Will Mitt Romney run the table with the primaries? Must he? The squeaker in Iowa suggests that the opposition to Romney in the GOP is able to create friction, to fashion a story line of anybody but Romney, but not to choose a substantial alternative. Rick Santorum emerged the last days in Iowa like a deus ex machina. Santorum is a solitary crank, the sum total of 17 years of self-indulgent preachiness and a surprisingly warm-hearted incoherence. Santorum survived in Pennsylvania politics by the luck of his diffident opponents in 1994 and 2000, however he was tossed out in a landslide in 2006 by the most savvy Bob Casey. Santorum is not the brightest bulb, and this talent for the ordinary and the stubborn serves him well. Will he harry Romney in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Florida? No. Gingrich and Perry remain in the race chiefly because there is no advantage to leaving this early, and they are set to enjoy Florida's breezes. The plain political story is that Romney will face POTUS after the primaries spin to Romney's favor by March. The Obama re-elect is choosing weapons now. The debate is between Romney the flip-flopper; Romney the One Percenter; Romney the Repugnik. The contest is still about POTUS Obama. Romney's remark --"He's a nice fellow, but he's over his head" -- is clever and curt. Will it win OH and FL?
If you are asking me to advocate for and then decide between two choices. One is 40% wrong. The other is 30% wrong. According to the issues I care about. Why should I bother voting?
The Republican Race is Over: Jacob Weisberg: "Anything could happen, of course, but it won't. In ... bit.ly/zUUWRN #wtp2010 #tcot
there is an advantage to the fact that the punditocracy, and the political venues that still make enough money to survive, are unsympathetic to hostile to the GOP candidates, this lowers their expectations to a point that they will be surprised and unhorsed by any policy cleverness at all.
With the new, aggressive "We Can't Wait" reelection mantra from POTUS, I am starting to get very nervous. First we have him bypassing Congress to jam in recess appointments and now I hear he is planning a massive joint missile defense exercise with the IDF this Spring (see article in the Jerusalem Post here - http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=250249). Is this as shameless a ploy for Jewish votes as it seems? I'm all for the defense of Israel and the defeat of the demented in Iran, but putting the entire region at risk of war due to miscalculation or bombing Iran for votes really unnerves me. I'm beginning to think POTUS is turning into an Anglo version of Chavez.
JB - could we get a report on this from Malcolm Hoenlein, so I know if I really need to stock up on canned goods and bottled water? :-)
I loved Rush Limbaugh's observation about the idea of a Romney/McCain ticket: Here's the man who couldn't beat Obama, choosing a running mate who he himself couldn't beat.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, I know what I did wrong, I know what I did wrong! (Sylvester)
It should be:
"Here's the man who couldn't beat Obama, being chosen as a running mate by a man who couldn't beat ...." uh .....
Oh, you guys get the idea.
I understand that McCain is attractive to independents. However, McCain reinforces 'it's my turn', no-new-ideas republicanism. McCain's endorsement seems more harmful to Romney than helpful.
Not so long ago -- 2008 -- every candidate couldn't hide his contempt for Romney. I guess they hate Newt more.
Cain not knowing how to answer on Libya seems almost like a plus by some comparison.
The 19 year old nephew wants to vote for Ron Paul as a goof. The girlfriend's 18 year old nephew doesn't like anyone on either side and does not want to vote at all.
You try to talk sense but, who listens to anyone more than twice their age anyway right?
999 much ?
It's nice to share this front row window seat to the decline with all of you.
I'll have another glass of chardonnay please.
vsk
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes ... you might find ...
I like The Stones too, but this is a time for Twisted Sister . . . "We're Not Gonna Take It!"
October 7, 2011
Dear President Obama AKA (He who thinks he is King of the pond):
It ought to be apparent to even you by this point that your dictatorial decisions have absolutely pi$$ed off the 2/3’s of this country, that make it work, day in, and day out. The shock coming to you on November 6, 2012 will be so great in fact I believe that the artifice that you put up with the help of a pair of teleprompters, and a left wing media, that straps on knee pads and lip gloss before they ask you questions, will be so complete that breathing may be difficult. It goes without saying that in the past, these elections, in the grand scheme of things were meaningless, as soon as the public was satiated, and bent over the desk, the politicians got right back to $crewing us.
This time it’s different. We are going to roll back much of what you liberals have accomplished with such force, and speed you are not going to know what hit you. We do not care anymore about you, and your squawking. If you want to live in a rat hole, and have a government that would rather you were aborted, feed you, fine; all the while being led by a Senator who drowned people in his car, and being lectured to by anchors that performed hit and runs, with or without their socks on, and then get gigs on CNN, that’s fine too. Not us. We are not going to take it anymore, we’ve had it. You can only kick a dog so much before he turns around and bites you, and on November 6, 2012 we are going to bite, and hang on until you politicians listen to us, and do what we want done.
We will remember how you treated us while we strove to compromise with you. We will remember how you divided, and continue to divide this nation, from it’s historical allies and, races, religions, and economic classes. We will not work for bipartisanship with people who want to destroy the very foundations that our fractured society rests upon. No Sir! We will work to radically simplify everything from the tax code, which wastes so much precious time and wealth, that ought to be used for growth and production. We will work to cut wasteful bureaucracies, and regulations, that only serve to benefit those faceless people who work without accountability, and are overcompensated for what they do. We will force a decision on fighting for one side of the same Muslim/Arab coin against the other. Is this a fight we need to win the old fashioned way - bomb the crap out of them. Or get the hell out. We will keep our promises to those that depend on entitlement programs, and then reduce it’s burden on future generations by no longer socializing failures to save, and invest for their own futures. We will support space exploration, and end the madness that is NASA’s current chief Bolden’s suicide mission for Muslim outreach. Why you numb nuts fired Griffin is incomprehensible to me, the man would have led us to the moon and back by now, and left a base on it for the next generation of American explorers to build upon!
We can do all of this. We just need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and a Conservative President. Don’t tell me we can’t do that. Don’t tell me that we can find candidates that are some how unable to win against a socialist pinko commie wrapped in a label that says “Democrat.”
BS.
We can, and we will lead the charge to begin to balance this nations books, provide economic opportunity, and fill it with those willing to create, and work, to fill those jobs, and properly defend this nation, whether it is in Texas from Narco-Drug dealers, or the Jihad Johnny’s of the world, or the Communist Chinese who want a piece of the world without paying for it. Who ever tells you we can’t doesn’t understand the core of what it is to be an American.
“Where right, we’re free, we’ll fight, yea you’ll see, we’re not gonna take it anymore!”
Respectfully,
Joe Doakes
Had your BP checked lately? I ask this out of genuine concern.
I occasionally think about what I would write in a letter to President Obama. Nothing as elaborate as what you periodically post. My thoughts would be along the following lines:
Dear President Obama;
Life is precious, life is short. If I had 500 or 1,000 years on this planet then I could look upon your 4 years in office as a minor inconvenience, something to overcome to make me a better person in the long run. But alas I am allotted well under a century, and so 4 years with you as my "leader" is nothing short of a rape of a part of my life, 4 precious years you've ruined so badly, and I'll never get them back. It is a tragedy that I and millions other like me have to waste 4 precious years of our lives under an evil man like you. If there is any justice, you will serve in Hell for millions of years to pay us all back for the portion of our lives you've stolen.
To put this in some historical context, compared to the way I felt about Bill Clinton, I actually kind of like Obama.
I'm in excellent health, and women still think I'm hot even though that does me no good anymore
:)
Liked your letter. What upset you so re: Clinton? Was it the lu-lu's or Specter not voting to impeach?
"women still think I'm hot even though that does me no good anymore"
LOL
The womanizing and lying to cover it up. I don't give a hoot in hell for spouses who cheat on one another.
Aren't you assuming facts not in evidence? Our Joe didn't say he acted on his hotness.
I didn't say (or mean to imply) anything about Joe. I don't even know for certain he's married. He might even be a she, for all I know. More importantly, I wouldn't attack a fellow blogger here unless they had it coming to them, and Joe doesn't.
But if you want to pick nits, Corlyss, he did use the word "anymore" at the end of his fateful sentence, implying that his hotness at one time did him some good. That could have been before he got married, or it could imply an enhanced ability to manipulate women in non-sexual ways for his greater good, which behaviour I heartily condone. You can be the devil incarnate in my book as long as you keep your pants on.
"The womanizing and lying to cover it up."
I don't give a tuppence about that. As far as I'm concerned Bill and Hillary deserve each other -- lies and all. The country prospered under POTUS Clinton.
Obama, on the other hand, is truly dangerous: He continually lies to the country about who he is and what he wants. He's cheating on all of us by flirting with his socialist agenda and running a WH w/Czars independent of Congress.
You should read Epictetus, who among many others points out that no good can come from someone with a faulty or nonexistent moral fiber.
Country prospered under Clinton? Funny, I hear everyone bashing Ron Paul for his lack of concern for defense, yet the GDP-adjusted defense spending under Clinton was at a historic low, and his mis-steps in Somalia and Sudan led eventually to 9-11. Clinton's America was a leper rotting from the inside out. And given that Clinton himself was a festering, rotting, leprous soul, it's no wonder.
How can we be the shining City on the Hill with Bacchanalia going on in the Oval Office?
"... no good can come from someone with a faulty or nonexistent moral fiber."
So does that make Clinton's budget surplus bad?
Republican Congress' budget surplus, grudgingly agreed to by a badly whipped Bill Clinton who capitulated in order to stay in the White House another 4 years.
And, in more direct answer to your question, for me at least, the "Clinton" budget surplus was bad, because I couldn't enjoy it. I was more concerned with the fact that we had an embarrassment in the White House instead of a President.
When GWB took the oath and Clinton departed, I felt as if I had been given a new lease on life; as if a long, dark 8-year cloud cover had parted and the Sun had come out again. I'm hoping to feel something similar next January.
Clinton did one good thing in his 8 years in office, IMO. NAFTA.
"Clinton's" budget surplus was due entirely to Gingrich and the Republican Congress.
Clinton's budget surplus was also due to Silicon Valley and all the tech start-ups that really pumped up the economy. Clinton gets credit, if only, for being smart enough to go along w/ Gingrich and the Repubs because he was POTUS. e.g. Today, this is Obama's economy, whether he knows it or not.
About an "incoherent table" among the GOP....
Months ago on JBS shows, a solid consensus among guest political pros Goddard, Avlon and Major Garrett was Huntsman would be a "game changer" in the GOP race. Each gave credence to White House whispers that Huntsman was the GOPer the WH most feared. To most of us outside the Beltway-Manhattan-Northeast-MSM bubble, that notion was nonsense, blatant strategic disinformation from an Admin begging to be thrown into a Huntsman briar patch.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/why-is-jon-huntsmans-campaign-going-nowhere.php
How about Huntsman's smarmy smart quip that Iowans picked corn, but New Hampshire picked Presidents? Lots of laughs among Blue staters and MSMers who disdain fly-over country and imagine themselves highly clever. Hardy, har, har. Actually, Huntsman may turn out to be half right. Hope they can reasonably guesstimate post mortem how much of Huntsman's NH vote count is comprised of calculated mischief by NH Massocrats, Dems and Indies who will vote BHO in November.
For "game changer" Huntsman, one and done, once and dunce incoherence.
Avlon likes Huntsman, ergo Huntsman must not be a true conservative. That's all I need to know.
"Centrist Republican" is Avlon-speak for "spineless toadie who will do the bidding of the ruling class without excessive obstreperousness."
Lou, you will be pleased to know (sarcasm) that your Left Coast journalist Dem op, Carla Marinucci (she of the San Francisco Chronicle, which got punked by the BHO White House and eagerly begged another humiliation) joined the Huntsman cheerleaders last night. She easily topped Avlon and Goddard in Huntsmania. Our show host tried to flag the unique dynamics of the open primary in NH (where re-registering Dems and Indies can vote for Paul or Huntsman) but no Huntsmaniacs lost a step in their gushing. In contrast, Drucker, Zito and Brown tempered the political commentary Monday night with credible, useful insights.
The streak is intact. Wussy squishy beta males and whiney blabbermouth MSM journalists ... all aboard for Huntsman!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/10/chris-matthews-new-hampshire-primary-if-i-were-voting-here-i-d-vote-h
DNA Rules!
Ugh! Gronk not beta male .... Gronk ALPHA male. Gronk vote'um Ron Paul. ARRRRR
"Centrist" and leftist pundit strategy for 2012: Hack away at anything that doesn't look like Mitt Romney, until he's the last man standing. Then, once he's on the ticket, hack him to death. You don't have to be Dick Feynman to figure this one out.
"Avlon likes Huntsman, ergo Huntsman must not be a true conservative. That's all I need to know."
Well, crap! I've been telling you that since his name first came up. He would never have gotten elected in Utah but for his father's reputation. He couldn't get elected dog catcher here now. He nailed his colors to the mast when he accepted Obama's appointment. Target audience for move? The Avlons of the world. "See! I'm not a mean ol' hater like the rest. I have props from Dems as well as Republicans, and I can talk to our present/future rival in his own language! Aren't I just the thing you've been looking for in a President?" Engage gag reflex.
Wholly lacking decency, Ed Morrissey puts a tennis racket to a dead horse.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/12/huntsmans-desperate-bid-for-relevancy/
The real elephantine GOP undrama in SC is that the candidacy that began explosively, positively in SC will now end there, implosively, ignominiously. Perry's attacks on capitalism, like Newt's, are utterly, unforgivably, incoherent. Table all three of them.