).
Newt: Swiss bank accounts (Mitt).
Mitt: Freddie Mac influence peddler (Newt).
Newt: Former liberal (Mitt).
Mitt: Failed Speaker (Newt).
Rick: Unstable (Newt). Unelectable (Mitt).
Ron: Gold. Gold. Gold.

~57

Yept, and proud of it. Want to buy another crusade? They're on special this week. Just so long as you aren't ideological about your crusade.

Newt: Bomb Iran.
Mitt: Bomb Iran.
Rick: Bomb Iran.
Ron: Give Iranians twitter accounts.

Newt: Kill Obamacare.
Mitt: Kill Obamacare.
Rick: Kill Obamacare.
Ron: Kill Federal Government.

Newt: End abortion.
Mitt: End abortion.
Rick: End abortion.
Ron: End abortion.

Newt: Stop same-sex marriage
Mitt: Stop same-sex marriage.
Rick: Stop same-sex marriage.
Ron: Legalize meth.

I guess that's me. Ol' shameful, gullible me.

Oops. Too bad all those people had to die or spend their remaining days as cripples, just because of the readiness of a large swath of the public to believe even with a howling lack of evidence. Oh well. They had me at "mushroom cloud."

Lawecon: "Hint for the kindergarten set..."

Attacking your opponents as "kindergarten" is a "kindergarten" move. You might as well punch someone for being violent.

That's downright ungrateful, Tim.

~62

Yes, much better to attack them as ignoramuses and then have nothing to cite showing that they are ignoramuses or to counter their citations. Very mature and convincing. But of course we don't know anyone who regularly engages in those practices.

~63

Yept, he and you.

It looks like Gingrich is falling apart in Florida. Three reasons, I think: 1) a too-docile performance in the debate; 2) Romney's relentless attack-ads; 3) the enduring enmity of established conservative political leaders, both pundits and politicians. I don't see him recovering, but I said that before. My sense is that Adelson's millions will keep him going for a while but he's just too soft a target to last.

Paul and Santorum look like they just might keep campaigning as long as they can buy gas to make it to the next town. Neither expects to win the nomination, so they're in it for their own reasons which wouldn't change regardless of the outcome.

So I'm sticking with my original prediction: Romney gets the Republican nomination, a weak third-party emerges from the right and Obama gets re-elected. The real question might be What's going to remain of the Republican Party after November?

There will be blood.

#66

While I think a third-party option is possible, I don't think it's very likely. Third parties usually develop around personalities, not policies (think Ross Perot--if someone with less money and less bombast had tried what Perot tried in '92, he never would have gotten off the ground regardless of the public's desire for a third option that year). And at the moment, I don't see anyone to the right of Romney who: 1) has a significant interest in running or 2) has a significant number of people trying to draft him in.

I certainly can see Ron Paul trying for a third party or independent run, but he probably wouldn't draw enough votes away from Romney to make much of a difference. If Romney loses a squeaker, it'll be because of low turnout and not a third option drawing off votes.

I don't think a third party run will happen. And Paul has already said no, at least he said so on TV.

#68: Third parties usually develop around personalities, not policies

Don't forget single-issue parties. I don't know how many people here follow Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast (the same guy who does Hardcore History), but he once mentioned an interesting idea for a single-issue party that focused on anti-corruption rather than the typical left/right issues.

>69 barney67:

No, he didn't say no. He's studiously avoided saying no fully.

"There will be blood."

Couldn't happen to a bunch of nicer people.

>72 lawecon:
No doubt ! The two Republican front runners are truly a sad sorry comment on the state of our country ! One cannot think about for an extended period of time ..... is damaging to one's overall mental health !

#70

Single-issue candidacies are always a possibility, but they rarely attract much attention. The last ones that I can think of that managed to have an impact were the segregationist candidacies of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace in 1948 and 1968. Although they both tried to position their candidacies as being about more than just anti-civil-rights, that is, for all practical purposes, what drove them and their supporters. Prior to that, I think you'd have to go back to the prohibition movement of the early 20th century to find another one. They just don't come around that often.

#74: Actually, I was thinking of the Green Party.

#75: From Wikipedia Green Party (United States):

Seats in the Senate: 0
Seats in the House: 0
Governorships: 0
State Upper Houses: 0
State Lower Houses: 0

Unless someone with real money comes forward, I can't imagine a Green Party getting heard of. And I can't imagine the Green Party (Key value #1: Grassroots democracy) getting far with a multimillionare running the show.

Green party is not a single issue party--it has a broader range on issues actually than either the Democratic or Republican parties. It is not beholden to major corporations. In fact it's not really getting much PAC money from anybody anywhere. So it is not driven by long standing more often than not discredited ideological stances--such as the free market philosophies that both of our two major parties (particularly the Republicans) support no matter how fucked up they prove to be.

I think if you're really sick and tired of the same old same old offered by the two major parties the Green Party is not necessarily a bad way to go---particularly if you think of yourself as a progressive person. When it gets to the point where supporting the democrats is just a form of partisanship--well then, you know, free yourself and give someone better a try.

#77: It is not beholden to major corporations.

Yeah, see #76 on why that's the case. The minute the Greens actually started to get their guys into DC, they'd be be as dependent upon campaign donations as the next congress critter. If I want to cast my vote with a party that's going nowhere, I can just vote Libertarian.

If I want to cast my vote with a party that's going nowhere, I can just vote Libertarian.

It seems to me third parties in the US are either personality cults (Perot) or are really about moving the idea, and the party closest to them, not the party itself (Liberty Party, Free Soil, Socialists, Libertarians). At least three of those four did move the idea.

What do you think of Paul's foray into Libertarian politics? Did it help the ideas at stake, or affect either of the parties?

Well, what Ron Paul demonstrates is that it's easier to work within one of the two established big parties to deseminate ideas than via a third party run, if only because you get to debate at the big table instead of the kid table. His reach in both 2008 and now seems, to me, to have exceeded whatever influence the LP has managed to achieve. The Free State Project in New Hampshire seems to bear this out as well with libertarians moving there in order to concentrate their influence. The first of them to be elected to the state legislature won running as a Democrat. Being in a third party seems to function as an additional impediment.

http://www.jillstein.org/truth_out_the_party_of_our_discontent

Link to green party candidate Jill Stein. She makes observations about past third party candidacies. Green party by definition is pro-environment so #77 we can just about discount them from taking PAC money from T. Boone Pickens, GWB and their friends. Don't think they're quite on board with the agendas of Wall Street banks or other investment vultures. Now at least to me--the libertarians--that's a lot more questionable since they would deregulate practically everything. Stein is hopeful that the Occupy discontent works in the Green's favor. That remains to be seen but Occupy (primarily progressive based) very often critiques the Dems including POTUS.

~81
"Green party by definition is pro-environment so #77 we can just about discount them from taking PAC money from T. Boone Pickens, GWB and their friends."

So they'd turn down such money? Any examples?

#82. Ha ha. Not yet.

Regarding a third-party: My thinking is that there's a substantial demographic overlap between Tea Party advocates and evangelical Christians, both are socially conservative and neither is overly concerned with the practical ramifications of their principles. In a Obama v. Romney contest they face a choice between a black man (with race being the unspoken issue with many surrogates) and a cult's man, both anathema to principles of a popular kind of Christian-ish social conservativism.

Adherents to these principles, then, would face the choice of staying away from the election or finding a candidate they can support -- support as a matter of principle, not pragmatic politics. Maybe they usurp AmericansElect (maybe that's what it's there for, who knows?), maybe they throw up a candidate none of us have ever heard of, but pulling those votes away from the two major parties would effect the election, even if there was no chance anybody outside of them would be elected to anything.

It's possible I'm wrong about this.

#84--it's a good post but 20 years down the road--if it's been more of the democrat/republican thing because 'they're the only ones with a legit shot--the only ones with a machine-the only ones electable'--we might have (collectively as a nation) gone through a lot more unnecessary pain than was necessary.

84> I don't see the Tea Party emerging as a third party or finding a candidate outside the Republican Party. Despite claims for independence, while it is not exactly "astro turf" (Pelosi), it is a creature of Republican politics. It is better understood as an avant-gardist movement inside Republican-Conservative circles which seeks the purification of the Party's principles, a purification taking the form of a return to foundations, to the Founding, to the Founders, i.e. to "constitutional conservatism". The Republican Party establishment has always understood this about the Tea Party and the fact that the Tea Party never sought to put up candidates to run as Democrats and/or as Independents correctly led the Republican establishment to see it as just another segment of the Republican base that could be welcomed, massaged, manipulated, and co-opted; all of which has taken place. The results of the presidential primary campaign (assuming an eventual Romney triumph) are confirming the impotence of the Tea Party as an autonomous political force (the payroll tax extension fiasco also undermined the credibility of Tea Party identified members of the House). When a career political insider like Gingrich can claim to be the sole representative of the Tea Party and not face backlash from the Tea Party, it is a sign that the game is up, fin de la partie, Palin's quasi approval notwithstanding.

#86: a purification taking the form of a return to foundations, to the Founding, to the Founders, i.e. to "constitutional conservatism"

I'm pretty sure the Sedition Act, signed into law by some of the Founders, would be widely destructive to the Tea Party. Criminalizing spreading falsehoods against the president? Inciting the hatred of the people against him? Of course, any return to foundations is based on rose-colored views of said foundations.

Well, there is a standard to which we all want to aspire. The Alien And Sedition Acts. Yept, some of the landmark legislation of the American system.

86> Theoria, I didn't mean the Tea Party so much as the folks whose anger fueled it. As you say, the TP is finished, but those people are still around and there are a lot of them. They might respond to a new populist movement maybe led by someone like (TimSpalding's idea) Jar-jar Binx (Binks?). We-sah free!!

89> I think those angry people will vote for Mitt Romney in November because their visceral hatred of Obama trumps any qualms they may have about electing an unconvincing conservative.

>90 theoria:
Indeed....I did hear the "hate of Obama" theory. The way I heard it though was that the candidate who could hate Obama the most would win the primary. Guess this way makes sense as well.
Either way, we are looking at a "hate" based election. Always a cheerful thought !

Oh, Good Grief! Santorum sweeps?

Non-partisan comment:
This is the craziest primary contest ever. Maybe this isn't even the middle game yet. We should elect Romney, Gingrich and Santorum on the same ticket. Every week the nation changes its mind, and a new one takes over as president.

Partisan comment:
Santorum is unelectable. I can understand voting for someone unelectable in the early primaries just to communicate dissatisfaction. But we're getting on now. This is more like a death wish.

Do you think that this may be less about electability and more about the various component parts of the Republican Party coming apart at the seams?

So here's a stupid question, but what would a blend of the three or four candidates look like? I mean, what can you reach consensus on between them?

#94: I don't think it has to be a blend. It just has to be someone who sounds honest when they pander. Pandering alone is not enough. Reagan did it with the harmless grandpa act. Bush Sr. did it by pretending to be a no-nonsense straight-talker (like McCain). Clinton did it with the honest-as-Tom-Sawyer persona. Bush Jr. did it as the well-meaning simpleton. Obama did it as the cult-like motivational speaker.

But of the available Republican candidates, they all either don't sound honest when they pander or they just don't pander.

#94:

Obama bad.

~90

If he wore a hood would he become a "convincing conservative," in your view?

But you're right about one thing, there are many of us who have developed a visceral hatred of Obama. Obama, who ran for President as the great defender of the Bill of Rights, but who has now decided that extraordinary rendition must be retained, trial by military commission of those held for almost a decade now without charges must be maintained. Guys who were tortured daily for years are "too dangerous" to move to the mainland of the U.S., where they might be assisted by subversive organizations like the Federal Court system. That lying lapdog of tyranny, Obama. Yes, some of us don't have warm fuzzies for his performance in office.

#98--Obama got a lot of votes from people believing that Iraq and Afghanistan would end within a year or so and that the Guantanamo torture facility would close and now--since it hasn't happened he is as culpable for all the crimes committed in his time in office as the people who took us there in the first place were in theirs. Apart from Ron Paul though--the rest of the Republican field seems intent on continuing down the same road as well. There was a big hullabaloo when the troops finally left Iraq--many of the staged in nearby Kuwait. Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann etc. outraged when the troops were pulled out.

I'm pretty sure I'm voting third party this time or not at all. I got played for a sucker this last time and I don't appreciate it. The Republicans are worse than the Democrats in my mind but voting for a lesser evil IMO is still voting for something evil. I'm sorry but I just don't have that kind of masochistic streak.

"Santorum is unelectable. I can understand voting for someone unelectable in the early primaries just to communicate dissatisfaction. But we're getting on now. This is more like a death wish."

I think Santorum's continued success is an indication that the Republican party is intent on ceasing to be a political party and instead becoming an ideologically pure party. Ideologically pure parties don't win elections.

~98

Good for you.

98> And I feel that if a Republican were elected then the one good thing to come out of the Obama presidency, the Health Care Insurance law, would be dismantled, and I really don't want to see that happen. So I'll likely hold my nose and vote for Obama.

None of these people men are "Kings".....we elected Obama and expected miracles in the midst of several enormous disasters. Then developed a visceral hatred for him because he didn't put on the crown and issue all kinds of decrees. Did anyone listen to Mitch McConnell ????
Now we are once again listening to candidates promising miracles. Creating jobs, wiping out the last four years of government policies. Talking out of both their mouths and their rear ends about supporting the middle class while continuing to stack the cards in favor of big money.

Our government is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Example of the bottom of the barrel :
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/01/dana_rohrabacher_blames_female.php

Somewhere in this country a majority of people thought he was a good idea.

If a "visceral" hatred is in order (athough "visceral" hatred seems to me to be something one would despense only under circumstances that are deeply and profoundly personal, sadly this President has been the target of this emotion since election night of 08)....I would suggest it be targeted at the overreacting, undereducated, my guns, guts and God crowd.....who would no doubt blindly head off into another war at the toss of a hat. The crowd who continues to think that having individuals like Mr Rohrabacher in office is going insure "American Exceptionalism" They are out there and they have had a lot of power for some unfanthomable reason.

I'm pretty sure I'm voting third party this time or not at all. I got played for a sucker this last time and I don't appreciate it. The Republicans are worse than the Democrats in my mind but voting for a lesser evil IMO is still voting for something evil. I'm sorry but I just don't have that kind of masochistic streak.

Reminds me of the old story about Dolly Brunson playing a hold 'em game somewhere in the middle of Texas (I think, I'm pretty much making it up as I go along). Seems he'd been having his ass handed to him for a couple of days on end. Amarillo Slim and he eventually figured out that the game was rigged. The next day, Dolly sat down to play and Slim was amazed. "Dolly, this is idiocy. You know you can't win here. The game is rigged."

"Yeah, Slim" said Dolly, "I know that, but it's the only game in town."

Watching the various Republican events gives me much the same feeling as watching this video.

>104 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Thank you ! It has been a long time since I laughed this hard !

#103--Jesse--it may be a game for some people. Politicians for certain (they are ambitious and ambition is all about playing games--he who dies with the biggest bank account is the winner) but there are life and death consequences sometimes to the decisions they make. Not saying that there aren't occasions when you might need to send the troops in but Iraq should never have happened and Afghanistan should have just been about getting OBL and his people and not anything about nation building.

#101--the remaining Republicans running for POTUS do not seem to inspire much cross the board enthusiasm within their own party. Rick Santorum's enthusiasts don't seem to have much in common with Mitt Romney's and the same could be said for Gingrich and Paul. Santorum's going to drive away independents by the millions. Gingrich maybe not so much but it's still significant. Romney is detested by at least 40% of his own party and Paul might be even more unpopular. Obama's really going to have to something extraordinarily fucked up to lose this one. I very much doubt he needs my vote in NYS anyway. When the Democrat POTUS guy can't win NYS--well it's over before it's begun.

#103--Jesse--it may be a game for some people. Politicians for certain (they are ambitious and ambition is all about playing games--he who dies with the biggest bank account is the winner) but there are life and death consequences sometimes to the decisions they make. Not saying that there aren't occasions when you might need to send the troops in but Iraq should never have happened and Afghanistan should have just been about getting OBL and his people and not anything about nation building.

Yeah, but voting for a third party candidate may very well just be folding the hand to the greater of three evils.

~103

"None of these people men are "Kings".....we elected Obama and expected miracles in the midst of several enormous disasters. Then developed a visceral hatred for him because he didn't put on the crown and issue all kinds of decrees."

Tell me, if you would, what sorts of promises would a public official have to make and then break in order for you to believe that he was a liar? Just a few examples will do?

You do realize, I hope, that policies such as the maintenance of "extraordinary rendition" are not dependent upon votes of congress, but are within the discretion of the President and his Attorney General? Whether an "enemy alien" is turned over to the federal court system should, of course, not be in the discretion of the President. It should be a constitutionally foregone presumption, but, then, your intuition probably doesn't tell you these things.

#107--by continuing to vote the lesser evil you're kind of institutionalizing it. Continuing to kick the day of reckoning down the road. Something has to give sooner or later. The Republican party for one is in the process of factionalizing. I wouldn't be shocked at this point if the same happened to the Democrats. Particularly in light of the Occupy movement--people of which more or less should be Obama voters but who at this point in time are a critique of his presidency. This may be a major problem for him because between now and November he is going to have to address their critique. For instance in his own hometown of Chicago in May there are going to be mass demonstrations against globalization--and it's mostly going to come from the left and progressives. In light of the past year I think this one has a chance of really exploding.

#107: This is why we need a "none of the above" choice. I usually just leave the candidate section blank, but I have no idea how such undervotes are counted. Even if I've filled in my votes on ballot measures, the counting machine is often fond of spitting my ballot back out again and it makes me wonder if it's because it's insisting I choose candidates if it's to count my ballot at all.

Prop 23 would have gotten us a "none of the above" option in California, but it was defeated by almost 2-1. Most likely many of those 36% in favor of it would also be likely to actually use that option in an election, while much of the 64% against it were probably party-line hacks who knew it would make elections harder for the Dems and Repubs.

#110:

If Nevada's experience with "None of these candidates" is any indication, you are likely overstating the effect that "None of the above" would have. In the 2004 election, only 0.44% of Nevadan voters choose "None of these candidates". And that was when Bush and Kerry were running. As a pair they were about as popular as Obama and Romney are right now.

There is also the option of writing in a candidate. And that option isn't just for Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

#105

It probably got stuck on the election cycle, Faceinbook.

#111: That's discouraging. My low regard for democracy just sunk a few increments lower.

~113

What, in your view, would happen if "none of the above" won an election? (If you have difficulty answering that question, or if you answer it correctly in terms of what would actually happen, you might arrive at the reason that "none of the above" has not been widely adopted.)

>114 lawecon:

Herman Cain is tanned, rested and ready.

Good for him.

#114: What, in your view, would happen if "none of the above" won an election?

Nothing. Ever heard of the municipal election somewhere where nobody showed up to vote and things went on as usual? I don't have any illusions that officials would be magically unseated. I just want to make their jobs as hard as possible.

And how will a measure that you admit will result in "Nothing." make anyone's job harder? What is the point, other than it makes libertarians look stupid?

This seems to me to be much like the "libertarians" who somehow think that the solution to collectivism is that everyone have a dozen guns. Why? Suppose everyone did, would their political conclusions change? Suppose you had a dozen guns and a SWAT team wanted to take you down. Would your dozen pop guns be any match for their resources? Really?

But every ideology seems to have its bumperstickers. The crazy collectivists in these Forums seem to think that THE CORPORATIONS (there has to be a definite article included when you are describing a conspiracy of "them") are somehow TAKING OVER THE WORLD. Yah, sure. Every worked for a large corporation? Most of them can't find their ass with both hands. Take over the world. ROTFL.

"Severely conservative" Mitt Romney wins CPAC straw poll over Santorum.

#118: And how will a measure that you admit will result in "Nothing." make anyone's job harder?

The road to nothing doesn't have to be easy. Personally I think there should be no advertisements supporting anyone running for office (way more constitutional than banning smoking ads), but having to run against "none of the above" is probably a more realistically implementable hurdle.

"#118: And how will a measure that you admit will result in "Nothing." make anyone's job harder?"

The road to nothing doesn't have to be easy. Personally I think there should be no advertisements supporting anyone running for office (way more constitutional than banning smoking ads), but having to run against "none of the above" is probably a more realistically implementable hurdle.

=======================

(1) Who do you think is going to pass that law against political advertisement?

(2) This exchange started out when another poster pointed out the insignificant result that "None of the Above" had in Nevada AFTER it was enacted You then admitted that its likely result was "nothing" but you still are a booster. I'm not getting a reason here.

(3) You now apparently want to make it more difficult to run for office. And you want to ban political advertisements so that incumbents will have the advantage in every election where there is an incumbent. O.K., well, why do you want that?

#121: Who do you think is going to pass that law against political advertisement?

Why do you think I said that none of the above would be more realistic to implement?

This exchange started out when another poster pointed out the insignificant result that "None of the Above" had in Nevada AFTER it was enacted You then admitted that its likely result was "nothing" but you still are a booster. I'm not getting a reason here.

So I say that I'm disappointed by its apparent efficacy in Nevada and now I'm not supposed to favor such a hurdle because it's not as big a hurdle as I had hoped?

You now apparently want to make it more difficult to run for office. And you want to ban political advertisements so that incumbents will have the advantage in every election where there is an incumbent. O.K., well, why do you want that?

Actually, I've just come up with an even better idea. Communize all campaign funds. All political donations are to go to one fund for each office and everyone running for that office can only advertize with money from that common fund. But really, I'm open to anything that will screw up the electoral process.

Has anyone ever told you that you nitpick a lot? Or would that be a TOS violation?

Yah, I often deal in logic and reality rather than slogans and off the top of one's head "cool sounding ideas." Irritating, isn't it? But in the big world outside these Forums one has to at least try to make sense.

>122 Lunar:
If one nitpicks loud enough and long enough one comes to the realization that there are no solutions. Nothing to be tried, nothing to be done. We absolutely should never never ever take an idea and run with it. We must ponder, research, rethink, form suppositions and shoot down our own theories.

The nitpick technique is used in a court room but, as is often evident, it serves to slow down the process. I would guess that the success rate of this approach is probably about the same as the "take the idea and run with it" method.
those who are willing to implement and try something have probably tried several dozen methods by the time the other group is done nitpicking the details. Either way, I would suppose that the effectiveness ratio is probably about 50/50.

Just a difference of methodology is all.

#123: My sympathies. It must be rough behaving in the real world the way you do online.

Sympathies accepted. And let me extend my sympathies to you. After all, you must have a really boring life in the real world if you are constantly worried about the "tone" of online posts, particularly when you are apparently unwilling to engage with the substance of those same posts.

Ron Paul in cahoots with Romney, sinking Santo's battleship http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-mitt-romney-alli...

I was just reading one last night about efforts to whitewash Paul out of the primary process.

A U of WI prof discusses alignment of Catholic hierarchy's objectives with that of evangelical Protestant conservative right: "Catholic intellectuals have become to the American Right what Jewish intellectuals once were to the American Left." So far, almost as many Republican primary votes have gone to Catholic candidates (Santorum, Gingrich) as to non-Catholics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/the-catholicization-of-th_b_129843...

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/02/25/us/AP-US-Santorum-Religious-Voters.ht...

Here's an analysis like Arctic Stranger offered in another thread:

"Romney and Santorum ... are now increasingly likely to duke it out all spring."

"Few Republicans greet that prospect sanguinely, though some argue that it will do little to hamper the party’s capacity to defeat Obama in the fall. “It’s reminiscent of the contest between Obama and Clinton,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently opined. “That didn’t seem to have done Democrats any harm in the general election, and I don’t think this contest is going to do us any harm, either.”"

"Yet the Democratic tussle in 2008, which featured two undisputed heavyweights with few ideological discrepancies between them, may be an exception that proves the rule. Certainly Republican history suggests as much: Think of 1964 and the scrap between the forces aligned with Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller, or 1976, between backers of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan*. On both occasions, the result was identical: a party disunited, a nominee debilitated, a general election down the crapper."

"With such precedents in mind, many Republicans are already looking past 2012. If either Romney or Santorum gains the nomination and then falls before Obama, flubbing an election that just months ago seemed eminently winnable, it will unleash a GOP apocalypse on November 7—followed by an epic struggle between the regulars and red-hots to refashion the party. And make no mistake: A loss is what the GOP’s political class now expects. “Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama,’ ” says former Reagan strategist Ed Rollins. “Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a fucking mess.’ ”

"...“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."**

http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-heilemann-2012-3/

* 1980: Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy!

** Hmm, how to vote on Tuesday??

~127

The Washington Post strikes again. But I do miss the regular feature on flying saucer sightings.

>131 lawecon:
Give it a few days. Gingrich may just summon up the flying saucer constituency one more time.

130> The 2008 Democratic primary mosh pit doesn't work as a positive comparison for the Republicans this year because Obama, Clinton, and Edwards offered substantive arguments over their small differences (such as health care reform), and largely avoided character assassination, leaving it to the Republicans to engage in anti-Democrat mudslinging (which, in the end, begat Sarah Palin). While she's not running for office, Palin's success in drawing enthusiastic crowds in the fall of 2008 became a model for the Tea Party, as evidenced by its political style of rage and ressentiment. This style lacks substance, placing a premium on exaggerated claims (which need not be substantiated by evidence); it is marked by a refusal to evaluate policies on their own merits or demerits in favor of questioning the motives their advocates; and it tends towards the over-dramatization of the political stakes of legislative proposals as against an even-handed weighing of alternatives.

So far, the candidates have sought to adopt this political style (to be sure, this style did not originate with Palin or the Tea Party, which is only its latest historical manifestation), with varying degrees of success. Santorum is comfortable playing the identity politics' victimhood role, which, when packaged with the heightened Good versus Evil rhetoric, effectively consigns voters who disagree with him to Satan. Romney hasn't quite internalized and mastered this style, for good reasons: he cannot credibly present himself as a victim of Big Government and he does well to avoid raising matters of faith in the context of the Republican party's evangelical Christian base. Hence, his mimicry of the Palin/Tea Party political style sounds forced, brittle, and inauthentic. The hairshirt of the blue-collar, arch-conservative is out of place in the Brooks Brothers wardrobe of this country club Republican. Gingrich was always bombastic, loopy, and megalomaniacal, and cannot possibly overcome negative ratings in the 60% range among likely voters. At best, he has proven to be the smartest guy in a very small room.

Consequently, these 2012 Republican combatants have lowered the quality of political debate far below that of the 2008 Democratic contestants. The weedy skirmish over "earmarks" during the Arizona debate and the general struggle to prove which one among them is the real Conservative in the race, while simultaneously embracing such radical change as abolishing health insurance coverage for contraception, may explain why the "worst President ever," who "bows to Saudis" and has "mortgaged our grandchildren's future," remains ahead of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich in head-to-head polls.

>133 theoria:
The man also tends to apologize for bad behaviors.....(another thorn in the side of his first term as President)

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-no-apology-needed-quran-burning-143141689.html

Santorum would no doubt continue to claim that "honest mistakes" were made, Romney wouldn't even notice...too busy pulling to dog off the roof of the car while checking the trees to make sure they are the right height. Gingrich....well, not sure his vocabulary includes the proper words and if it does, I doubt he is able to string them together in the proper order.

130 contd. "...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."

OTOH, if Greece defaults, Iran blocks Strait of Hormuz, and/or gas tops $5 a gallon, Rick-if-nominated might--just might--beat Barack in November. And then where would we be?? Best to vote for the least-bad Republican, I'm thinking.

>135 margd:

If Iran blocks the Strait, Obama reacts with escalating force and his approval goes through the roof.

~136

Of course. There is nothing like a good war against Evil or to make the world safe for _________ (fill in the blank with some positive sounding term).

Hopefully Obama will handle the propaganda campaign better than Bush II did for the run up to Iraq. It was so embarrassing to have to switch slogans and rationales on a weekly basis.

"First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me." David Brooks http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opinion/brooks-the-possum-republicans.html?hp

Women's vote sinks Santorum:
"Female voters in Michigan spoke out Tuesday night, but they weren't singing Rick Santorum’s tune. The former Pennsylvania senator lost the Michigan primary to Mitt Romney by 3 points due in large part to his weakness among Michigan women. Although Santorum lost among Michigan men by just 1 point, he lost the women's vote by a full 6-point margin, leaving him well behind Romney and unable to close the gap with male voters in any way." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/29/rick-santorum-s-weakness-with-w...

Mischievous Democrats vote for Santorum in Republican primary?:
"...Santorum beat Romney in Democrats' votes by a margin of 53 percent to 18 percent, with 17 percent for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). But Democrats made up only 9 percent of the primary vote, according to exit polls..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/mitt-romney-michigan_n_1308485.html

While mischievous Democrats may have responded to Santorum's robocalls, others voted in good faith for Santorum, Romney and Paul. In previous primaries, MI independents and Democrats have been a force for moderation in Republican primaries, i.e., John McCain over GW Bush in 1999, Rick Snyder over TP-favorites in (2009?) gubernatorial primary. Dems voting for Santorum might have been the so-called Reagan Democrats, socially conservative and Catholic?

Obama the real winner?:
"For a politician who often comes across as an out-of-touch rich weenie, he (Romney) has shown an ability to take some blows that will serve him well later on,” the New Yorker’s John Cassidy wrote on Tuesday night. But the real winner, Cassidy believes, was Barack Obama. Had Romney lost, the odds of a Jeb Bush or Chris Christie entering the race would only have grown. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/02/romney-has-big-night-s... (via Maclean's Magazine)

In Michigan, "...Romney beat Rick Santorum statewide by about 32,000 votes. He won Oakland County, the place where he grew up, by more than 31,000. The other two major metropolitan Detroit counties, Wayne and Macomb, gave him a combined margin of 18,000 more votes..."

"... Here’s something odd about Romney’s Michigan victory: Santorum won twice as many counties. And Santorum mostly won those counties which vote Republican in general elections, places like Kent and Ottawa."

"Romney won most of the counties likely to go Democratic -- Wayne and Ingham and Washtenaw. Genesee County, which includes Flint, was an exception; it voted for Santorum."

"...(Republican contenders) tried to outdo each other in being most against the so-called bailout that saved the auto industry. As a result, by the end, the polls showed that neither Romney nor Santorum would have any chance to beat President Obama in Michigan today..."

"Ohio (a state where there are also a lot of auto workers) really matters to Romney, both in the primary and even more so, eight months from now in November. Romney could conceivably lose Michigan this fall, and still become president."

"But throughout history, there’s been a word that applies to any Republican presidential nominee who loses Ohio in November."

"That word is loser. This race has a long way yet to go."

--Jack Lessenberry http://michiganradio.org/post/romney%E2%80%99s-win

Coincidentally(?), Bill Clinton is to address 1,700 UAW members in DC this Thursday.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120229/AUTO01/202290397/1121/auto01/Bill-Cl...

"'But throughout history, there’s been a word that applies to any Republican presidential nominee who loses Ohio in November.'

'That word is loser. This race has a long way yet to go.'"

Not only that, but since 1968, Ohio is the only state that falls into both of the following categories: 1) no Republican who has won the presidency has failed to carry it, and 2) no Republican who has lost a presidential election has managed to win it. There are a number of states that fall in either category, but no state other than Ohio that falls into both. It is, in many respects, the key state in U.S. presidential politics.

With Rick Santorum's rockribbed pronouncements on contraception, in vitro testing, and abortion, it's amazing to read about the induced labor that in 1996 brought his son Gabriel into the world (briefly) in the second trimester (20 weeks): there was testing, an in utero procedure, an infection that threatened mom and baby both, and labor was induced. (This sounds like functional equivalent of the lifesaving abortion that got an authorizing nun/hospital administrator excommunicated a while back.) Karen Santorum survived, but Gabriel died after two hours.

The parents' takeaway?

"Karen Santorum, a former nurse, wrote letters to her son during and after her pregnancy. She compiled them into a book, “Letters to Gabriel,” a collection of prayers, Bible passages and a chronicle of the prenatal complications that led to Gabriel’s premature delivery. At one point, her doctor raised the prospect of an abortion, an “option” Karen ridicules. “Letters to Gabriel” also derides “pro-abortion activists” and decries the “infanticide” of “partial-birth abortion,” the legality of which Rick Santorum was then debating in the Senate. The book reads, in places, like a call to action."

http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

>142 margd:
I believe this is called a double standard.

It would seem that there is something missing in a personality type that is unable to equate anything they may have done to what other's do. A lack of empathy maybe ? Certainly they judge others by a standard they are unwilling or unable to live by themselves. If asked, no doubt they would say "But, that was different !" Yep is was...because it involved them personally...only way they seem to be able to view things.

Unfortunately, because the Right present's itself as the "Christian Right", the party of "family values" as those who live "Conservatively"....they look hypocritical on many levels.

Given today's times, with what we know of birth control and population problems, is the act of creating a family with five, six, seven kids, a conservative life style. No...not really. If you can afford it fine, but don't claim to be conservative or try to convince others what it is they should be "conservative" about. With every child, the chance that you may need the system you claim to scorn, goes up.

Probably get in hot water over this one but seriously ? I think that such people are making personal choices over what they feel we all should be conservative about and living a not so conservative life style when it comes to what they want....even at the cost of the health of a woman or a child.

I am reminded of the Dugger's. The family of TV fame. 19 kids and counting....AND, they are independent of any federal help....well, I don't think so. The 19th child was months early, she spent four months in a neonatal care facility. The cost is astronomical. Most often government steps in to help with the bills...a family would go broke. Hospitals receive government grants to support these NICU centers. If the child happens to have good insurance, the premiums go up for all.
Is this an exercise in individual "freedom" or are we all in some manner supporting their right to have children till.....well, who knows when. She is now trying for the number 20.

This is an extreme example but these people are not so "independant" as they seem to think they are. There is a system in place for them if they need help....it is my belief that when your 19th child needs public funding of some sort, you are abusing the system. No different than the teenage mother in the inner city. The odds that either of the women in these two scenerios are not going to need public assistance of some sort are not all that good.

Romney certainly isn't conservative when it comes to building a pile of money, nor is his personal life style conservative. Lavish properties, cars and what ever else comes with having over $200 million. Nope not conservative there...he may be about some things, like taxes or government assistance but....then he pays less of a percentage in taxes than the average person and doesn't really need assistance of any kind. Easy for him to conservative about that.

Just a bunch of meaningless drivel.

139 contd. Not only did women favor Romney over Santorum in Ohio and Michigan, but Catholics did :

"...Catholics accounted for 33 per cent of those who took part in Tuesday’s GOP primary in Ohio and they voted for Mitt Romney over Mr. Santorum by a margin of 44 per cent to 31 per cent. Overall, Mr. Romney beat Mr. Santorum by less than a percentage point."

"A week earlier, in Michigan, Mr. Santorum lost the Catholic vote by six percentage points, compared to his overall 3 percentage point loss to Mr. Romney..."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/why-cant-rick-santorum-win-o...