PDA

View Full Version : Your Next Republican Preznit!


bjkeefe
01-13-2011, 05:45 PM
Because it's never too early to start horserace coverage, amirite? So we will have a straw poll of the highly influential Bhtv commentariat, and also use this thread for relevant news and gossip.

Sadly, vBulletin only allows a maximum of ten options in their polls, so I picked the nine that seemed to be getting the most buzz that I've seen. Following is a more extensive list of those mentioned (here (http://2012.republican-candidates.org/), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republic an), and/or here (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/13/herman.cain/)) as candidates to be the 2012 GOP nominee. A leading asterisk means that person was in this thread's poll; a trailing -FFC means that person is among those invited (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/twelve-potential-gop-candidates-invited-to-iowa-social-conservative-forum.php) by the Faith and Freedom Coalition to participate in a forum in Iowa on 7 March 2011.

Joe Arpaio
Michele Bachmann
* Haley Barbour -FFC
John Bolton
Scott Brown
Jeb Bush
Herman Cain
John Cornyn
* Chris Christie
* Mitch Daniels -FFC
Jim DeMint
* Newt Gingrich -FFC
Rudy Giuliani
Lindsey Graham
Judd Gregg
* Mike Huckabee -FFC
Jon Huntsman
* Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson
Fred Karger
Bob McDonnell
* Sarah Palin -FFC
George Pataki
Ron Paul -FFC
* Tim Pawlenty -FFC
Mike Pence -FFC
David Petraeus
Buddy Roemer
* Mitt Romney -FFC
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum -FFC
John Thune -FFC
Donald Trump

bjkeefe
01-13-2011, 05:49 PM
Whenever you hear the name Tim Pawlenty from now on, never forget (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027520.php).

Going on the radio show run by that crazed, hate-filled loon Bryan Fischer, unless you're going on to tell him he's a crazed, hate-filled loon, ought to be grounds for automatic disqualification.

[Added] More here (http://wonkette.com/435115/when-tim-pawlenty-is-elected-president-next-tuesday-he-will-reinstate-dadt). If you've ever thought Pawlenty might be kind of a moderate -- because, hey, Minnesota-nice -- rid yourself of that misapprehension.

chiwhisoxx
01-13-2011, 06:16 PM
Somehow the wildly condescending thread title makes me less inclined to respond >.>

bjkeefe
01-13-2011, 06:25 PM
Somehow the wildly condescending thread title makes me less inclined to respond >.>

Success!

chiwhisoxx
01-13-2011, 06:27 PM
Success!

Congratulations

operative
01-13-2011, 06:49 PM
In terms of who I'd like to be president,
Daniels
Huntsman
Jindal
Christie

In terms of who I think would make the strongest challenger to Obama:
Thune
Daniels
Huntsman
Jindal
Christie

Of course, if Jindal gets the nomination, it won't be long until BJ engages in anti-Indian bigoted remarks.

Oh and the five most likely nominees:
Romney
Huckabee
Thune
Pawlenty
Daniels

bjkeefe
01-14-2011, 12:29 AM
Of course, if Jindal gets the nomination, it won't be long until BJ engages in anti-Indian bigoted remarks.

Are you just trying to bait me tonight?

.

bjkeefe
01-14-2011, 03:43 AM
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey suggested on Wednesday — in an interview with The New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/christie-says-palin-needs-to-go-unscripted-to-contend-for-2012/?scp=9&sq=sarah%20palin&st=cse) — that if Ms. Palin ever wanted to be president, she needed to open herself to potentially combative question-and-answer sessions.

Therefore, she will go onto Sean Hannity's show (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/palin-to-do-tv-interview-monday/).

(h/t: @tbogg (http://twitter.com/tbogg/status/25731889079779329))

bjkeefe
01-15-2011, 01:23 AM
Newell reports (http://gawker.com/5733716/blabbermouth-chris-christie-blows-a-bond-sale):

Silly Chris Christie. The New Jersey governor's latest rant about the state government going "bankrupt" yesterday rattled financial markets (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-13/new-jersey-slashes-bond-sale-51-after-christie-s-bankrupt-comments.html) and forced the state to cut its new bond offering by half. Governor Sandwiches (http://gawker.com/5713530/is-it-racist-to-call-chris-christie-fat) will be eating crow, now.

High fives all around!

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9928/chrischristievianewell2.jpg

(Or maybe someone said, "Governor, how many burgers do you want for lunch today?")

chiwhisoxx
01-15-2011, 02:59 AM
Newell reports (http://gawker.com/5733716/blabbermouth-chris-christie-blows-a-bond-sale):



High fives all around!

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9928/chrischristievianewell2.jpg

(Or maybe someone said, "Governor, how many burgers do you want for lunch today?")

What's the difference between a gay rodeo and a straight rodeo?
At a straight rodeo everyone yells, "Ride that sucker"

bjkeefe
01-16-2011, 10:51 PM
Our man in Indiana: "You Asked For It! (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/01/you-asked-for-it.html)"

[Added] Still (http://shop.cafepress.com/mike-pence-for-president) only $4 on CafePress!

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5660/penceforpreznit08.jpg
He has a time machine! He will
go back and kill Obamacare
before it is born!

operative
01-17-2011, 12:18 AM
Another thread for BJ to post stupid, worthless attacks on Republicans. Why don't you do us all a favor and limit your vitriol to one thread?

kezboard
01-17-2011, 01:08 AM
I voted for Haley Barbour, as the nominee easiest to beat. (Yes, easier to beat even than Palin.) The most formidable candidates for Obama would be the Midwestern who-the-hell-are-they guys. But I would bet that the Republicans are going to do what the Democrats did in 2004 -- go for the competent, rich bore from Massachusetts.

Wonderment
01-17-2011, 02:07 AM
I voted for Haley Barbour, as the nominee easiest to beat.

I vote for Barbour, Christie, Gingrich, Jindal and Palin on those grounds. Only Christie has the self-awareness to understand that he is unelectable 2012; the others are deluded enough to think they have a chance.

The problem for the Repubs. is nominating a centrist who will not alienate the Tea Party base. I agree they'll probably go with Romney, although we're still way too early in the process to bet the farm.

Deep down Repubs. may understand that they really have little chance of winning in 2012 and should probably run a patsy next year and start thinking about their younger star players for 2016. At the moment I think Obama is sitting pretty for re-election.

bjkeefe
01-17-2011, 04:28 AM
[...]

Deep down Repubs. may understand that they really have little chance of winning in 2012 and should probably run a patsy next year and start thinking about their younger star players for 2016. At the moment I think Obama is sitting pretty for re-election.

Looks like there's some fairly new survey data (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/13/106788/poll-obama-rebounding-with-voters.html) to support your thinking:

Poll: Obama rebounding, would beat GOP rivals, crush Palin

By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has bounced back from his low point after November's elections and enjoys stronger support heading into the 2012 election cycle, particularly against Sarah Palin, according to a McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday.

Obama's fortunes appear to be rising along with the country's. The poll found a jump in the number of people who think the country's heading in the right direction. Also, the president probably benefited from the productive post-election session of Congress.

"Obama's standing on far firmer footing," said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the national survey. "It puts a different hue on the 2012 elections."

The president's rating improved on several fronts, including job approval, how many like him personally and whether they think he'll do better in the next two years. His strengthening appeal was most noticeable in how he matches up against three potential Republican rivals.

Today Obama would beat Republican Mitt Romney by 51 to 38 percent, the poll showed. In a December McClatchy-Marist poll, he trailed the former Massachusetts governor by 46-44 percent.

Obama would defeat Republican Mike Huckabee by a similar margin, 50-38 percent. In December, the president led the former Arkansas governor by only 47-43 percent.

And he'd crush Palin by 56-30 percent. A month before, he led the former Alaska governor by 52-40 percent.

In each case, Obama owes his lead now to a unified base of support from Democrats and an edge among independents, who prefer the president by 10 points against Romney, 5 points against Huckabee and 28 points against Palin.

[...]

An uptick in confidence about the country and the economy is probably key to Obama's improved standing.

The poll found that 41 percent of Americans think the country's headed in the right direction and 47 percent think it's on the wrong track. That's a marked improvement from December, when just 34 percent thought the country was headed in the right direction and 58 percent thought it was on the wrong track.

At the same time, 48 percent of American voters approve of how the president is doing his job, up from 42 percent the month before. Forty-three percent disapprove, down from 50 percent.

Similarly, 53 percent of voters have favorable opinions of Obama, up from 47 percent, and 40 percent have unfavorable opinions, down from 49 percent.

Looking forward, 61 percent of voters think the president will do a better job in the second two years of his term, while just 21 percent think he'll do a worse job.

Whether they think he's learned or will be forced to the center by a Republican-led House of Representatives, the people who think he'll improve include Republicans, by 41-38 percent, conservatives, by 43-36 percent, and independents, by 55-23 percent.

Tea party supporters are split 41-41 over whether Obama will do better or worse.

(h/t: Brian Weatherson (http://crookedtimber.org/2011/01/14/pauline-palin/#comment-344670), comment #8 in a discussion thread on Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/2011/01/14/pauline-palin/) about Palin's chances.)

operative
01-17-2011, 10:55 AM
I vote for Barbour, Christie, Gingrich, Jindal and Palin on those grounds. Only Christie has the self-awareness to understand that he is unelectable 2012; the others are deluded enough to think they have a chance.

The problem for the Repubs. is nominating a centrist who will not alienate the Tea Party base. I agree they'll probably go with Romney, although we're still way too early in the process to bet the farm.

Deep down Repubs. may understand that they really have little chance of winning in 2012 and should probably run a patsy next year and start thinking about their younger star players for 2016. At the moment I think Obama is sitting pretty for re-election.

I can't understand why you'd lump Jindal in with Barbour or Palin. Unless all you have to go off is his disappointing SOTU response. There may not be a governor in America with a more impressive intellectual resume.

bjkeefe
01-17-2011, 03:13 PM
I can't understand why you'd lump Jindal in with Barbour or Palin. Unless all you have to go off is his disappointing SOTU response. There may not be a governor in America with a more impressive intellectual resume.

I suppose that could be true, if, for example, you view an "intellectual resume" as one featuring accomplishments like lying on national TV (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/hits-keep-coming.html), taking credit for programs you opposed (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/21/jindal-stimulus-check/), and signing laws approving the teaching of creationism (http://ncse.com/news/2008/06/louisiana-governor-signs-creationist-bill-001437) in your state's science classes.

operative
01-17-2011, 06:59 PM
I suppose that could be true, if, for example, you view an "intellectual resume" as one featuring accomplishments like lying on national TV (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/hits-keep-coming.html), taking credit for programs you opposed (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/21/jindal-stimulus-check/), and signing laws approving the teaching of creationism (http://ncse.com/news/2008/06/louisiana-governor-signs-creationist-bill-001437) in your state's science classes.

Jindal was a Rhodes scholar with a Master's from Oxford. Where's your degree from, BJ? Your derangement has impeded your basic thought processes.

bjkeefe
01-17-2011, 07:18 PM
Jindal was a Rhodes scholar with a Master's from Oxford.

Funny. I don't remember the right counting that as a plus when a certain other governor was up for discussion as president. Matter of fact, I thought your heroes had pretty well convinced the vast majority of your allies that fancy elitist degrees were the problem, and that Commonsense Conservatism was what really mattered.

Where's your degree from, BJ?

Do I need a degree to offer links to specific points against your claim? Or do you hope that a little more elitism will distract your dumber friends from your inability to address them?

Your derangement has impeded your basic thought processes.

Really? Giving three straighforward examples amid a succinct response to your vapid assertion constitutes "derangement" to you? You (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187953&highlight=derangement#post187953) keep (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=188807&highlight=derangement#post188807) using (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191331&highlight=derangement#post191331) that (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191661&highlight=derangement#post191661) word (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=193930&highlight=derangement#post193930). I do not think it means what you think it means.

operative
01-17-2011, 09:51 PM
Funny. I don't remember the right counting that as a plus when a certain other governor was up for discussion as president. Matter of fact, I thought your heroes had pretty well convinced the vast majority of your allies that fancy elitist degrees were the problem, and that Commonsense Conservatism was what really mattered.

Strawman to escape addressing my point. Jindal's intellectual accomplishments trump Obama's and those of every other major Democrat politician.



Do I need a degree to offer links to specific points against your claim?

You were indicting Jindal's intelligence. Jindal's academic record is quite impressive; if you don't have a decent intellectual resume, maybe you shouldn't assail his.


Really? Giving three straighforward examples amid a succinct response to your vapid assertion constitutes "derangement" to you? You (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187953&highlight=derangement#post187953) keep (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=188807&highlight=derangement#post188807) using (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191331&highlight=derangement#post191331) that (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191661&highlight=derangement#post191661) word (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=193930&highlight=derangement#post193930). I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every. Response. You. Make.

bjkeefe
01-17-2011, 10:59 PM
You were indicting Jindal's intelligence.

You're a liar. Or you can't read. Try again (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=194984&highlight=intellectual+resume#post194984).

operative
01-18-2011, 12:42 AM
You're a liar. Or you can't read. Try again (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=194984&highlight=intellectual+resume#post194984).

I'm not going around in circles with you. You seem to be unable to admit that Jindal is a very intelligent person. That's your loss.

bjkeefe
01-18-2011, 01:40 AM
I'm not going around in circles with you.

How I wish you had said, "I'm not going to go."

Not that that statement would have had much more chance of being true, I grant.

operative
01-18-2011, 10:36 AM
How I wish you had said, "I'm not going to go."

Not that that statement would have had much more chance of being true, I grant.

Whenever you reduce yourself to pedantic grammar analyses, you reveal yourself to be bereft of any meaningful response. Which is to say, it is you raising a white flag.

chiwhisoxx
01-18-2011, 01:12 PM
How I wish you had said, "I'm not going to go."

Not that that statement would have had much more chance of being true, I grant.

Is using "that" twice in a row a new grammatical trend?

AemJeff
01-18-2011, 01:20 PM
Is using "that" twice in a row a new grammatical trend?

I find myself doing it a lot. I don't think it's new, though - sometimes "that" is just an integral part of a noun phrase. e.g. I can refer to "that thing I need to do" - I can also refer to "what I'll do now that that thing has been completed."

bjkeefe
01-18-2011, 09:18 PM
Whenever you reduce yourself to pedantic grammar analyses, ...

Sorry you're unable to understand, but I wasn't being pedantic. I was saying that I wished you had been speaking of your plans for the future.

However, I see you are still locked into saying nothing of substance and declaring victory. Pretty sad.

bjkeefe
01-18-2011, 09:19 PM
Is using "that" twice in a row a new grammatical trend?

No. I suspect even a semi-literate like you does it all the time, at least in speech.

Wonderment
01-18-2011, 09:37 PM
No. I suspect even a semi-literate like you does it all the time, at least in speech.

I don't believe that that's possible.

chiwhisoxx
01-18-2011, 10:31 PM
No. I suspect even a semi-literate like you does it all the time, at least in speech.

C'mon, you can do better than semi-literate. I understand your need to lash out because of likely deep seated emotional problems, but at least come up with better insults.

bjkeefe
01-18-2011, 11:03 PM
I understand your need to lash out because of likely deep seated emotional problems, but at least come up with better insults.

Physician, heal thyself.

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 05:58 PM
GMA guy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/01/newt-gingrich-to-sarah-palin-slow-down.html):

Former speaker of the House and potential 2012 presidential contender had some words of advice for Sarah Palin on “GMA” this morning.

“I think that she has got to slow down and be more careful and think through what she’s saying and how she’s saying it,” Newt Gingrich told me.

A new USAToday/ Gallup poll puts Palin’s favorable rating at 38 percent (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-17-poll-obama-house_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip) following her reaction to the shooting in Tucson, her lowest since she was announced as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

Will this blossom as healthily (?) as the one between Levi Johnson's sister and Levi Johnson's ex-gf (http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/2011/01/love-lies-and-drama-of-facebook.html)?

(h/t (http://wonkette.com/435529/house-republicans-finally-try-to-take-your-health-insurance-today), h/t (http://wonkette.com/435542/bristol-palins-facebook-dumb-arizona-boyfriend-not-loughner-revealed))

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 08:54 PM
Matt Taibbi, click-whore? (http://bigthink.com/ideas/26447)

(In fairness, the interview (http://bigthink.com/matttaibbi) was recorded a couple of months ago, and just posted now.)

TwinSwords
01-19-2011, 09:14 PM
Matt Taibbi, click-whore? (http://bigthink.com/ideas/26447)

Best 2.5 minutes of video I've watched all day.

Really, it is amazing to consider a political movement composed of people screaming about socialism while riding around on scooters given to them for free by Medicare.

It's the same mind-bending contradiction as Sarah Palin's observation that "it's wrong to politicize the murderous actions of that left-leaning maniac in Arizona." (Paraphrasing from her Hannity interview.)

Wonderment
01-19-2011, 09:35 PM
“I think that she has got to slow down and be more careful and think through what she’s saying and how she’s saying it,” Newt Gingrich told me.

Yes, just like Newt did himself when he claimed that a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mindset explains the Obama presidency, and claimed Obama was "authentically dishonest" and "factually insane."

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 09:42 PM
Yes, just like Newt did himself when he claimed that a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mindset explains the Obama presidency, and claimed Obama was "authentically dishonest" and "factually insane."

Heh. Glad you caught the absurdity without me having to type things about pots and kettles.

bjkeefe
01-20-2011, 11:49 PM
Rick Santorum successfully inserted himself into the news cycle today by saying something stupid and offensive about the president, race and abortion.

Just like Jesus (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/20/santorum_abortion_black/index.html) would do. amirite?

Hey, Santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/), think of the children!

http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/cd4d779f4dd9719a185fb40b8b92f73f.jpg

(pic. source (http://wonkette.com/417570/why-is-america-forcing-rick-santorum-to-be-elected-president))

operative
01-21-2011, 11:27 AM
Just like Jesus (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/20/santorum_abortion_black/index.html) would do. amirite?

Hey, Santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/), think of the children!

http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/cd4d779f4dd9719a185fb40b8b92f73f.jpg

(pic. source (http://wonkette.com/417570/why-is-america-forcing-rick-santorum-to-be-elected-president))

And back to mocking Rick Santorum's children. Stay classy, BJ.

At least you're always here to represent the deranged, mentally-disturbed wing of the angry left. Mocking children just shows you to be a total schmuck.

bjkeefe
01-21-2011, 02:36 PM
And back to mocking Rick Santorum's children. Stay classy, BJ.

At least you're always here to represent the deranged, mentally-disturbed wing of the angry left. Mocking children just shows you to be a total schmuck.

A particularly lame attempt at fauxtrage, oppy. I'd think that even with your team flag perpetually waving in front of your eyes, you'd be able to get this: the whole point of that picture is to suggest that Santorum is such an evil scuzz that even his own kids can't stand being around him.

But you take it how you like. Lord knows you wingnuts never feel like you have enough reasons to feel persecuted.

operative
01-21-2011, 04:40 PM
A particularly lame attempt at fauxtrage, oppy. I'd think that even with your team flag perpetually waving in front of your eyes, you'd be able to get this: the whole point of that picture is to suggest that Santorum is such an evil scuzz that even his own kids can't stand being around him.

You're making fun of children crying. That makes you a schmuck. Deal with it.

bjkeefe
01-21-2011, 05:15 PM
You're making fun of children crying.

The only crying child I am making fun of is you.

Wonderment
01-21-2011, 05:16 PM
Obama should just take a two-year siesta and watch all these blabber-mouth attention-hos put themselves out of presidential business.

Arguably, you can win the Republican nomination for president just by being the guy in the room not to raise his hand when a journalist asks, "How many of you don't believe in evolution?" (I exaggerate, but it's so much fun to watch the political self-immolation.)

bjkeefe
01-21-2011, 05:26 PM
Obama should just take a two-year siesta and watch all these blabber-mouth attention-hos put themselves out of presidential business.

It would be nice to be able to have that much confidence in the populace, and the media, to second that suggestion. I do not have that much confidence. If he lets wingnuts make ludicrous assertions about him without pushing back, the winguts will trick some low-information voters into thinking they're not full of shit, and the media will compound that problem by running an endless series of circle jerks on themes like "Why Won't Obama Deny These Accusations? Could There Be Something To Them?"

Arguably, you can win the Republican nomination for president just by being the guy in the room not to raise his hand when a journalist asks, "How many of you don't believe in evolution?" (I exaggerate, but it's so much fun to watch the political self-immolation.)

Yes, there is entertainment to be had, I won't deny that.

operative
01-21-2011, 05:34 PM
The only crying child I am making fun of is you.

Nice try backing away from making fun of crying children.

Ocean
01-21-2011, 11:29 PM
Nice try backing away from making fun of crying children.

I just couldn't resist the opportunity. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NH68v5WyIw&feature=related)

JonIrenicus
01-22-2011, 01:15 AM
If no liberals voted in the poll, the % going for Sarah Palin would be 0%

bjkeefe
01-22-2011, 03:11 AM
... among wingnuts (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/whats-next-saying-its-no-big-deal-to-build-a-community-center-on-sacred-burlington-coat-factory-ground).

What’s Next, Saying It’s No Big Deal To Build A Community Center on Sacred Burlington Coat Factory Ground?
[ 12 ] January 21, 2011 | Scott Lemieux

Various winger blogs (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=01&year=2011&base_name=chris_christie_joins_the_steal) – including Time’s 2004 Blog of the Year — attack Chris Christie for appointing a Muslim to the state courts. I wish this was satire.

That quoted link leads to this:

Chris Christie Joins The Stealth Jihad.

... which leads to this (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/christie-muslim-judge/):

Christie Attacked By Right-Wing Bloggers For Appointing Muslim Judge: ‘He’s In Bed With The Enemy’

The latter two have a sampling of the hysteria.

And there's more (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Azj_ist-lct4&ie=UTF-8&q=christie+muslim+judge&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Azj_ist-lct4) where that came from. K-Mart Coulter (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/31739/fan-of-chris-christie-check-out-his-hamas-judge-pick-other-islamo-pandering/) leads the pack at the moment, probably because she has funny pictures!

bjkeefe
01-22-2011, 03:49 AM
To see who can get away (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/01/21/mitt_romney_keeps_away_from_tea_party/?page=full) from the teabaggers faster (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47966.html).

Romney, you may say, no surprise there. But let's not forget (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=187484#post187484) that Rubio shouldn't be a surprise, either.

(h/t (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37945_Romney_Shunning_Tea_Party), h/t (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/01/running-away-from-tea-party.html))

Don Zeko
01-22-2011, 04:29 AM
If no liberals voted in the poll, the % going for Sarah Palin would be 0%

Maybe. And again, I'm not sure if liberals should hope that she gets the nomination or not. I mean, if we're just trying to maximize Barack Obama's odds of reelection she, or maybe Haley Barbour or Newt Gingrich, seem like the obvious choices. But again, it's never a sure thing that even a candidate as horrible as Sarah Palin will lose. And I'd much rather deal with a President Romney than a President Palin.

PS: potentially amusing party game: who should Sarah Palin pick as her running mate if she wins? Is Michelle Bachmann just too obvious?

AemJeff
01-22-2011, 10:49 AM
Maybe. And again, I'm not sure if liberals should hope that she gets the nomination or not. I mean, if we're just trying to maximize Barack Obama's odds of reelection she, or maybe Haley Barbour or Newt Gingrich, seem like the obvious choices. But again, it's never a sure thing that even a candidate as horrible as Sarah Palin will lose. And I'd much rather deal with a President Romney than a President Palin.

PS: potentially amusing party game: who should Sarah Palin pick as her running mate if she wins? Is Michelle Bachmann just too obvious?

Obviously she'd have to pick Dick Cheney!

Don Zeko
01-22-2011, 11:05 AM
That's ridiculous. Nobody picks Dick Cheney as a running mate, Dick Cheney picks himself.

kezboard
01-22-2011, 11:07 AM
Could she? Even hypothetically? Is someone allowed to be elected VP multiple times?

AemJeff
01-22-2011, 11:13 AM
Could she? Even hypothetically? Is someone allowed to be elected VP multiple times?

Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Disqualificati ons):

Under the Twenty-second Amendment, the President of the United States may not be elected to more than two terms. However, there is no similar such limitation as to how many times one can be elected Vice President. Scholars dispute whether a former President barred from election to the Presidency is also ineligible to be elected Vice President, as suggested by the Twelfth Amendment. The issue has never been tested in practice.

That refers to election, however. There's no guidance for limitations on Cheneyesque self-appointment.

bjkeefe
01-22-2011, 02:07 PM
That's ridiculous. Nobody picks Dick Cheney as a running mate, Dick Cheney picks himself.

LOL!

Dick Cheney is the new Chuck Norris.

(? (http://www.google.com/search?q=chuck+norris+facts))

bjkeefe
01-22-2011, 02:15 PM
Could she? Even hypothetically? Is someone allowed to be elected VP multiple times?

It seems to me there's no reason why not. Basically, I would think, it would come down to whether that person was eligible to be President (see Jeff's (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=195664#post195664) post), in case there was a need for the VP to assume the office of President. Someone who had been VP before had obviously met all of the other Constitutional criteria for eligibility, and if he or she hadn't gone into the top job via succession, he or she would not have used up any time concerning the term limit restriction.

Ocean
01-22-2011, 02:28 PM
It seems to me there's no reason why not. Basically, I would think, it would come down to whether that person was eligible to be President (see Jeff's (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=195664#post195664) post), in case there was a need for the VP to assume the office of President. Someone who had been VP before had obviously met all of the other Constitutional criteria for eligibility, and if he or she hadn't gone into the top job via succession, he or she would not have used up any time concerning the term limit restriction.

Why are you all trying to ruin my digestion with bad jokes? ;)

bjkeefe
01-22-2011, 03:32 PM
Why are you all trying to ruin my digestion with bad jokes? ;)

Not to worry. If Palin picks Cheney, Obama just starts the investigations into the Cheynsters's previous time in office. Something about high crimes and misdemeanors comes to mind. Also, bribery of foreign governments. Problem solved.

operative
01-22-2011, 05:02 PM
Maybe. And again, I'm not sure if liberals should hope that she gets the nomination or not. I mean, if we're just trying to maximize Barack Obama's odds of reelection she, or maybe Haley Barbour or Newt Gingrich, seem like the obvious choices. But again, it's never a sure thing that even a candidate as horrible as Sarah Palin will lose. And I'd much rather deal with a President Romney than a President Palin.

PS: potentially amusing party game: who should Sarah Palin pick as her running mate if she wins? Is Michelle Bachmann just too obvious?

Palin would make a slightly stronger general election candidate than Barbour (due mainly to his watermelon joke). But that's just because no one, with the possible exception of John Bolton, would make as bad a nominee as the self-described fat redneck. Herman Cain would actually be a better general election candidate than either of them.

But neither will sniff the nomination, so it doesn't matter.

operative
01-22-2011, 05:03 PM
Not to worry. If Palin picks Cheney, Obama just starts the investigations into the Cheynsters's previous time in office. Something about high crimes and misdemeanors comes to mind. Also, bribery of foreign governments. Problem solved.

BJ Conspiracy Corner Post of the Day.

Ocean
01-22-2011, 05:32 PM
Not to worry. If Palin picks Cheney, Obama just starts the investigations into the Cheynsters's previous time in office. Something about high crimes and misdemeanors comes to mind. Also, bribery of foreign governments. Problem solved.

Thanks, I'm happier now. :)

Ocean
01-22-2011, 05:34 PM
BJ Conspiracy Corner Post of the Day.

No. He was just being a nice and supportive friend.

kezboard
01-22-2011, 06:18 PM
Is using "that" twice in a row a new grammatical trend?

No, it's perfectly normal English. The first "that" and the second "that" have different meanings. The first is a conjunction, the second is a pronoun. There are many words in English that can be different parts of speech -- "have", "do", "be", etc.

I had to spend almost an entire lesson once on the word "there", since in Czech, my students' native language, you express the idea "There's a tree there" essentially by saying "Is tree there" (Slavic languages don't have articles, unfortunately for my students as well as me, since they're very hard to learn to use correctly as well as very boring to teach), and although my students had learned the phrases "there is" and "there are", they tended to assume that the word "there", as in "there is", also contained the meaning "there", as in "it's over there".

kezboard
01-22-2011, 06:19 PM
Gingrich is my number 2 pick. Both he and Barbour are 100% unelectable, but he's somehow more loathsome and also less funny, so he loses. Palin is probably just as unelectable as they are, but honestly, I'm tired of her and I don't want to see her around anymore. Santorum is equally unelectable, but also no fun. Christie is fun, but I doubt he runs.

Jindal is probably ahead of all of these guys by leaps and bounds, if the Republicans are right and his SOTU response isn't representative of his speech-giving abilities. That speech did suck though. A lot.

kezboard
01-22-2011, 06:24 PM
But that's just because no one, with the possible exception of John Bolton, would make as bad a nominee as the self-described fat redneck.

Oh man, I forgot about Bolton! The only thing worse than being a short or fat presidential candidate is being a mustachioed one.

Ocean
01-22-2011, 06:31 PM
Oh man, I forgot about Bolton! The only thing worse than being a short or fat presidential candidate is being a mustachioed one.

Here's your perfect Republican candidate entering the debate floor. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eo0OY8GOuc)

bjkeefe
01-22-2011, 07:42 PM
Excitingly, Willard "Mitt" Romney won a straw poll! This news was quickly reblogged by a blog in serious need of a name change (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitt-romney-wins-n-h-straw-poll-ron-paul-second-palin-fourth/).

DERRY, N.H. – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the first presidential straw poll of the 2012 cycle, kicking off New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary election race.

Romney won with 35 percent, beating second-place finisher Ron Paul by 24 points in the WMUR-ABC News straw poll of members of the state Republican Party. In third place was former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who won 8 percent—just one point ahead of Sarah Palin, who drew 7 percent.

[...]

Only three candidates—Romney, Pawlenty and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum—have spent significant amounts of time on the ground in the state over the past few months. At today’s convention, Pawlenty staffed a table to promote his new book while Santorum consultant and longtime New Hampshire operative Mike Biundo had a table and worked the crowd.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won 5 percent, pizza mogul Herman Cain took 4 percent, and Santorum won 3 percent—tied with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee

The poll is a strong showing Romney, who drew 39 percent support in a Jan. 7 NH Journal poll of likely New Hampshire voters. But noteworthy is how far ahead he is of Pawlenty and Santorum, the other two candidates who have spent significant time in the state in the past year.

Continuing from the original source, the GOP's press release regurgitator (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47993.html):

Losing to even Donald Trump, who took 1 percent of the vote: South Dakota Sen. John Thune and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who both received no votes.

And how's this for an example of Dammit, We've Got A Narrative And We're Sticking To It?

Still, the straw poll’s collection of tea party candidates collectively finished far ahead of Beltway favorites like Daniels, Huntsman and Thune. Taken together, Paul, Palin, Bachmann, DeMint and Cain represented 31 percent of votes cast in the straw poll.

The gloves have come off!?

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4082/mittenskeepshishandscle.jpg

bjkeefe
01-23-2011, 05:12 AM
From Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/brody-%E2%80%9Cpence-could-become-%E2%80%98madonna%E2%80%99-2012%E2%80%9D):

Brody: “Pence Could Become the ‘Madonna’ of 2012”

After Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) said he would decide on his election plans by the end of January, the movement to recruit him into the presidential race has moved into high gear. The recently-formed American President Committee launched (http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/17/926359/group-forms-to-back-rep-pence.html) a “Draft Pence (http://theconservativechampion.org/)” campaign and a group of Republican legislators from the critical primary state of South Carolina have organized a similar effort (http://www.wltx.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=118447&catid=2) to lure the Indiana Congressman into a presidential run. Pence, who won the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit straw poll (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/values-voters-summit-pick-mike-pence-straw-poll/story?id=11672930), has recently been spearheading anti-choice legislation (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pence-congress-should-defund-planned-parenthood-because-high-unemployment) and trashing President Obama (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-pence-obama-treats-country-%E2%80%9C-dog%E2%80%9D). David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network believes (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/01/20/desperately-seeking-mike-pence.aspx) that Pence’s energetic support (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703548604576037961132253974.html) from both the Religious Right and pro-corporate conservatives may turn him “into the ‘Madonna’ of 2012” and predicts that “Evangelicals who don’t know about him may soon fall in love.”

But was Madonna ever big in New Hampshire (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=195717#post195717)?

bjkeefe
01-23-2011, 07:14 PM
All your base are belong to her. (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-easy-it-is-to-impress-todays.html)

handle
01-23-2011, 08:24 PM
How do I know? One wingnut forefather wants to get the shoe-in DNC guy to defect:

You're not gonna believe this. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/23/sunday/main7274480.shtml)

Can't say I blame him, but they might want to take back the "sounds a lot like socialism" and "pals around with terrorists" bullshit first.

operative
01-23-2011, 08:44 PM
How do I know? One wingnut forefather wants to get the shoe-in DNC guy to defect:

You're not gonna believe this. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/23/sunday/main7274480.shtml)

Can't say I blame him, but they might want to take back the "sounds a lot like socialism" and "pals around with terrorists" bullshit first.

Someone missed the point of Stein's remarks.

bjkeefe
01-23-2011, 11:22 PM
How do I know? One wingnut forefather wants to get the shoe-in DNC guy to defect:

You're not gonna believe this. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/23/sunday/main7274480.shtml)

Can't say I blame him, but they might want to take back the "sounds a lot like socialism" and "pals around with terrorists" bullshit first.

Y'know, as much as I write this off as a desperate bid for attention by Stein, imagine the potential for unifying the country.

Plus, huge bonus for the chattering classes: And then Hillary could run against him again!!!1!

bjkeefe
01-24-2011, 02:24 AM
Or, a prude-nt act (http://twitter.com/steveking_/status/29366839154835456)?

handle
01-24-2011, 03:56 PM
Someone missed the point of Stein's remarks.
It's okay.. don't beat yourself up.

handle
01-24-2011, 03:59 PM
Y'know, as much as I write this off as a desperate bid for attention by Stein, imagine the potential for unifying the country.

Plus, huge bonus for the chattering classes: And then Hillary could run against him again!!!1!

I'm gonna queue up now to be the first town hall screamer, against the repeal. ;)

bjkeefe
01-24-2011, 06:37 PM
Analysis from our man in Indiana (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/01/back-home-again.html).

bjkeefe
01-24-2011, 06:47 PM
Excitingly, Willard "Mitt" Romney won a straw poll! [...]

Roger Ailes (http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2011/01/fun-with-straw-polls-straw-poll-of.html)'s take:

A straw poll of Republican Party bigwigs and muckety-mucks in the Granite State shows that Willard Romney has bought 35 percent of them.

A full 11 percent support former racist newsletter publisher and lunatic Ron Paul. Eight percent support future punchline Tim Pawlenty, and seven percent support GOPtomom/circus freak Sarah Palin. Newt Gingrich is circling the drain with Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels at three percent.

Conditions have never looked so favorable for Fred Thompson.

[Added] From the comments under that post:

marc sobel It occurred to me today that Palin is half a Sherman. If nominated she would run but if elected she would not serve.

DocAmazing This is excellent news for John McCain!

Don Zeko
01-24-2011, 06:56 PM
I continue to find the Mike Pence for President bubble completely mystifying.

bjkeefe
01-26-2011, 03:28 AM
... she can't even keep her own lies straight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012507844.html):

"I never took this as a State of the Union response, necessarily," she said innocently. The title above the text of her speech her office released Tuesday night: "Bachmann's Response to State of the Union."

Discovered via this (http://twitter.com/Joshua_holland1/status/30137228462137344).

kezboard
01-27-2011, 02:20 PM
Haley Barbour is seriously considering running for president (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/140651-gov-barbour-seriously-thinking-about-white-house-run-). Run Haley, run! On the other hand...

"I'm seriously thinking about running for president but won't make a decision until April,” Barbour said, according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal. "I've got to get my budget done in Mississippi. I'm going to complete my obligations to the people of Mississippi before I run for anything else.

Does that mean he's being a dead fish and going with the flow?

popcorn_karate
01-27-2011, 07:04 PM
i think its an express refudiation of Palin the 1/2 term.

bjkeefe
01-27-2011, 07:16 PM
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg

Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/436318/defeated-nutbar-sharron-angle-obviously-considering-presidential-bid) passes along news from Iowa that a certain someone dropped in for a visit and (this is HEADLINE NEWS (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/01/26/angle-comes-to-iowa-doesnt-rule-out-presidential-bid/)):

... doesn’t rule out presidential bid

No word on how many "Second Amendment remedies" she promised this time.

bjkeefe
01-29-2011, 06:35 AM
I continue to find the Mike Pence for President bubble completely mystifying.

Wonder no more. Seems like he was too honest (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2011/01/kinsley-gaffe-of-day.html) for the job.

Which means it's all Mitch Mitch Mitch (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/01/evidence-of-life-on-mars.html)*!

==========

* Outside of Indiana, some restrictions may apply.

bjkeefe
01-30-2011, 04:54 AM
Blue Texan (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/01/president-jim-demint.html) says:

Why not? He's exactly where the GOP is on almost everything, he just doesn't sugar coat it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/27/demint-open-to-2012-presidential-bid-advisers-say/).

The quoted link leads to this:

Washington (CNN) – News that South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint will travel to Iowa on March 26 to address a conservative forum organized by Rep. Steve King is sparking another round of chatter that DeMint might launch a dark horse bid for the White House in 2012.

The Republican gadfly has been adamant in denying such intentions for more than a year – just Wednesday, he gave CNN's Wolf Blitzer a flat "No" when asked if he plans to seek his party's presidential nomination.

But the ground may be shifting in DeMint-world, and several of his closest advisers and political confidantes are now telling CNN that he is at least open to a presidential bid if a suitably conservative candidate fails to emerge from the early and wide-open GOP field.

[...]

Aside from Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, who is currently deciding between a presidential run and a gubernatorial bid in his home state, DeMint's advisers are having a difficult time envisioning a candidate that he could get behind.

The Pence issue is gone (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=196333&highlight=pence#post196333)!

Also:

Since November's elections, DeMint has been working on finishing a new book set for publication this summer, "The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me."

Because nothing says "I'm not interested in running for president" like "I have a book about myself coming out."

And just read this a few times:

Peter Brown, a prominent South Carolina donor and a member of DeMint's kitchen cabinet, predicted that DeMint could warm to the idea of a White House bid as the rest of the field takes shape. Brown said potential candidates like Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich are failing to generate any kind of broad excitement among conservatives.

Just how conservative do you have to be to meet DeMint's criteria?

I suppose this is one hint:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6650/jimdemintdiscoveryinsti.jpg


(pic. source (http://www.russiablog.org/2009/06/world_russia_forum_2009_photos_pictures.php))

bjkeefe
01-31-2011, 04:42 PM
Jon Hunstman, last seen trailing everybody including Donald Trump (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=195717&highlight=huntsman#post195717), is fawned over by America's Favorite Re-typer of GOP Press Releases. In their typically understated fashion, they headline the piece:

Barack Obama braces for Jon Huntsman 2012 bid

Link here (http://wonkette.com/436540/jon-huntsman-still-running-for-president-will-make-romney-look-like-teabagger).

operative
01-31-2011, 05:57 PM
Jon Hunstman, last seen trailing everybody including Donald Trump (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=195717&highlight=huntsman#post195717), is fawned over by America's Favorite Re-typer of GOP Press Releases. In their typically understated fashion, they headline the piece:



Link here (http://wonkette.com/436540/jon-huntsman-still-running-for-president-will-make-romney-look-like-teabagger).

Huntsman is the candidate Obama is most afraid of facing (which is why he chose him to go to China). So your best bet is that too many Republicans refuse to support him because he accepted an Obama offer. Otherwise, Obama is toast in 2012.

chiwhisoxx
01-31-2011, 06:39 PM
Huntsman is the candidate Obama is most afraid of facing (which is why he chose him to go to China). So your best bet is that too many Republicans refuse to support him because he accepted an Obama offer. Otherwise, Obama is toast in 2012.

An incumbent president with an approval rating above 50% is "toast" if the Republicans nominate a guy with about .04% name ID who has zero appeal to his base, and who oh by the way worked for the man he'll be running against? Were you trying to see how many ways you could defy what we know about United States presidential elections in one paragraph?

bjkeefe
01-31-2011, 06:40 PM
Huntsman is the candidate Obama is most afraid of facing (which is why he chose him to go to China).

Ah, rapid response from the operative. No One Could Have Predicted.

Yes, of course this is how people like you see it (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/05/juxtaposition.html). It's not possible that Obama was looking for opportunities to ride the magical unity pony, is it? Everything about him must have a sinister explanation, mustn't it?

Also, I look forward to your desperate attempts to spin away this from May 2009 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/17/us-obama-utah-governor-051709/?politics&zIndex=100817):

John Weaver, a one-time senior strategist for John McCain's presidential campaign who now advises Huntsman, said the governor put country ahead of personal partisan interest. Huntsman was national co-chairman of McCain's failed bid against Obama.

"It's no more complicated than that, though it is so unusual in Washington everyone has to take a magnifying glass to it," Weaver said after Obama introduced Huntsman in the White House Diplomatic Reception Room.

"He was asked by the president to serve in a major diplomatic post, in a mission with a country most important to our economy, in dealing with Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Jon is uniquely qualified and thus you don't turn your nation down," Weaver said.

Obama said he knew Huntsman's nomination "wouldn't be the easiest decision to explain to some members of his party." But Obama said Huntsman was "the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party and is always willing to sacrifice on behalf of our nation."

Elected to his second term in November, Huntsman said he wasn't looking for a new job and didn't expect "to be called into action" by McCain's winning rival.

"But I grew up understanding that the most basic responsibility one has is service to country," he said, standing with Obama as his family looked on. "When the president of the United States asks you to step up and serve in a capacity like this, that to me is the end of the conversation and the beginning of the obligation to rise to the challenge."

chiwhisoxx
01-31-2011, 06:43 PM
Ah, rapid response from the operative. No One Could Have Predicted.

Yes, of course this is how people like you see it (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/05/juxtaposition.html). It's not possible that Obama was looking for opportunities to ride the magical unity pony, is it? Everything about him must have a sinister explanation, mustn't it?

Also, I look forward to your desperate attempts to spin away this from May 2009 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/17/us-obama-utah-governor-051709/?politics&zIndex=100817):

Building on my "quoting the West Wing at every turn" binge, there's a great quote about serving in administrations you might not agree with on everything: "The president is asking you to serve. And everything else is crap."

operative
01-31-2011, 06:55 PM
An incumbent president with an approval rating above 50% is "toast" if the Republicans nominate a guy with about .04% name ID who has zero appeal to his base, and who oh by the way worked for the man he'll be running against? Were you trying to see how many ways you could defy what we know about United States presidential elections in one paragraph?

Unemployment will not be beneath 8% before election day. So unless you think that the entire economic-retrospective model of voting behavior is bunk (which would be an unwise position to hold), you should be second-guessing your dismissiveness.

And in the modern media era, you don't need significant name recognition before the primaries begin. Huckabee had little name recognition and managed to win Iowa; had it not been for the fact that Huckabee was a big government conservative, he might've won the nomination.

operative
01-31-2011, 06:56 PM
Ah, rapid response from the operative. No One Could Have Predicted.

Yes, of course this is how people like you see it (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/05/juxtaposition.html). It's not possible that Obama was looking for opportunities to ride the magical unity pony, is it? Everything about him must have a sinister explanation, mustn't it?

Also, I look forward to your desperate attempts to spin away this from May 2009 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/17/us-obama-utah-governor-051709/?politics&zIndex=100817):

There wasn't anything sinister about it. It was just politics. Same as his selection of Hillary Clinton for sec of state. Heck, same as him going back on his word, not taking public funding, and proceeding to massively outspend his opponent. And if you don't see that, then you're a fool.

operative
01-31-2011, 07:08 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48533.html

By choosing Huntsman to be ambassador to China, Obama inadvertently gave his strongest potential foe an even stronger resume.

chiwhisoxx
01-31-2011, 07:13 PM
Unemployment will not be beneath 8% before election day. So unless you think that the entire economic-retrospective model of voting behavior is bunk (which would be an unwise position to hold), you should be second-guessing your dismissiveness.

And in the modern media era, you don't need significant name recognition before the primaries begin. Huckabee had little name recognition and managed to win Iowa; had it not been for the fact that Huckabee was a big government conservative, he might've won the nomination.

First of all, I didn't know it was an iron clad truth that unemployment can't possibly be below 8% on election day. And retrospective voting models are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. This should be an illuminating discussion, as I'm sure you've spent a lot of time with the retrospective literature, reading Key, Downs, and Fiorina. One model of retrospective voting involves a snapshot, but others involve a running tally, where people are constantly changing opinions as events evolve. Things are going to change between now and November of 2012, which will alter people's evaluations. And since you've read Fiorinia, you know how important mediated retrospective evaluations are. People don't base these opinions based on pocketbook issues like personal finance, but instead of macroeconomic issues mediated through various media filters of their choice. The story leading up to the election in most media outlets will be about how the economy is recovering, because it will be. Even in your bizarrely confident prediction that unemployment will stay above 8%, getting near that number will constitute a significant improvement.

And of course name ID is important. Especially in primaries. Huckabee received a lot of attention because he filled a particular void (which Huntsman isn't doing; tons of Romney overlap) and had personal charm (we have no evidence Huntsman possesses this in droves yet). And he still probably isn't your best example, seeing as to how he never got within driving distance of winning the nomination.

bjkeefe
01-31-2011, 07:29 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48533.html

By choosing Huntsman to be ambassador to China, Obama inadvertently gave his strongest potential foe an even stronger resume.

He'll never even come close in the Republican primaries. Which in many ways is a pity.

bjkeefe
01-31-2011, 07:32 PM
There wasn't anything sinister about it. It was just politics. Same as his selection of Hillary Clinton for sec of state. Heck, same as him going back on his word, not taking public funding, and proceeding to massively outspend his opponent. And if you don't see that, then you're a fool.

All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

operative
01-31-2011, 07:48 PM
First of all, I didn't know it was an iron clad truth that unemployment can't possibly be below 8% on election day.

Nothing's ironclad. But I (and most economic analysts) would be rather surprised if it was below 8% come election day.



And retrospective voting models are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. This should be an illuminating discussion, as I'm sure you've spent a lot of time with the retrospective literature, reading Key, Downs, and Fiorina.

Key and Downs are outdated (though without the latter, we might not have contemporary rational choice theory work). Fiorina is pretty good.


One model of retrospective voting involves a snapshot, but others involve a running tally, where people are constantly changing opinions as events evolve. Things are going to change between now and November of 2012, which will alter people's evaluations. And since you've read Fiorinia, you know how important mediated retrospective evaluations are. People don't base these opinions based on pocketbook issues like personal finance, but instead of macroeconomic issues mediated through various media filters of their choice.

Hence the note about the unemployment rate, the easiest economic indicator for people to understand.


The story leading up to the election in most media outlets will be about how the economy is recovering, because it will be.

The national media will spin a pro-Obama (or just anti-GOP) narrative no matter what. That's been the case for a very long time. Media narrative tends to be fairly non-important.


Even in your bizarrely confident prediction that unemployment will stay above 8%, getting near that number will constitute a significant improvement.

Only over what it got to under Obama. That's still substantially higher than the normal national average of 5-6%.

Check the exit poll data from 08. People who voted for Obama had very high expectations and believed that things would get better. Things have not gotten better. There is no conceivable way that unemployment will be lower on election day 2012 than it was on inauguration day 2008.

PS the running snapshot school of thought gives way too much credit to the American voter. The data on voter awareness, information level, etc. has been fairly consistent through the years (starting with The American Voter and going onward). The American voter knows little and doesn't keep up to date on things.


And of course name ID is important. Especially in primaries. Huckabee received a lot of attention because he filled a particular void (which Huntsman isn't doing; tons of Romney overlap) and had personal charm (we have no evidence Huntsman possesses this in droves yet). And he still probably isn't your best example, seeing as to how he never got within driving distance of winning the nomination.

Huntsman is Romney without key faults (Romneycare, flip-flopping on various issues, etc.). McCain didn't win the nomination in 08 so much as Romney lost it, due to his flaws as a candidate.

Huntsman also has something very important: tons of money. And, he likely will be able to pick off 08 Romney donors who have been standing back and waiting to see if someone better will step in 08.

Huntsman would fill the McCain role--he has the foreign policy cred and the moderate reputation.

I think the best case you have against Huntsman being able to get the nomination is by gaming out the early primaries. I don't think Huntsman can win Iowa (if Huckabee runs, he wins it. If he doesn't, Thune wins it. If Thune doesn't run, something crazy like a Santorum victory could happen).

But Huntsman can go over very well in New Hampshire. He'd be competing with Romney and (if he runs) Daniels, and I think he'd stand a chance. The rumor is that Romney will also skip South Carolina. I think that Huntsman has a chance there. He stands a good chance in Florida.

The GOP has no frontrunner. We still don't know if Thune, Daniels, etc. will even run.

By the way, I'm actually not as convinced on economic-retrospective as a lot of other people. But I think that it's fairly safe to say that at this point, the model (well, various models within the general philosophy) is the most widely believed-in model among political scientists. If Obama were to win reelection, it would poke a fatal hole in the theory.

operative
01-31-2011, 07:50 PM
All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

You're the one using the loaded words (sinister). It's politics. Obama's been a hard-nosed, cynical politician his entire career, starting with when he got his mentor knocked off the ballot on technicalities to take her place, for his very first seat.

chiwhisoxx
01-31-2011, 07:59 PM
Nothing's ironclad. But I (and most economic analysts) would be rather surprised if it was below 8% come election day.




Key and Downs are outdated (though without the latter, we might not have contemporary rational choice theory work). Fiorina is pretty good.



Hence the note about the unemployment rate, the easiest economic indicator for people to understand.



The national media will spin a pro-Obama (or just anti-GOP) narrative no matter what. That's been the case for a very long time. Media narrative tends to be fairly non-important.



Only over what it got to under Obama. That's still substantially higher than the normal national average of 5-6%.

Check the exit poll data from 08. People who voted for Obama had very high expectations and believed that things would get better. Things have not gotten better. There is no conceivable way that unemployment will be lower on election day 2012 than it was on inauguration day 2008.

PS the running snapshot school of thought gives way too much credit to the American voter. The data on voter awareness, information level, etc. has been fairly consistent through the years (starting with The American Voter and going onward). The American voter knows little and doesn't keep up to date on things.



Huntsman is Romney without key faults (Romneycare, flip-flopping on various issues, etc.). McCain didn't win the nomination in 08 so much as Romney lost it, due to his flaws as a candidate.

Huntsman also has something very important: tons of money. And, he likely will be able to pick off 08 Romney donors who have been standing back and waiting to see if someone better will step in 08.

Huntsman would fill the McCain role--he has the foreign policy cred and the moderate reputation.

I think the best case you have against Huntsman being able to get the nomination is by gaming out the early primaries. I don't think Huntsman can win Iowa (if Huckabee runs, he wins it. If he doesn't, Thune wins it. If Thune doesn't run, something crazy like a Santorum victory could happen).

But Huntsman can go over very well in New Hampshire. He'd be competing with Romney and (if he runs) Daniels, and I think he'd stand a chance. The rumor is that Romney will also skip South Carolina. I think that Huntsman has a chance there. He stands a good chance in Florida.

The GOP has no frontrunner. We still don't know if Thune, Daniels, etc. will even run.

By the way, I'm actually not as convinced on economic-retrospective as a lot of other people. But I think that it's fairly safe to say that at this point, the model (well, various models within the general philosophy) is the most widely believed-in model among political scientists. If Obama were to win reelection, it would poke a fatal hole in the theory.

Well, it's nice to find someone else who's actually read the stuff. I wasn't expecting that.

I will say, the one plausible scenario I see for Huntsman is an early Romney collapse. The legal battle over Obamacare is accelerating faster than I think most of us anticipated, and it's going to be a signature issue for the GOP in 2012. As has been said before, this is obviously going to be a huge problem for Romney, and this could eliminate the overlap problem for Huntsman. Although there's probably some Huntsman overlap with Thune and Daniels as well; he'd be a lot better off if both of those guys stay out.

bjkeefe
01-31-2011, 11:42 PM
You're the one using the loaded words (sinister). It's politics. Obama's been a hard-nosed, cynical politician his entire career, starting with when he got his mentor knocked off the ballot on technicalities to take her place, for his very first seat.

All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

operative
02-01-2011, 12:31 AM
All I see is you doing your usual thing: flinging every random piece of poo you can grab and changing what you think you're arguing about from post to post, all because you care only about seeing everything Obama does in the worst possible light.

You persist making a judgment not backed by reason. I'm stating a fairly obvious conclusion based on Obama's political history: like most politicians, Obama is cynical opportunistic. I guess this is where you return with some canned response that approximates "No only Republicans and Joe Lieberman are!"

operative
02-01-2011, 12:32 AM
Oh, and have you forgotten:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/Obamas-campaign-manager-fears-Jon-Huntsman-the/aaMghWe9q0qqXjkPpGB4NA.cspx

bjkeefe
02-01-2011, 12:51 AM
You persist making a judgment not backed by reason. [...]

Are you just trying to bait me tonight?

.

bjkeefe
02-01-2011, 04:26 AM
The host of the FoxNews show "Huckabee" is visiting Israel (http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2011/01/huckleberry-tries-out-his-teabag.html), sucking up to Bibi, playing the victim card, and just to make it extra special, he has Jon Voight in tow.

Yeah, that Jon Voight (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search?q=jon+voight).

In other news, one of the operatives at the important webnewszine Conservatives4Palin (http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/01/mike-huckabees-pac-is-effectively-broke.html) leaps on a Politico item to cackle about the Huckster's low campaign coffers and asserts without evidence, "it’s already clear that Mike Huckabee isn’t running for the Presidency."

Worshiping St. Sarah means you can ignore polling data (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/is-mike-huckabee-pulling-away-in-the-gop-presidential-primary.php), evidently.

bjkeefe
02-01-2011, 05:01 AM
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg

Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/436318/defeated-nutbar-sharron-angle-obviously-considering-presidential-bid) passes along news from Iowa that a certain someone dropped in for a visit and (this is HEADLINE NEWS (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/01/26/angle-comes-to-iowa-doesnt-rule-out-presidential-bid/)):

... doesn’t rule out presidential bid

No word on how many "Second Amendment remedies" she promised this time.

Now, this is out of the box campaigning (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/what_the_jangle-angle_did_next/)!

Don Zeko
02-02-2011, 04:03 PM
Jon Chait has crackerjack analysis (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/82634/preliminary-breakdown-the-gop-contenders) and a great graph of Huntsman's place in the race. Come on Glenn Back, throw your hat in. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7500/image003l.gif

And really, this graph is right up there with the following. Truly sublime.

http://www.jamphat.com/rap/jamphat_files/image096.jpg

bjkeefe
02-02-2011, 04:29 PM
Wow. Less sane than Mitch Daniels (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/search/label/Midwestern%20States%20Governed%20By%20Surly%20Mega lomaniacs%20With%20Napoleonic%20Complexes)? That's gotta leave a mark.

Jon Chait has crackerjack analysis (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/82634/preliminary-breakdown-the-gop-contenders) and a great graph of Huntsman's place in the race. Come on Glenn Back, throw your hat in. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7500/image003l.gif

And really, this graph is right up there with the following. Truly sublime.

http://www.jamphat.com/rap/jamphat_files/image096.jpg

bjkeefe
02-04-2011, 02:21 PM
Found here (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/a-graphical-overview-of-the-2012-republican-field/).

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/283/natesilvergopchart.png

One dimension is obvious: we can classify the candidates from left to right, from relatively more moderate to relatively more conservative. But another dimension that is often salient in the primaries, and perhaps especially so for Republicans next year, is what we might think of as the insider/outsider axis: whether the candidate is viewed as part of the Republican establishment, or as a critic of it.

[...]

There are two more kinds of information embedded in the chart. First, the area of each candidate’s circle is proportional to their perceived likelihood of winning the nomination, according to the Intrade betting market. Mitt Romney’s circle is drawn many times the size of the one for the relatively obscure talk-radio host Herman Cain because Intrade rates Mr. Romney many times as likely to be nominated.

(I should note that there are several cases in which I am in considerable disagreement with the bettors at Intrade about the viability of each candidate. But using their figures as the basis for drawing the circles at least lends some objectivity to the assessment.)

I have excluded candidates like Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey or Jeb Bush of Florida who have strongly denied any interest in running in 2012, even though some of them trade at nonzero values on Intrade.

Finally, the color of each circle reflects the region the candidate is from: blue for the Northeast, red for the South, green for the Midwest, and yellow for the West.

I'd quibble a bit with a few elements; e.g., I'd call Santorum and DeMint, especially, and Huckabee and Bachmann, to some degree, more insider-y than they are shown.

chiwhisoxx
02-04-2011, 02:40 PM
Found here (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/a-graphical-overview-of-the-2012-republican-field/).

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/283/natesilvergopchart.png



I'd quibble a bit with a few elements; e.g., I'd call Santorum and DeMint, especially, and Huckabee and Bachmann, to some degree, more insider-y than they are shown.

It seems like part of the issue with charts like this is that "insider" is difficult to nail down. That's partially because in most cases people use it to mean two things: Actually being a part of the Republican establishment, and running as someone who is part of the Republican establishment. I assume you want to move people like DeMint closer to insider because even though the ethos of his campaign would be anti-Washington, it's hard to get away from the fact that he's a United States senator.

bjkeefe
02-04-2011, 02:57 PM
It seems like part of the issue with charts like this is that "insider" is difficult to nail down.

Agreed. I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of it.

That's partially because in most cases people use it to mean two things: Actually being a part of the Republican establishment, and running as someone who is part of the Republican establishment. I assume you want to move people like DeMint closer to insider because even though the ethos of his campaign would be anti-Washington, it's hard to get away from the fact that he's a United States senator.

Yes, that he's a Senator is of it. But another part is the reality that for all of his talk, he votes the party line on everything that matters, and in fact, is one of the principal whip hands for getting everyone else in line. That he sometimes tries to out-crazy the rest of the crazies does not make him an "outsider." It merely means he's doing his bit to establish a negotiating position on a bill or move the Overton Window on an issue.

For Santorum, not only was he high up in the party before losing his Senatorial reelection bid in 2006, he has since spent all of his time staying affiliated with various PACs, 527s, and other lobbying interests, all of which march in lockstep with the Republicans currently in charge, if occasionally farther to the right. And on that final note, see the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

On Huckabee, I'd give him some outsider points because the Club for Growth types hate him, but he gets more insider points for having a show on FoxNews. If there is any organization that is more in sync with whatever the Republican Party is doing at any given moment, I can't think of it.

chiwhisoxx
02-04-2011, 03:35 PM
Agreed. I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of it.



Yes, that he's a Senator is of it. But another part is the reality that for all of his talk, he votes the party line on everything that matters, and in fact, is one of the principal whip hands for getting everyone else in line. That he sometimes tries to out-crazy the rest of the crazies does not make him an "outsider." It merely means he's doing his bit to establish a negotiating position on a bill or move the Overton Window on an issue.

For Santorum, not only was he high up in the party before losing his Senatorial reelection bid in 2006, he has since spent all of his time staying affiliated with various PACs, 527s, and other lobbying interests, all of which march in lockstep with the Republicans currently in charge, if occasionally farther to the right. And on that final note, see the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

On Huckabee, I'd give him some outsider points because the Club for Growth types hate him, but he gets more insider points for having a show on FoxNews. If there is any organization that is more in sync with whatever the Republican Party is doing at any given moment, I can't think of it.

This is a good point, and one that probably isn't talked about enough. There are lots of problems with Fox, like the quality of the coverage, the sensation list and tabloidly feel to a lot of it (Greta Van Sustren anyone?). But one of the most annoying things for conservatives is that Fox is *much* more partisan than it is ideological. That isn't to say Fox isn't conservative; they are, to be sure. But they're much more interested in sticking to the party line and twisting themselves into knots defending Republicans than they are standing by principles. It's probably out of a desire to stay in the good graces of these politicians, so they'll come do shows on Fox and whatnot, but it's pretty obnoxious either way.

operative
02-04-2011, 03:59 PM
Found here (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/a-graphical-overview-of-the-2012-republican-field/).

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/283/natesilvergopchart.png



I'd quibble a bit with a few elements; e.g., I'd call Santorum and DeMint, especially, and Huckabee and Bachmann, to some degree, more insider-y than they are shown.

Paul as a moderate??? I love Nate Silver as much as the next stats geek, but wow, one could not make a more egregious error.

bjkeefe
02-04-2011, 04:27 PM
Paul as a moderate??? I love Nate Silver as much as the next stats geek, but wow, one could not make a more egregious error.

Good point.

On the other hand, there is this from last year, for example: "National Journal Ranks Ron Paul 140th Most Conservative Member of House (http://www.dailypaul.com/127157/national-journal-ranks-ron-paul-140th-most-conservative-member-of-house)."

On another measure, there's the US Chamber of Commerce (http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2009/04/new-chamber-index-shows-conservatives-arent-corporate-pawns) perspective from 2009. By their lights, he "scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamber’s scorecard ... The Republican with the lowest Chamber score was Paul. Even Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who wants to regulate everything except Fannie Mae, scored 14 points higher than Paul on the Chamber’s scorecard."

There's also the perspective of the hawks and Hawkins (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul/page/2), who simply will not forgive his statements about Our Glorious Adventure in Iraq and his isolationist views in general.

All this is to say, really, that there is some limitation to how well a one-dimension axis can describe someone's political positions.

operative
02-04-2011, 09:34 PM
Good point.

On the other hand, there is this from last year, for example: "National Journal Ranks Ron Paul 140th Most Conservative Member of House (http://www.dailypaul.com/127157/national-journal-ranks-ron-paul-140th-most-conservative-member-of-house)."

On another measure, there's the US Chamber of Commerce (http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2009/04/new-chamber-index-shows-conservatives-arent-corporate-pawns) perspective from 2009. By their lights, he "scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamber’s scorecard ... The Republican with the lowest Chamber score was Paul. Even Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who wants to regulate everything except Fannie Mae, scored 14 points higher than Paul on the Chamber’s scorecard."

There's also the perspective of the hawks and Hawkins (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul/page/2), who simply will not forgive his statements about Our Glorious Adventure in Iraq and his isolationist views in general.

All this is to say, really, that there is some limitation to how well a one-dimension axis can describe someone's political positions.

Exactly, it's a methodological shortcoming. I actually think that one could more accurately capture varieties in political philosophy, using a Cartesian plane, if the basic approach was altered: instead of relying on an artificial, uncertain middle, make the origin anarchy. Your negative x limit approaches Communism, positive x is hyper state capitalism. Negative y limit is transformative authoritarianism (eg Pol Pot), positive y is traditionalist authoritarianism (eg theocracies).

bjkeefe
02-04-2011, 10:19 PM
Exactly, it's a methodological shortcoming. I actually think that one could more accurately capture varieties in political philosophy, using a Cartesian plane, if the basic approach was altered: instead of relying on an artificial, uncertain middle, make the origin anarchy. Your negative x limit approaches Communism, positive x is hyper state capitalism. Negative y limit is transformative authoritarianism (eg Pol Pot), positive y is traditionalist authoritarianism (eg theocracies).

Good (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum).

operative
02-04-2011, 11:38 PM
Good (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum).

Pournelle comes closest to my idea but doesn't quite hit it. 'Irrational' and 'reason enthroned' are rather poor ways to attempt to categorize authoritarian movements.

bjkeefe
02-05-2011, 12:39 AM
Good (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum).

... my idea ...

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9709/roflba.gif

bjkeefe
02-05-2011, 12:59 AM
In the fund-raising race (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/02/run-newt-run.html), that is.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/1756/thepalinpout.jpg

operative
02-05-2011, 10:32 AM
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9709/roflba.gif

Excuse me while I find the appropriate eye rolling emoticon.

graz
02-05-2011, 11:04 AM
Excuse me while I find the appropriate eye rolling emoticon.

Look, we understand, you took the test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) and are aligned most closely with Pol Pot. Sure, it hurts, but those authoritarian instincts of yours aren't easy to suppress. Carry on 独裁者.

kezboard
02-05-2011, 09:47 PM
Ugh, I hate the political compass test. I've taken the test a few times and every single time I've come out as further along towards the libertarian end of the spectrum than I am towards the left end. This is wrong. Their definition of "libertarian/authoritarian" is absurdly broad -- I bet that nearly all BHTV commenters would come out on the libertarian side. I suppose this distinction might be useful in distinguishing political ideologies in a historical or worldwide context, but for making political distinctions between citizens in contemporary English speaking democracies it really isn't, at all.

bjkeefe
02-05-2011, 10:43 PM
Ugh, I hate the political compass test. I've taken the test a few times and every single time I've come out as further along towards the libertarian end of the spectrum than I am towards the left end. This is wrong. Their definition of "libertarian/authoritarian" is absurdly broad -- I bet that nearly all BHTV commenters would come out on the libertarian side. I suppose this distinction might be useful in distinguishing political ideologies in a historical or worldwide context, but for making political distinctions between citizens in contemporary English speaking democracies it really isn't, at all.

Or maybe ... just maybe ... what we hear bandied about by those who start every third sentence with "As a libertarian, I ..." is not the best definition for the term?

I also end up very far out on the libertarian axis (and about as far on the liberal one). This does not bother me.

I suspect you're right that most Bhtv commenters would get results considerably to the libertarian side of that axis as well. We did, a while back, have a few people take it and report their scores, starting here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=79567#post79567), if you're interested. (Threaded mode will help.)

I agree with your larger point, though: there's not a whole lot more use in this two-axis description than there is in the 1-d, left-right concept.

Ocean
02-05-2011, 10:50 PM
Or maybe ... just maybe ... what we hear bandied about by those who start every third sentence with "As a libertarian, I ..." is not the best definition for the term?

I also end up very far out on the libertarian axis (and about as far on the liberal one). This does not bother me.

I suspect you're right that most Bhtv commenters would get results considerably to the libertarian side of that axis as well. We did, a while back, have a few people take it and report their scores, starting here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=79567#post79567), if you're interested. (Threaded mode will help.)

I agree with your larger point, though: there's not a whole lot more use in this two-axis description than there is in the 1-d, left-right concept.

I tried to upload a document with this grid from back when we all took the test, but it exceeded the size limits for this site. My results are slightly more to the left than towards the libertarian side.

stephanie
02-07-2011, 01:40 PM
I tried to upload a document with this grid from back when we all took the test, but it exceeded the size limits for this site. My results are slightly more to the left than towards the libertarian side.

Mine are slightly more libertarian than left, but probably moderate on both. My problems with the test are more how some of the questions are phrased.

But I do agree with kezboard's point that the test conflates traditional liberal values with libertarianism more than the history of the libertarian movement (and the extremity and focus of it's beginnings) permits. I suspect it's related to the efforts of libertarians to rebrand liberalism as something else (i.e., the comments about the difference between liberals and conservatives being that liberals are authoritarian, which seem to have become popular on this board lately).

bjkeefe
02-07-2011, 06:38 PM
Mine are slightly more libertarian than left, but probably moderate on both. My problems with the test are more how some of the questions are phrased.

Agreed, at least as far as many of them go, considered individually. But I also had the sense that in the aggregate, they probably do a decent job; i.e., there are enough of them that ambiguities causing misinterpretations and hence improperly categorized answers might tend to cancel out.

But I do agree with kezboard's point that the test conflates traditional liberal values with libertarianism more than the history of the libertarian movement (and the extremity and focus of it's beginnings) permits. I suspect it's related to the efforts of libertarians to rebrand liberalism as something else (i.e., the comments about the difference between liberals and conservatives being that liberals are authoritarian, which seem to have become popular on this board lately).

Hmmm. I don't think that notion is as widespread as the few loud voices here and elsewhere in the megadittosphere might suggest. Also, it would seem that the whole point of a two-axis description would be to provide a slot for those who have liberal views (whatever that might mean, separately) and an authoritarian outlook at the same time.

I don't have a burning desire to get into a long discussion of What It Means To Be A Libertarian, but I will just state that if there's been any rebranding effort going on the past few years, it seems to me to have been more along the lines of "real libertarians" trying to keep themselves separate from conservatives; i.e., those who are appropriating the label, who want to project an image of Caring Only About Fiscal Issues, while maintaining a more stealthy but still malodorous interest in telling other people what not to do in their personal lives.

One can argue about the ratio of liberaltarian leaners to those who remain allied with the GOP (because they really do believe in small government and lower taxes, say, and still buy into the GOP's packaging of themselves versus the opposition), but I do think most long-time libertarians, no matter which way they lean, are keen to keep themselves distinct from what conservatism has come to mean these days in America.

operative
02-07-2011, 07:56 PM
Mine are slightly more libertarian than left, but probably moderate on both. My problems with the test are more how some of the questions are phrased.

But I do agree with kezboard's point that the test conflates traditional liberal values with libertarianism more than the history of the libertarian movement (and the extremity and focus of it's beginnings) permits. I suspect it's related to the efforts of libertarians to rebrand liberalism as something else (i.e., the comments about the difference between liberals and conservatives being that liberals are authoritarian, which seem to have become popular on this board lately).

I don't see how one can get around the fact that contemporary American liberalism is substantially different than Jeffersonian liberalism. CAL values centralization of authority and planning and believes that the individual can not be left to decide on any number of issues, the most notable being health care. Many conservatives aren't exactly anywhere close to Jeffersonian either, but libertarianism matches up much closer to classical liberalism than does CAL.

bjkeefe
02-07-2011, 08:03 PM
I don't see how one can get around the fact that contemporary American liberalism is substantially different than Jeffersonian liberalism. CAL values centralization of authority ...

Two axes, bonehead. What have we been talking about in this subthread? The whole point is that there is a way (at least a proposed way) to measure liberal/conservative leanings orthogonally from libertarian/authoritarian leanings.

But you just couldn't stifle the instinct to parrot your talking points about liberals and their evil love of "central planning," could you?

operative
02-07-2011, 08:10 PM
Two axes, bonehead. What have we been talking about in this subthread? The whole point is that there is a way (at least a proposed way) to measure liberal/conservative leanings orthogonally from libertarian/authoritarian leanings.

But you just couldn't stifle the instinct to parrot your talking points about liberals and their evil love of "central planning," could you?

There's always hope that even someone as hopeless as yourself can learn something.

stephanie
02-07-2011, 08:30 PM
I don't think that notion is as widespread as the few loud voices here and elsewhere in the megadittosphere might suggest.

Heh.

Also, it would seem that the whole point of a two-axis description would be to provide a slot for those who have liberal views (whatever that might mean, separately) and an authoritarian outlook at the same time.

Oh, I'm in favor of the two axis description, I'm just taking issue with describing what is actually measured as "libertarian." The test didn't really get at the distinctive elements of what is properly called libertarianism (or even a lot of what I'd put on the authoritarian vs. liberal axis -- the ACLU issues).

I think doing that plays into the notion that basically being a member of the ACLU, say, makes you libertarian, when the approach toward government is radically different, even if there is some overlap, and merely being against mandated prayer in public schools and restrictions on speech and easing the rules for wiretapping (not to mention lots of drug law enforcement mechanisms and various aspects of the Patriot Act) somehow makes you "libertarian." It makes you liberal.

stephanie
02-07-2011, 08:35 PM
I don't see how one can get around the fact that contemporary American liberalism is substantially different than Jeffersonian liberalism.

I'm not talking about Jeffersonian liberalism. I don't think that (or the related debates) is the focus of the second axis we are discussing for the most part.

Nor do I think being libertarian really has anything to do with Jeffersonianism.

CAL values centralization of authority and planning and believes that the individual can not be left to decide on any number of issues, the most notable being health care.

I think you overstate the point -- we aren't talking about 5 Year Plans or any such thing, and being in favor of various types of regulation does not mean that one values "centralization" for its own sake or whatever you are trying to imply here.

More importantly for the current conversation, we aren't discussing what liberalism means for economic issues, but for other issues -- basically those typically considered to be affected by the Bill of Rights (privacy, speech, religion).

TwinSwords
02-07-2011, 10:05 PM
The test's use of libertarian as the antonym for authoritarian is surprising to people because (at least in the US) the term is associated with the far right. Indeed, until very recently, most libertarians were well to the right of the GOP. As the GOP continues moving to the right, the libertarian positions are becoming the party's new mainstream.

The libertarian label has now become a fad word among conservatives. It seems like everyone on the right wants to be a libertarian — even the most authoritarian. We saw the same with neo-con in 2002 or 2003: Suddenly, every conservative was a neo-con, including those who never heard the term until the week before, and whose only understanding of it was "invade Iraq good." But unlike neo-con, the right's embrace of libertarian is not just a passing fad: libertarian is now effectively a synonym for conservative (and Republican). BhTV illustrates the point: Nearly every libertarian 'head who has appeared on BhTV is associated with the GOP and self-identifies as conservative. Same with the commenters: Nearly every one who calls himself a libertarian is also a conservative who identifies with the GOP.

Personally, this saddens me. IMO, the most useful simple definition of libertarian is "opposed to all forms of illegitimate power (authority)." But conservatives have successfully redefined the term by putting all the focus on illegitimate government power, omitting the important problem of illegitimate private power. And there's a reason for this: democratic government power is one of the public's sole hedges against untrammeled abuse of private power. But private power doesn't want hedges; it wants to be free -- like it was when it could own slaves, employ child labor, work people for less than the minimum wage, subject workers to unsafe conditions, and subject consumers to unsafe products. Private power wants to be unchecked and unaccountable -- the very thing that should alarm real libertarians, but which right-wing libertarians actually support. Per Orwell, the term libertarianism has been successfully redefined to mean the opposite of what it once did. Orwell had "freedom = slavery." We have "libertarian = apologist for unchecked private power."

But it's not by accident: private power has been working towards this outcome for decades, redefining libertarian on its own terms with an extensive network of right wing, business-friendly, libertarian industry groups, think tanks, magazines, books, political campaigns, lecturers, lobbying efforts, etc. Orwell observed that control of language leads to control of thought. "Libertarian" has now lost virtually all of its power as an idea opposing illegitimate private power, and is now only understood as a weapon against public power – democratic government. In redefining libertarianism, the right has helped to erase from consciousness the whole idea that private power can by tyrannical. Anyone who becomes interested in libertarianism these days is going to be steered into the company of people like Ayn Rand and Rand Paul, i.e., radical apologists for unchecked private tyranny.

---------------------
On a related point, labels like liberal, conservative, and libertarian are good for describing discrete positions on particular issues: E.g., On business regulation, the liberal position is pro- and the conservative/libertarian position is anti-. On pot legalization, the liberal/libertarian position is pro-, the conservative position is anti-.

That works quite well. The problems start when people try to apply the same labels to people. Saying that a person is liberal or conservative invariably requires extensive clarification and elaboration. The labels do still work when applied to (some) people, because there are a lot of people who have mostly liberal or mostly conservative viewpoints, for the reason described by George Will in Statecraft as Soulcraft: ideas are like grapes: they come in bunches. An underlying philosophical structure can lend systemic coherence to a range of discrete positions.

TwinSwords
02-07-2011, 10:19 PM
... contemporary American liberalism ... believes that the individual can not be left to decide on any number of issues, the most notable being health care.

The left libertarian response to this (of course) is that private power cannot be left to dictate everything on its own terms, including the options for health care that are available to the public, because all of human history right up to this moment illustrates beyond question that unaccountable private power will serve itself to the detriment of the population.

chiwhisoxx
02-07-2011, 10:19 PM
The test's use of libertarian as the antonym for authoritarian is surprising to people because (at least in the US) the term is associated with the far right. Indeed, until very recently, most libertarians were well to the right of the GOP. As the GOP continues moving to the right, the libertarian positions are becoming the party's new mainstream.

The libertarian label has now become a fad word among conservatives. It seems like everyone on the right wants to be a libertarian — even the most authoritarian. We saw the same with neo-con in 2002 or 2003: Suddenly, every conservative was a neo-con, including those who never heard the term until the week before, and whose only understanding of it was "invade Iraq good." But unlike neo-con, the right's embrace of libertarian is not just a passing fad: libertarian is now effectively a synonym for conservative (and Republican). BhTV illustrates the point: Nearly every libertarian 'head who has appeared on BhTV is associated with the GOP and self-identifies as conservative. Same with the commenters: Nearly every one who calls himself a libertarian is also a conservative who identifies with the GOP.

Personally, this saddens me. IMO, the most useful simple definition of libertarian is "opposed to all forms of illegitimate power (authority)." But conservatives have successfully redefined the term by putting all the focus on illegitimate government power, omitting the important problem of illegitimate private power. And there's a reason for this: democratic government power is one of the public's sole hedges against untrammeled abuse of private power. But private power doesn't want hedges; it wants to be free -- like it was when it could own slaves, employ child labor, work people for less than the minimum wage, subject workers to unsafe conditions, and subject consumers to unsafe products. Private power wants to be unchecked and unaccountable -- the very thing that should alarm real libertarians, but which right-wing libertarians actually support. Per Orwell, the term libertarianism has been successfully redefined to mean the opposite of what it once did. Orwell had "freedom = slavery." We have "libertarian = apologist for unchecked private power."

But it's not by accident: private power has been working towards this outcome for decades, redefining libertarian on its own terms with an extensive network of right wing, business-friendly, libertarian industry groups, think tanks, magazines, books, political campaigns, lecturers, lobbying efforts, etc. Orwell observed that control of language leads to control of thought. "Libertarian" has now lost virtually all of its power as an idea opposing illegitimate private power, and is now only understood as a weapon against public power – democratic government. In redefining libertarianism, the right has helped to erase from consciousness the whole idea that private power can by tyrannical. Anyone who becomes interested in libertarianism these days is going to be steered into the company of people like Ayn Rand and Rand Paul, i.e., radical apologists for unchecked private tyranny.

---------------------
On a related point, labels like liberal, conservative, and libertarian are good for describing discrete positions on particular issues: E.g., On business regulation, the liberal position is pro- and the conservative/libertarian position is anti-. On pot legalization, the liberal/libertarian position is pro-, the conservative position is anti-.

That works quite well. The problems start when people try to apply the same labels to people. Saying that a person is liberal or conservative invariably requires extensive clarification and elaboration. The labels do still work when applied to (some) people, because there are a lot of people who have mostly liberal or mostly conservative viewpoints, for the reason described by George Will in Statecraft as Soulcraft: ideas are like grapes: they come in bunches. An underlying philosophical structure can lend systemic coherence to a range of discrete positions.

Who are these mysterious libertarian bhtv heads who associate with the Republican Party? Off the top of my head we've got Suderman, Welch, Wilkinson, Lindsey, Sanchez, McCardle, Balko, and Howley. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but these are many of them. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure every person on this list is on record as having voted for Barack Obama. Carney and Friedersdorf are kind of in the ballpark, I suppose. But Carney self identifies as a conservative, not a libertarian. So who are you talking about?

TwinSwords
02-07-2011, 10:46 PM
Who are these mysterious libertarian bhtv heads who associate with the Republican Party? Off the top of my head we've got Suderman, Welch, Wilkinson, Lindsey, Sanchez, McCardle, Balko, and Howley. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but these are many of them. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure every person on this list is on record as having voted for Barack Obama. Carney and Friedersdorf are kind of in the ballpark, I suppose. But Carney self identifies as a conservative, not a libertarian. So who are you talking about?
James Pinkerton, Ann Althouse, Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Eugene Volokh. I'm not going to individual analyze each libertarian on BhTV, but collectively they have a history of affiliation with the GOP, and almost all of them have been outspoken and relentless critics of Obama since his election. Many of them voted for Obama in 2008 because of the GOPs total collapse. 2008 was a very unusual year in American politics. Internecine conflict tends to surface in any party that has been in power for a long time as some factions invariably feel they have been frozen out by the dominant factions. Example: By 2000, the left wing of the Democratic Party was demoralized by eight years of Clintonian centrism, and either stayed home or voted for Ralph Nader.

But the GOP's problems in 2008 went much further than the usual bout of internecine conflict. The Party Leader (George W. Bush) had approval ratings around 28% and was widely regarded as one of the greatest failures in US history. Something like half of conservatives were unhappy with his presidency. Two factions in particular were hostile to the Bush/Cheney GOP: The fiscal conservative/deficit obsessives, who thought George Bush was a big spending liberal, and some of the libertarians, who were alarmed by PATRIOT ACT police powers, surveillance, torture, and mindless war.

Many of the latter group voted for Obama not because they support most of what he stands for, but as a protest against the GOP. Many voted for him because they sincerely believed he would end torture and the expansion of the police state, and were willing to compromise on many of their other core values to address what they rightly considered a crisis in American democracy. Some had less noble reasons. Many of them openly explained (Megan McArdle is one example) that they were voting for Democrats simply because the GOP needed to be punished for making such big mistakes; they would never learn to correctly adhere to conservative values unless they were punished at the polls. Others (like Ann Althouse) voted for Obama because they considered McCain a weak figure who would damage the conservative brand. Better to lose, Althouse argued, and give a Democrat a chance to fail -- an outcome she has sought to ensure though her influence -- and wait for a better representative for conservatism in 2012. This is, incidentally, consistent with what Rush Limbaugh and talk radio were saying.

chiwhisoxx
02-07-2011, 11:03 PM
James Pinkerton, Ann Althouse, Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Eugene Volokh. I'm not going to individual analyze each libertarian on BhTV, but collectively they have a history of affiliation with the GOP, and almost all of them have been outspoken and relentless critics of Obama since his election. Many of them voted for Obama in 2008 because of the GOPs total collapse. 2008 was a very unusual year in American politics. Internecine conflict tends to surface in any party that has been in power for a long time as some factions invariably feel they have been frozen out by the dominant factions. Example: By 2000, the left wing of the Democratic Party was demoralized by eight years of Clintonian centrism, and either stayed home or voted for Ralph Nader.

But the GOP's problems in 2008 went much further than the usual bout of internecine conflict. The Party Leader (George W. Bush) had approval ratings around 28% and was widely regarded as one of the greatest failures in US history. Something like half of conservatives were unhappy with his presidency. Two factions in particular were hostile to the Bush/Cheney GOP: The fiscal conservative/deficit obsessives, who thought George Bush was a big spending liberal, and some of the libertarians, who were alarmed by PATRIOT ACT police powers, surveillance, torture, and mindless war.

Many of the latter group voted for Obama not because they support most of what he stands for, but as a protest against the GOP. Many voted for him because they sincerely believed he would end torture and the expansion of the police state, and were willing to compromise on many of their other core values to address what they rightly considered a crisis in American democracy. Some had less noble reasons. Many of them openly explained (Megan McArdle is one example) that they were voting for Democrats simply because the GOP needed to be punished for making such big mistakes; they would never learn to correctly adhere to conservative values unless they were punished at the polls. Others (like Ann Althouse) voted for Obama because they considered McCain a weak figure who would damage the conservative brand. Better to lose, Althouse argued, and give a Democrat a chance to fail -- an outcome she has sought to ensure though her influence -- and wait for a better representative for conservatism in 2012. This is, incidentally, consistent with what Rush Limbaugh and talk radio were saying.

None of those people, save maybe Gene Volokh, are libertarians! They don't call themselves libertarians, which should probably matter. Jim Pinkerton is actually much closer to the populist anti-free market Mike Huckabee wing of the GOP. Some of them have positions we'd consider to be libertarian, but then so does pretty much everyone except Pat Buchanan. By using that metric, you're a libertarian! Glenn Greenwald is a huge libertarian! I just don't think you can call everyone who criticizes Obama part of some ominous Koch inspired cult who by the way have GOP affiliations.

TwinSwords
02-07-2011, 11:27 PM
None of those people, save maybe Gene Volokh, are libertarians!
They have all called themselves libertarians. Oh, and Friedersdorf, isn't he a libertarian? Maybe you don't consider them libertarians, and that's fair to define the term and then decide who fits the definition and who doesn't, but all of them have called themselves libertarians at various times.

By using that metric, you're a libertarian!
Indeed, I do consider myself a libertarian in the original sense of the term. I think any power that is exercised over the lives of people has to be legitimate.


Glenn Greenwald is a huge libertarian!
Yep.


I just don't think you can call everyone who criticizes Obama part of some ominous Koch inspired cult who by the way have GOP affiliations.
A main thrust of this whole conversation, I think from the very first comment about it, has been that the term "libertarian" is quite muddled. Apparently various people on all sides feel the word has some power because people with quite different viewpoints seem to be contending for control of it. If we accept everyone's right to define the term according to their own whim, then yes, Glenn Greenwald is a libertarian, as is Noam Chomsky, as is Jonah Goldberg, and Ron Paul.

Yes, Brink Lindsey is a libertarian who voted for Obama, but he has a lifetime in GOP circles and voting for GOP candidates. He voted for Obama in 2008 for reasons that have more to do with the sui generis state of the two party system in that year than because of any significant philosophical alignment with him. Others of the libertarians you listed stepped out of their usual GOP affiliation for one time only because they thought the GOP should be punished. Or because they thought McCain would damage the conservative brand. Or because they genuinely believed that the crisis in American freedom presented by the Bush/Cheney police state had to take priority over all of their other considerations. Some of the libertarians held their nose and voted for the first time in their lives for a Democrat because they wanted to see a reversal of those police state powers.

chiwhisoxx
02-07-2011, 11:41 PM
They have all called themselves libertarians. Oh, and Friedersdorf, isn't he a libertarian? Maybe you don't consider them libertarians, and that's fair to define the term and then decide who fits the definition and who doesn't, but all of them have called themselves libertarians at various times.


Indeed, I do consider myself a libertarian in the original sense of the term. I think any power that is exercised over the lives of people has to be legitimate.



Yep.



A main thrust of this whole conversation, I think from the very first comment about it, has been that the term "libertarian" is quite muddled. Apparently various people on all sides feel the word has some power because people with quite different viewpoints seem to be contending for control of it. If we accept everyone's right to define the term according to their own whim, then yes, Glenn Greenwald is a libertarian, as is Noam Chomsky, as is Jonah Goldberg, and Ron Paul.

Yes, Brink Lindsey is a libertarian who voted for Obama, but he has a lifetime in GOP circles and voting for GOP candidates. He voted for Obama in 2008 for reasons that have more to do with the sui generous state of the two party system in that year than because of any significant philosophical alignment with him. Others of the libertarians you know stepped out of their usual GOP affiliation for one time only because they thought the GOP should be punished. Or because they thought McCain would damage the conservative brand. Or because they genuinely believed that the crisis in American freedom presented by the Bush/Cheney police state had to take priority over all of their other considerations. Some of the libertarians held their nose and voted for the first time in their lives for a Democrat because they wanted to see a reversal of those police state powers.

Ok, this response is fair. I think discussions like this are frustrating, and essentially hinge on how precisely to define a word that most people don't agree on a definition for.

TwinSwords
02-08-2011, 12:05 AM
Ok, this response is fair. I think discussions like this are frustrating, and essentially hinge on how precisely to define a word that most people don't agree on a definition for.
I think that's right.

So where do you come down on this whole libertarian question? Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Or do you feel hostile towards libertarians, the way a certain element in the GOP is hostile towards the Ron Paul crowd, and how many Republicans are hostile to the young libertarians like Wilkenson, Sanchez, et al.?

bjkeefe
02-08-2011, 12:06 AM
There's always hope that even someone as hopeless as yourself can learn something.

You know, or you should know, what is said about someone who keeps repeating the same action hoping for a different outcome.

Just because mindless repetition works on the mouth-breathers in your choir doesn't mean it will work with those of us who can think for ourselves. You would do well to remember that if you ever hope to be taken seriously on this board.

bjkeefe
02-08-2011, 12:10 AM
Oh, I'm in favor of the two axis description, I'm just taking issue with describing what is actually measured as "libertarian." The test didn't really get at the distinctive elements of what is properly called libertarianism (or even a lot of what I'd put on the authoritarian vs. liberal axis -- the ACLU issues).

I think doing that plays into the notion that basically being a member of the ACLU, say, makes you libertarian, when the approach toward government is radically different, even if there is some overlap, and merely being against mandated prayer in public schools and restrictions on speech and easing the rules for wiretapping (not to mention lots of drug law enforcement mechanisms and various aspects of the Patriot Act) somehow makes you "libertarian." It makes you liberal.

Points taken.

However, as I said before, I have no interest in getting into a prolonged discussion of What It Means To Be A Libertarian. Or, for that matter, What It Means To Be A Liberal. Labels like these are at best fuzzy, and when you let the wingnuts have at them, they tend to lose all meaning, if indeed not being defined to mean the exact opposite.

Evidently there are others who do not share my ennui concerning these matters, so I wish you good debating.

chiwhisoxx
02-08-2011, 01:28 AM
I think that's right.

So where do you come down on this whole libertarian question? Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Or do you feel hostile towards libertarians, the way a certain element in the GOP is hostile towards the Ron Paul crowd, and how many Republicans are hostile to the young libertarians like Wilkenson, Sanchez, et al.?

I don't know if I consider myself a libertarian. I think there's a certain amount of pompousness in people who go around declaring "I am a __, therefore...". I have sympathies for a lot of libertarian arguments. I probably agree with libertarians on more things than I do with conservatives. Social conservatism is substantively and stylistically completely unappealing to me.

I don't know how others feel about the libertarian crowd. I think Ron Paul is different than other libertarians, because there's an extent to which I think he's just a crank. I think he's principled, and I respect him for that. But there's plenty of stuff that's pretty off putting, like his winking at 9/11 truthers, and his history with members of the KKK.

As for the young libertarian crowd, I think they're really smart people and I respect their knowledge. But they definitely have annoying habits. I think some of them tend to look down upon people who haven't memorized everything Rawls and Hayek put to paper. There's also an annoying self marginalization instinct, where they constantly act like they're on the outside looking in, with no possible avenues of influencing the process, when this is far from the truth. I think the destiny of what we call libertarians in America is essentially to hate whoever is in power, agitate for a change in parties, and then immediately hate whoever is elected.

operative
02-08-2011, 10:35 AM
You know, or you should know, what is said about someone who keeps repeating the same action hoping for a different outcome.

Just because mindless repetition works

Coming from someone who specializes in mindless repetition, this means, well even you can fill in the rest.

bjkeefe
02-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Coming from someone who specializes in mindless repetition, this means, well even you can fill in the rest.

So, all you've got is "I know you are but what am I?"

operative
02-08-2011, 05:40 PM
So, all you've got is "I know you are but what am I?"

When you start rising above your current level, that will change.

bjkeefe
02-08-2011, 07:07 PM
When you start rising above your current level, that will change.

There is nothing in evidence among your posts on this site to support that claim.

Not that I care, you understand, that you have nothing better to do than retype Republican talking points and "I know you are but what am I?" responses. Just sayin': your promise here is as empty as your pledge (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=197370#post197370) to leave this country.

bjkeefe
02-09-2011, 12:25 AM
Whenever you hear the name Tim Pawlenty from now on, never forget (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027520.php).

Going on the radio show run by that crazed, hate-filled loon Bryan Fischer, unless you're going on to tell him he's a crazed, hate-filled loon, ought to be grounds for automatic disqualification.

[Added] More here (http://wonkette.com/435115/when-tim-pawlenty-is-elected-president-next-tuesday-he-will-reinstate-dadt). If you've ever thought Pawlenty might be kind of a moderate -- because, hey, Minnesota-nice -- rid yourself of that misapprehension.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8292/timpawlentybryanfischer.jpg

Pawlenty doubles down on his love for Bryan Fischer (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/07/pawlenty-rescind-funds-dadt/):

Last month, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) made waves (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/pawlenty-dadt-2/) when he suggested that he would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy if elected President. This morning, Pawlenty went a step further, telling ThinkProgress that he would support rescinding the funds necessary for the Department of Defense to implement the repeal. Appearing at the Family Leader’s Presidential Lecture Series (http://thefamilyleader.com/TFL_PLS_home.html) in Iowa, which ThinkProgress attended, Pawlenty reiterated his argument for why the policy should not have been repealed and then, when pushed, agreed with ThinkProgress that taking away the funding “would be a reasonable step”:

[...]

Interestingly, the idea to rescind funding has also been suggested (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110204) by the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, on whose radio show Pawlenty originally said he would like to bring back the DADT policy. Today, Fischer called for getting conservative politicians “on record about where they stand on the issue of the radical homosexual agenda,” demanding these politicians agree that “the homosexual lifestyle itself is extremely dangerous to human health (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrrkfADptg),” just like “smoking.”

(h/t: Scott Lemieux (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/pawlenty) | pic. source (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tim_Pawlenty_speaking,_Dec_29,_2007.jpg) | pic. source (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/05/wingnut-hate-machine-firing-on-all.html))

[Added] Follow-up (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/an-instructive-comparison) post from Lemieux: "An Instructive Comparison."

bjkeefe
02-10-2011, 07:01 AM
In Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49124.html), granted, but what's a guy whose apparently done nothing for five years gonna do?

Rick Santorum: Sarah Palin skips CPAC for C-notes

Rick Santorum knocked Sarah Palin’s decision to skip CPAC, saying on Tuesday that she must have “business opportunities” that are keeping her from the annual conservative conference that is a showcase for potential presidential contenders.

“I have a feeling that she has some demands on her time, and a lot of them have financial benefit attached to them,” Santorum told conservative commentator S.E. Cupp, who hosts an online radio show on Glenn Beck’s website.

Santorum added that Palin has “other business opportunities” — implying her paid speeches were the former Alaska governor’s priority.

The former Alaska governor has become a money-making machine since 2008, with her annual income estimated as high as $30 million.

This part's gonna come back and bite him, I think, assuming anyone's paying attention:*

Santorum — the father of seven children — also said that Palin has “other responsibilities,” such as raising her children, that he doesn’t.

“I don’t live in Alaska and I’m not the mother to all these kids and I don’t have other responsibilities that she has,” he said.

(h/t: Instaputz (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/02/let-two-minutes-of-hate-against-rick.html), the latest in an ever-lengthening series (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ainstaputz.blogspot.com+%22let+the+ two+minutes+of+hate%22))

==========

* [Added] Well, at least one person has (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/09/is-santorum-sexist/)! No, at least two (http://www.mediaite.com/online/rick-santorum-says-sarah-palin-skipping-cpac-for-the-money-or-because-shes-a-mom-or-something/)! No, three (http://www.dailyindia.com/show/423940.php)!

==========

[Added2] Let the backpedaling (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49153.html) begin!

bjkeefe
02-19-2011, 02:01 AM
... (which we were (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=198396#post198396), just a moment ago, in another thread), how's this for wanna-buy-a-bridge (http://drafttrump2012.com/)?

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/752/drafttrump2012.jpg

The Draft Trump 2012 committee is an independent grass-roots citizen's efforts to make Donald Trump President. We are neither funded nor directed by Donald Trump but we are encouraged by his public indications that he is seriously considering the race.

(h/t: Hunger Tallest Palin (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/daft_rump/))

bjkeefe
02-20-2011, 07:51 AM
Frank Rich's latest column (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20rich.html) has a bunch of nuggets, some of them entertaining. But this is seriously sad:

As it happened, CPAC overlapped with the extraordinary onrush of history in the Middle East. But the Egyptian uprising, supposedly a prime example of the freedom agenda championed by George W. Bush, was rarely, and then only minimally, mentioned by the parade of would-be presidents. Indeed, with the exception of Ron Paul — who would let the Egyptians fend for themselves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5KyWxU-bkg) and cut off all foreign aid — the most detailed discussions of Egypt came from Ann Coulter and Rick Santorum.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator who lost his 2006 re-election bid (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08penn.html) by a landslide of 17 percentage points, believes he can be president despite being best known for having likened homosexuality to “man on dog” sex (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm). Even less conversant in foreign affairs than canine coitus, he attacked Obama for deserting Hosni Mubarak, questioning the message it sent to America’s “friends.” But no one (with the odd exception of George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205042.html)) takes Santorum’s presidential ambitions seriously. Romney, on the other hand, is the closest thing the G.O.P. has to a front-runner, and he is even more hollow than Santorum. Indeed, his appearance at CPAC on the morning of Friday, Feb. 11, was entirely consistent with his public image as an otherworldly visitor from an Aqua Velva commercial circa 1985.

That Friday was the day after Mubarak’s bizarre speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/middleeast/11egypt.html) vowing to keep his hold on power. At 9:45 a.m. that morning, as a rapt world waited for his next move, CNN reported that there would soon be a new statement from Mubarak (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/latest-updates-on-day-18-of-egypt-protests/) — whose abdication was confirmed around 11 a.m. But when Romney took the stage in Washington at 10:35, he made not a single allusion of any kind to Egypt — even as he lambasted Obama for not having a foreign policy.

Ocean
02-20-2011, 10:13 AM
Frank Rich's latest column (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20rich.html) has a bunch of nuggets, some of them entertaining. [...]

... with his public image as an otherworldly visitor from an Aqua Velva commercial circa 1985.

LOL!

chiwhisoxx
02-20-2011, 01:46 PM
Frank Rich's latest column (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20rich.html) has a bunch of nuggets, some of them entertaining. But this is seriously sad:

Frank Rich writing a column on civility of conservatives during Scott Walker is Hitler weekend? You can't make this stuff up.

bjkeefe
02-20-2011, 04:48 PM
Frank Rich writing a column on civility of conservatives during Scott Walker is Hitler weekend? You can't make this stuff up.

I wouldn't be surprised, in your case, j.o., to learn that your imagination is as weak as your reading comprehension.

I am a little surprised to hear you admit it, though.

bjkeefe
02-22-2011, 04:57 PM
John Thune concedes (http://wonkette.com/438909/pleasant-seeming-somewhat-electable-john-thune-not-running-for-president), says God didn't want him to win.

bjkeefe
02-24-2011, 01:09 PM
Internet superstar Rick Santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/) appears determined to let no one outflank him on his right (http://www.goupstate.com/article/20110223/ARTICLES/102231013/1083/ARTICLES?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar):

At a glance, it sounds like “Onward, Christian Soldiers” could be former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's campaign song, should he decide to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Santorum made requisite stops at a private Christian school and a crisis pregnancy center on Tuesday, a day after meeting with a local Republican women's group — in which he issued what one activist called a “call to arms.” The events were promoted as his 10th visit to South Carolina since 2009. He makes his 10th visit to Iowa, another early state in the nominating process, later this week.

At Oakbrook Preparatory School, Santorum talked to a group of more than 200 students, faculty and community members about how divine law informs man's law. He cited President John Kennedy's 1960 speech in which Kennedy called the separation of church and state “absolute.”

Santorum, who is Catholic, said that had “disastrous consequences,” including “the privatization of faith” and began a tradition of separating faith and politics, which he called, “A lie.”

And he went back 1,000 years to paint a picture of Islam that barely distinguished radical practitioners of that faith from those who are moderate.

“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” Santorum said. “And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom. They hate Christendom. They hate Western civilization at the core. That's the problem.”

Also: "He likened abortion to slavery" (without addressing how forced pregnancy treats another human being's body as state property, of course) and spoke of "our national religion."

http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/cd4d779f4dd9719a185fb40b8b92f73f.jpg

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/439204/sir-richard-santorum-of-northern-virginia-criticizes-left-for-not-honoring-the-crusades))

bjkeefe
02-26-2011, 08:58 PM
Joe Posnanski (http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/02/thoughts-in-bookstore.html) wanders around a bookstore, and what should he see?

Mitt Romney has a new book called "No Apology." I was not aware that people were demanding apologies from Mitt Romney, but apparently he will not give them the satisfaction.

I first see the Mitt Romney book in the "New Releases" section with all the other new books that have grand hopes of gracing the New York Times best-seller list. Later, I see "No Apology" again ... in the bargain books section. Here it is selling for $5.98. This feels like some sort of grand mistake, but apparently it is not because there are a half dozen there, all marked down. It is, the first straight to bargain section book I can ever remember.

Maybe the title refers to the publisher's official stance about people who paid full price.

(h/t: Scott Lemieux (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/a-powerful-metaphor))

bjkeefe
03-01-2011, 02:48 PM
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6979/huckabeeman4thejob.jpg

The Birther ring (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103010018), that is:

During a radio appearance yesterday, Mike Huckabee repeatedly falsely claimed that President Obama grew up in Kenya. After questioning Obama's purported secrecy about the birth certificate, Malzberg asked Huckabee if "we deserve to know more about this man." Huckabee responded, "I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough."

Speaking on WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, Huckabee -- a Fox News host and potential presidential candidate -- said that "one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American ... his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British are a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather."

Of course ...

Contrary to Huckabee's claims, Obama did not grow up in Kenya. Obama spends significant portions of his book Dreams From My Father describing his first visit to Kenya in the late 1980s.

And ...

The BBC noted in a 2008 article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7436493.stm) that "Barack Obama has never lived in Kenya and he has visited the country just three times."

Additionally, Obama did not grow up "with a Kenyan father and grandfather." Indeed, Dreams From My Father is largely about Obama's struggles with the absence of his father. The AP noted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14527295/ns/world_news-africa/) in 2006 that Obama "was mostly raised in Hawaii and did not know his Kenyan father well."

(pic. source (http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/02/fox-hosts-swoon-as-they-shamelessly.html))

bjkeefe
03-01-2011, 11:44 PM
The Birther ring (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103010018), that is: [...]

A good post from No More Mister Nice Blog (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/extraordinary-delusions-and-madness-of.html) on this matter.

bjkeefe
03-02-2011, 02:30 PM
Disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich decided to backpedal (http://wonkette.com/439619/newt-gingrich-too-sleazy-a-grifter-to-legally-run-for-president-right-now) today on plans to announce an exploratory committee for his 2012 run for the Republican nomination for the presidency.

This reminds me of the Newt first calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, and then changing it to "racialist:"

One Republican with knowledge of the situation told Score that Gingrich is likely to confirm his “intention to announce,” but not actually unveil an exploratory committee. ABC reports Gingrich may use the term “explore phase” rather than “exploratory committee” – another way of stopping short of a full-scale announcement. The reason: Untangling the web of business and political groups Gingrich is involved in has proven complicated and he’s not in a position just yet to take a more formal step toward running.

Cooking the books is hard!

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7670/newtgingrichbabynotext.jpg

bjkeefe
03-02-2011, 08:46 PM
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6979/huckabeeman4thejob.jpg

The Birther ring (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103010018), that is: [...]

And he's got a strange notion of how to try to walk this back (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38178_Mike_Huckabee_and_Bryan_Fischer-_Obama_is_Fundamentally_Anti-American#rss):

Mike Huckabee and Bryan Fischer: Obama is 'Fundamentally Anti-American'

Huckabee does damage control by appearing on the radio show of the religious right's most crazed fanatic


Mike Huckabee is desperately trying to spin away his remarks about President Obama “growing up in Kenya,” saying he misspoke — even though he also referenced the Mau Mau uprising.

So who does Mike Huckabee turn to when he wants to get the message out? The American Family Association’s most deranged (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37601_American_Family_Association_Spokesman_Fische r-_God_Digs_Massive_Casualties) homophobic (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36435_American_Family_Association-_Hitler_Was_Gay_Thats_Why_He_Was_So_Evil) religious fanatic, Bryan Fischer, of course! Huckabee called in to Fischer’s radio show today (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/huckabee-and-fischer-agree-obamas-childhood-instilled-some-fundamental-anti-americanism-him), railing at the media for reporting his racist dog whistle statements, and agreeing with Fischer that regardless of where he grew up, whether it was Africa or some other furrin land full of dark people, Obama definitely has “fundamentally anti-American” ideas.

Wow, Mike. Not even trying to hide it, are you?

Audio at the link.

bjkeefe
03-02-2011, 11:45 PM
@Will_Bunch (http://twitter.com/Will_Bunch/status/43148759068192768):

If his train-wreck Obama rebuttal speech didn't kill Jindal's political future, wife charity scam might http://nyti.ms/hqtpZD

Let's have a look (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/politics/03jindal.html?pagewanted=all).

Louisiana’s biggest corporate players, many with long agendas before the state government, are restricted in making campaign contributions to Gov. Bobby Jindal. But they can give whatever they like to the foundation set up by his wife months after he took office.

AT&T, which needed Mr. Jindal, a Republican, to sign off on legislation allowing the company to sell cable television services without having to negotiate with individual parishes, has pledged at least $250,000 to the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children.

Marathon Oil, which last year won approval from the Jindal administration to increase the amount of oil it can refine at its Louisiana plant, also committed to a $250,000 donation. And the military contractor Northrop Grumman, which got state officials to help set up an airplane maintenance facility at a former Air Force base, promised $10,000 to the charity.

The foundation has collected nearly $1 million in previously unreported pledges from major oil companies, insurers and other corporations in Louisiana with high-stakes regulatory issues, according to a review by The New York Times.

[...]

Dow Chemical, which has pledged $100,000 to the foundation, is the largest petrochemical company in Louisiana and has had numerous interactions with state officials during the Jindal administration, including an investigation into a July 2009 spill at its St. Charles Parish plant that forced the evacuation of area homes. The state in December 2009 proposed fining the company and its Union Carbide subsidiary for allowing the release of a toxic pollutant and failing to quickly notify state authorities of the leak, but so far no fine has been assessed.

Alon USA, an Israeli oil company that has pledged $250,000 to the Jindal Foundation, last year sought permit changes that would allow it to discharge more pollutants at its Krotz Springs refinery. In 2009, state environmental officials also eased requirements for the company to check for spills of oil, ammonia or other contaminants in waterways to twice a month, instead of twice a week, records show.

[...]

Several of the charity’s major donors are large state contractors, like Acadian Ambulance, or D&J Construction, which alone has received $67.6 million in contracts since 2009, mostly for highways, said a separate report on the foundation being issued this week by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Both companies have pledged at least $10,000 to the foundation.

The story is laced with sputtering denials from everyone you might expect.

bjkeefe
03-03-2011, 01:40 PM
Frum (http://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/37199691653324800) makes a haha-it's-funny-because-it's-true (via (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/03/drawing-dead)):

If Romney does not apologize for Romneycare, he's dead. Of course if he does apologize, he is deader.

No Apologies! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=199213&postcount=35)

bjkeefe
03-03-2011, 07:37 PM
Disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich decided to backpedal (http://wonkette.com/439619/newt-gingrich-too-sleazy-a-grifter-to-legally-run-for-president-right-now) today on plans to announce an exploratory committee for his 2012 run for the Republican nomination for the presidency.

This reminds me of the Newt first calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, and then changing it to "racialist:"

One Republican with knowledge of the situation told Score that Gingrich is likely to confirm his “intention to announce,” but not actually unveil an exploratory committee. ABC reports Gingrich may use the term “explore phase” rather than “exploratory committee” – another way of stopping short of a full-scale announcement. The reason: Untangling the web of business and political groups Gingrich is involved in has proven complicated and he’s not in a position just yet to take a more formal step toward running.

Cooking the books is hard!

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7670/newtgingrichbabynotext.jpg

Announcing ... NEWT EXPLORE 2012!!! (http://wonkette.com/439726/newt-gingrich-launches-website-twitter-facebook)

Simon Willard
03-04-2011, 12:57 AM
Frum (http://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/37199691653324800) makes a haha-it's-funny-because-it's-true (via (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/03/drawing-dead)):

If Romney does not apologize for Romneycare, he's dead. Of course if he does apologize, he is deader.

No Apologies! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=199213&postcount=35)

Dead in which sense? I'm betting Obama will be reelected. But I'm also betting my namesake will become the GOP candidate. People are too concerned about the strength of the extreme right. When it comes time to actually vote, Republicans will go for a moderate, and in this case, Romney will turn "Romneycare" to his advanage. He'll disown it, of course, because it was only designed for those nutty people in Massachusetts. But his experience with the issue will be turned to his advantage. In other words, he can disown it without apologizing. This is the hole in Frum's logic.

bjkeefe
03-04-2011, 08:33 AM
Dead in which sense? I'm betting Obama will be reelected. But I'm also betting my namesake will become the GOP candidate. People are too concerned about the strength of the extreme right. When it comes time to actually vote, Republicans will go for a moderate, ...

I would like to believe you are correct, but I am not going to bet that way at this point.

I would also ask, "moderate" compared to what? One thing that has characterized the Republican Party for the past half-century or so is that there's been this growth in clout of ever more extremist people and positions. Even if the Goldwaters and Wallaces and Buchanans and Robertsons and Tancredos and Huckabees and Pauls have not managed to win, and in most cases, not even managed to win nomination, I believe their presence and their clout has had the effect of dragging the region of the spectrum that gets called "moderate" ever farther off toward crazyland. This led, among other things, to Bush/Cheney (because people swallowed swill about "compassionate conservatism" and "the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with") and McCain/Palin.

Now, if you're going to call those last two tickets "moderate," and similarly, if you'd say the same about the set of positions Romney has adopted over the past three or so years, then I guess we'll just have to leave it at this: we have a very different sense of what "moderate" means.

... and in this case, Romney will turn "Romneycare" to his advanage. He'll disown it, of course, because it was only designed for those nutty people in Massachusetts. But his experience with the issue will be turned to his advantage. In other words, he can disown it without apologizing. This is the hole in Frum's logic.

Eh, I don't doubt some people will swallow that. Or parrot it, if he wins the nomination, merely because it'll be the only talking point available on this matter to those determined to vote against Obama. But I will state I see such flip-floppery and trying to have it both ways as either comical or contemptible, and I doubt I'll be alone in seeing it that way.

Ocean
03-04-2011, 08:52 AM
... Romney will turn "Romneycare" to his advanage. He'll disown it, of course, because it was only designed for those nutty people in Massachusetts. But his experience with the issue will be turned to his advantage. In other words, he can disown it without apologizing. This is the hole in Frum's logic.

I agree with the above general idea. Romneycare will not be an obstacle for his candidacy or nomination, simply because healthcare has never been an issue for the American people except for the GOP propaganda making it look like a horrific fall into totalitarian socialism by the Obama administration. Had the same general idea about healthcare been passed by a Republican administration, everyone would be happy, except for the most extreme groups.

In the opinion department, I agree with Brendan about this:



Eh, I don't doubt some people will swallow that. Or parrot it, if he wins the nomination, merely because it'll be the only talking point available on this matter to those determined to vote against Obama. But I will state I see such flip-floppery and trying to have it both ways as either comical or contemptible, and I doubt I'll be alone in seeing it that way.

bjkeefe
03-04-2011, 05:22 PM
[...]

Announcing ... NEWT EXPLORE 2012!!! (http://wonkette.com/439726/newt-gingrich-launches-website-twitter-facebook)

You have to wonder if these Republicans are ever going to figure out how this series of tubes works (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/god_bless_the_internet/).

chiwhisoxx
03-05-2011, 01:39 PM
Despite trepidation about posting a link in a thread with such a douchey title, everyone should see this George Will column. It's ostensibly about the 2012 field, but he mostly rips Huckabee and Gingrich for being unserious buffoons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030404613.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

bjkeefe
03-05-2011, 01:54 PM
Despite trepidation about posting a link in a thread with such a douchey title, everyone should see this George Will column. It's ostensibly about the 2012 field, but he mostly rips Huckabee and Gingrich for being unserious buffoons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030404613.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

Good to hear. I'll be ready to credit him with a full grain of sense when he also drops Barbour, Daniels, and Pawlenty from his fave five.

chiwhisoxx
03-05-2011, 02:14 PM
Good to hear. I'll be ready to credit him with a full grain of sense when he also drops Barbour, Daniels, and Pawlenty from his fave five.

I'll agree on Pawlenty, partially agree on Barbour, and disagree on Daniels. He is a conservative after all...he has to pick someone.

bjkeefe
03-05-2011, 02:32 PM
I'll agree on Pawlenty, partially agree on Barbour, and disagree on Daniels. He is a conservative after all...he has to pick someone.

Yes, but Daniels doesn't have any real credibility. He only talks a good game. He seems to have snowed the conservative chattering classes (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/01/evidence-of-life-on-mars.html), but a closer look at his record (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/search/label/Midwestern%20States%20Governed%20By%20Surly%20Mega lomaniacs%20With%20Napoleonic%20Complexes) shows why he shouldn't be the choice of someone who's honestly conservative.

bjkeefe
03-05-2011, 04:52 PM
Good to hear. [...]

Look at the URL for the comment I just quoted (hover above the arrow icon):

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=200000#post200000.

(I don't actually think we started at post1. A quick glance at the earliest threads in the Diavlogs and General Comments indicates a starting point somewhere in the 60,000s.)

But never mind that. Congratulations to everyone!

Ocean
03-05-2011, 04:55 PM
Look at the URL for the comment I just quoted (hover above the arrow icon):



(I don't actually think we started at post1. A quick glance at the earliest threads in the Diavlogs and General Comments indicates a starting point somewhere in the 60,000s.)

But never mind that. Congratulations to everyone!

Congratulations to you!

bjkeefe
03-07-2011, 04:46 PM
But maybe you can meet your next Republican preznit, anyway, in Iowa tonight (http://gawker.com/#!5778643/republican-presidential-candidates-first-proto+debate-is-today)!

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/439981/gop-presidential-fields-dumbest-candidates-having-first-iowa-forum-tonight))

bjkeefe
03-07-2011, 05:09 PM
But maybe you can meet your next Republican preznit, anyway, in Iowa tonight (http://gawker.com/#!5778643/republican-presidential-candidates-first-proto+debate-is-today)!

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/439981/gop-presidential-fields-dumbest-candidates-having-first-iowa-forum-tonight))

If you followed the second link above, you know there's speculation that a certain other will show up. And so, we must hasten to post this (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Trump_tops_Romney__Pawlenty-117496043.html):

Donald Trump has an approval rating higher than better-known political quantities Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, the latest WSJ/NBC poll found.

The poll tested the three potential 2012 hopefuls, along with House Speaker John Boehner, and found Trump leading the pack.

However, it's probably not time to break out the champagne just yet:

Trump's numbers were 9 percent "very positive" and 17 percent "somewhat positive," for a combined total of 26 percent.

(h/t: Riley Waggaman (http://wonkette.com/439925/billionaire-teevee-sensation-more-popular-than-that-mormon))

Don Zeko
03-08-2011, 02:36 AM
I just want to know who's bidding on Trump on Intrade. He's currently got a 3.1% chance there, which strikes me as about 3.1% too high.

bjkeefe
03-08-2011, 02:56 AM
I just want to know who's bidding on Trump on Intrade. He's currently got a 3.1% chance there, which strikes me as about 3.1% too high.

We must have a reference link (http://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=741970&z=1299567445537), so we can easily track it.

Currently:

http://data.intrade.com/graphing/closingChart.gif?contractId=741970&intradeChart=true&transBackground=true&transBackground=true

Feel the Trumpentum!

bjkeefe
03-08-2011, 01:47 PM
“Romney remains a mystery to me: He’s smart, he was a good governor, he’s essentially a responsible moderate-conservative…but he has made an utter fool of himself flip-flopping and fudging–and taking wildly stupid positions (against the START treaty, for example) on issues about which he knows little or nothing. It almost seems a personality disorder. In this case, his efforts to distance himself from his own, essentially successful program, are particularly pathetic. If the man had the tiniest smidgen of courage, he would make a conservative argument in favor of universal health care–it liberates a great deal of potential economic energy (all those would-be entrepreneurs now stuck in stultifying corporate jobs because they don’t want to leave their health plans). Or he would simply plead humanity: it’s inhumane for an industrial giant not provide health care for all its citizens.

But no. Instead we get the embarrassing spectacle of an intelligent man acting like a semi-coherent jerk.”

Having quoted the above, Jay Bookman (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/03/08/a-few-words-in-defense-of-mitt-romneys-secret-sincerity/) then offers "A few words in defense of Mitt Romney’s secret sincerity."

Which, meh. Being not quite as bad as Gingrich is not a high bar, even considering only Republican candi ... okay, strike that.

bjkeefe
03-09-2011, 06:14 PM
Very Important (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2005/03/about-me.html) blogger Daniel Greenfield broke the news (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/01/governor-christies-dirty-islamist-ties.html):

Governor Christie's Dirty Islamist Ties

New Jersey, the Garden State, has just taken its first step toward becoming the Sharia State, with Governor Christie's nomination of Sohail Mohammed, an attorney to detained terrorist suspects, to a Superior Court judgeship in Passaic County. [...]

Passaic County has the second largest Muslim population in the country. And the Islamic Center of Passaic County is the state's largest mosque, and it's the only one run by an an Imam who was a member of the Hamas terrorist organization. But when the United States government attempted to deport Mohammed Qatanani, New Jersey's pols and wannabe pols like Christie, quickly came to his aid. Despite the fact that Mohammed Qatanani was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that is behind both Al Qaeda and Hamas, despite his own guilty plea to being a member of Hamas, and despite the fact that even in the United States, he had defended a charity that provided funds to children of suicide bombers (this is done as an incentive to reassure terrorists that if they die their families will be taken care of), Qatanani was not deported.

This is less a sign of his innocence, than of the power and influence wielded by Qatanani and the American Muslim Union. There was hardly a top New Jersey public official who did not come out for Qatanani. And that included both of the major candidates in the governor's race, Governor Jon Corzine and Chris Christie. Christie called Qatanani, "a man of great goodwill" and "a constructive force" and allowed Charles McKenna, one of his associate attorneys to testify on behalf of Qatanani. Afterward Christie tapped McKenna to head New Jersey's Department of Homeland Security. McKenna had spent a good deal of time on Muslim "outreach" and made numerous statements echoing their talking points.

The pioneering terrorism researcher, Steve Emerson called it, "a disgrace and an act of pure political corruption". He stated, "I know for certain that Christie and the FBI SAC had access to information about Qatanani’s background, involvement with and support of Hamas." Defending Qatanani required Christie to pit himself against the Department of Homeland Security, which wanted him deported. But the Department of Homeland Security wasn't running for office in New Jersey. Christie was.

[...]

Labels: investigative

It goes on for quite a while. And it's very thorough! With many links! And then Pam Geller (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/01/governor-christies-hamas-pick-for-superior-judgeship.html) ("Governor Christie's Hamas Pick for Superior Judgeship") and Debbie Schlussel (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/31739/fan-of-chris-christie-check-out-his-hamas-judge-pick-other-islamo-pandering/) ("Fan of Chris Christie? Check Out His Muslim HAMAS Judge Pick & Other Islamo-Pandering") reblogged it! This was all broken in January!

WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD ABOUT THIS FROM THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA???1?

(h/t: Right Richter (http://rightrichter.tumblr.com/post/2809184097/chris-christie-radical-islamist))

bjkeefe
03-09-2011, 08:40 PM
Griftin' the night awa-aay (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/09/gingrich-planning-may-presidential-announcement/):

In a conference call Wednesday with former staffers and supporters former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said "we are leaning toward a yes" on a presidential run, CNN has learned.

Leaning heavily.

He revealed he hopes to announce a presidential bid in late May ...

"Leaning toward." "He hopes."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You win this one, TC (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2011/03/not-that-im-in-any-hurry-newt-but.html)!

But wait, it gets better:

He revealed he hopes to announce a presidential bid in late May at noon ...

So, we don't know a date, but we have picked out a time!

He revealed he hopes to announce a presidential bid in late May at noon in front of Philadelphia's Independence Hall.

And a location!

But wait, there's more!

He asked the group for help building a national audience for that event on the internet and through local media.

In response to a question, Gingrich told the group "corporate PACs can give $5,000 and obviously we'd be thrilled to have as many of them sign up as early as possible."

Yes, you idiots. Keep giving him your money. Really. I mean, this is the guy who now says he had affairs because he loved America so much (http://wonkette.com/440245/newt-gingrich-committed-adultery-because-patriotism-made-him-horny)! What's not to trust?

(h/t: Taegan Goddard (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/03/09/gingrich_plans_may_announcement_in_philadelphia.ht ml) via @allisonkilkenny (http://twitter.com/allisonkilkenny/status/45606064015675394))

bjkeefe
03-12-2011, 01:10 AM
Rick Santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/) has earned a(nother? hard to keep track) "Pants on Fire" from PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/10/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-said-obama-said-any-child-born-prema/):

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6403/santorumpantsonfire.jpg




How do you suppose his family feels about this?

http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/cd4d779f4dd9719a185fb40b8b92f73f.jpg

bjkeefe
03-15-2011, 08:44 PM
It's a bit anecdotal, but this article on how the Mormon teabaggers simply do not care for their top Mormon politicians -- Romney, Huntsman, and Hatch -- because they are not conservative enough (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15utah.html?pagewanted=all), should meet nonetheless fulfill your RDA for schadenfreude.

They have already collected one scalp (ex-Senator Bob Bennett), so now their sense of themselves has only grown.

bjkeefe
03-15-2011, 10:47 PM
(Considering the source, I mean.)

Daniels poked both Palin and Mike Huckabee with a single punch, raising the former Arkansas governor’s gaffe in which he claimed inaccurately more than once that the president grew up in Kenya.

“Sarah Palin pounces and says, ‘Wrong, Mike — he’s never been to Europe,” said Daniels, according to a guest on hand for the event, which was off the record to the White House pool.

Came across this (http://sheya.com/2011/03/13/memo-to-mitch-daniels-maybe-it-was-the-marijuana-but-the-united-states-is-not-in-europe/) after link-hopping from post to post, following some starting links offered by Ed at Instaputz (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2011/03/litmus-tests-and-circular-firing-squads.html), on three (=trend!) recent examples of the Indiana governor and potential GOP candidate for president dissing major elements of the Republican Party (union haters, birthers, forced pregnancy obsessives, Palinistas, and teabaggers).

Who knows. Maybe he's dipping his toe in the water to see how it feels to play a moderate on teevee. Relative to the rest of the pack, of course.

bjkeefe
03-16-2011, 02:30 AM
"I'll tell you one thing, if I was ever to run for President of the United States, I think the first thing I would do in the first debate is offer my birth certificate ...

(source (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/michele-bachmanns-first-action-as-pres-candidate-offer-her-birth-certificate.php) | via (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/snarkless/))

Ocean
03-16-2011, 08:25 AM
(source (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/michele-bachmanns-first-action-as-pres-candidate-offer-her-birth-certificate.php) | via (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/snarkless/))

Is that the best she can offer?

bjkeefe
03-16-2011, 05:00 PM
Is that the best she can offer?

It all depends on what your definition of "best" is. I think she can bring the crazy much more richly than that. Here, for example, is another recent example (http://www.google.com/search?q=the+3%2C400+members+of+the+mainstream+med ia+are+a+part+of+the+Obama+press+contingent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) which every wingnut in the country seems to have excitedly reblogged (most without mentioning the latest dumbness (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51179.html) that led to it.) I think birtherism is just one of the many things she'll try to keep alive in the base's mind.

Ocean
03-16-2011, 06:49 PM
It all depends on what your definition of "best" is. I think she can bring the crazy much more richly than that. Here, for example, is another recent example (http://www.google.com/search?q=the+3%2C400+members+of+the+mainstream+med ia+are+a+part+of+the+Obama+press+contingent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) which every wingnut in the country seems to have excitedly reblogged (most without mentioning the latest dumbness (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51179.html) that led to it.) I think birtherism is just one of the many things she'll try to keep alive in the base's mind.

I was wondering whether among the many qualifications for POTUS, the best she could offer was her proof of birth in the US.

bjkeefe
03-16-2011, 07:03 PM
I was wondering whether among the many qualifications for POTUS, the best she could offer was her proof of birth in the US.

Heh. Well put.

Ocean
03-16-2011, 07:20 PM
Heh. Well put.

:)

bjkeefe
03-17-2011, 03:42 PM
I wonder if that will become his new campaign slogan (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2011/03/give-money-back-governor.html).

TwinSwords
03-17-2011, 04:55 PM
The Wingnut from Wasilla -- less popular among independents than Charlie Sheen.

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011
Palin trails Sheen with independents (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/palin-trails-sheen-with-independents.html)

We've found a lot of brutal poll numbers for Sarah Palin so far in 2011: down in South Dakota, down in South Carolina, down in Arizona, only up by 1 point in Texas, only up by 1 point in Nebraska to name a few. But this has to be the worst- independent voters say they would support Charlie Sheen over Palin for President by a 41/36 margin. Seriously.

Despite her deficit with independents Palin does lead Sheen 49-29 overall. We also tested Barack Obama against Sheen and the President leads 57-24.

(Source (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/palin-trails-sheen-with-independents.html))

At least we'll have a few laughs to distract us while the GOP destroys the country.

bjkeefe
03-17-2011, 07:27 PM
The momentum is unstoppable (http://wonkette.com/440885/union-busting-kochsucker-scott-walker-new-gop-favorite-for-2012-nomination):

The phone survey by Public Policy Polling of 642 registered voters on March 10-13 found that Walker’s favorability among Republican voters was 55 percent positive and 11 percent negative, a spread of 44 points.

More from PPP here (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/walker-could-be-serious-contender.html).

bjkeefe
03-17-2011, 08:34 PM
... has jumped on the Republican Party's Birfer Bandwagon (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/birferism_gone_mainstreamf/).

bjkeefe
03-19-2011, 07:33 PM
The astroturfing group AFP (Mostly Imaginary Americans For David Koch's Prosperity) is holding (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/19/tea-party-invites-gop-2012-hopefuls-to-summit-but-not-bachmann/) …

... a summit in New Hampshire next month. Among attendees will be some familiar names with buzz about trying for the Republican nomination for the 2012 nomination.

Tim Pawlenty will be in attendance, as will Rick Santorum.

Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich have all been invited, but it is not confirmed whether they will be attending.

[...] ... low-profile businessman Herman Caine was invited and will attend, while South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who has announced that he will not seek the presidency, was invited and declined.

Okay, other shoe, time to drop:

Not attending, and not invited: Head of the Congressional tea party caucus, Rep. Michele Bachmann.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/4227/bachmannbatboyblink.gif

There's some babble from some spokesdrone later on in the post about how Bachmann wasn't a "serious" candidate back when they drew up the invitation list, but I'm not buying it. First, it's been obvious that Bachmann has been considering a run for many months, arguably since Obama's inauguration. At minimum, they could have put a placeholder in with her name on it and passed the word through back channels. Especially considering invitees like Santorum, Barbour, and Thune. Also, if they wanted her to be a candidate, I have to think that they'd believe their very invitation would encourage her to jump more fully in.

SOME might speculate that the real reason for the snub is that Sarah Palin told them she wouldn't show up if Bachmann did. Or, maybe we've just reach a moment of truth: Michele Bachmann is just considered too crazy, even for other crazy people to want around.

(h/t: RM/FB)

bjkeefe
03-22-2011, 04:31 PM
Thus spake Rand Paul (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/rand-paul-mulling-presidential-run.php) ...

... at an appearance in key primary state South Carolina on Monday.

Paul said that he would also visit Iowa and New Hampshire, because "I want the Tea Party to have an influence over who the nominee is in 2012."

Because they wouldn't have any influence otherwise?

bjkeefe
03-22-2011, 07:29 PM
Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/mar/22/tim-pawlenty-truth-o-meter/):

The Truth-O-Meter welcomes Tim Pawlenty

http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/1554/timpawlenty2.jpg

So far, he's been evaluated three times by them, scoring a False, a Full Flop, and a Pants On Fire.

(pic. source (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/08/pawlenty-gays-military/))

TwinSwords
03-22-2011, 07:43 PM
So far, he's been evaluated three times by them, scoring a False, a Full Flop, and a Pants On Fire.

Really? Then his future in the GOP is secure!

bjkeefe
03-23-2011, 07:19 PM
Really? Then his future in the GOP is secure!

Nice.

bjkeefe
03-23-2011, 07:20 PM
No. I said openly. And it's not even (http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/gay_republican_president) Dan Savage!

(? (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/32/republican-convention))

bjkeefe
03-25-2011, 05:50 PM
... to show how much he hates the Muslins. It's hard out there for a Republican preznidential candidate!

Sharia-compliant financing is a growing industry, particularly when it comes to mortgages. "Traditional secular, money lending banks are setting up Sharia-compliant products because they make money," says Abed Awad, an attorney who specializes in Islamic law. Companies like Citigroup and Visa have tried their hand at Sharia-compliant products. Usually companies structure the payments in a sort of house-buying layaway plan. "It's a major moneymaker for banks." Shariah compliant mortgages allow observant Muslims like Lakhani to buy homes, where previously they were stuck renting to avoid interest payments.

There's nothing sinister about the growth of Sharia-compliant finance. It is just capitalism at work, an emerging market in which firms are meeting demand for a particular kind of product. But a decision by one 2012 Republican hopeful, Tim Pawlenty, may come back to haunt him in the GOP presidential primary, where any association with Sharia-compliant finance could be toxic.

[...]

Pawlenty's effort to increase minority homeownership by encouraging companies to offer Sharia-compliant mortgages was entirely in keeping with his reputation as a "Sam's Club Republican" concerned with helping "regular people." But in the 2012 race, he'll be up against competitors who may try to use it against him.

"Who may." That Adam Serwer is a funny guy (http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=does_pawlenty_have_a_shariah_prob lem).

Of course, Ben Smith won the morning obediently (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Pawlenty_shut_down_Islamfriendly_mortgage_program. html) rushed to type up the new Pawlenty position.

But a Pawlenty spokesman told me that the governor has no intention of defending the program -- and that in fact, he shut it down himself as soon as he learned of it.

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/441390/tim-pawlenty-destroyed-muslim-mortgage-program-because-it-did-things-muslimly))

bjkeefe
04-08-2011, 07:24 PM
So say the South Carolina Republicans, anyway! Five, count 'em, FIVE (http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/04/08/south_carolina_debate) participants confirmed!* With weeks, count 'em, WEEKS to go until they cancel this one, too hold the debate!

==========
* None of which is named Bachmann, Barbour, Cain, Huckabee, Huntsman, Palin, Romney, or Trump. Or Ryan. Or Walker.

bjkeefe
05-05-2011, 02:46 PM
Steve Kornacki sure is! (http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/05/republican_debate)

Tonight's event could well be the first time in history that a nationally televised presidential debate lowers the stature of every participant.

bjkeefe
05-05-2011, 10:31 PM
Steve Kornacki sure is! (http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/05/republican_debate)Tonight's event could well be the first time in history that a nationally televised presidential debate lowers the stature of every participant.

Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/445323/the-first-time-republicans-debate-who-is-least-likely-to-be-president-liveblog) is live-blogging it! So is Jim Newell (http://gawker.com/#!5799164/live-coverage-of-the-first-republican-presidential-debate)!

bjkeefe
05-05-2011, 11:43 PM
Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/445323/the-first-time-republicans-debate-who-is-least-likely-to-be-president-liveblog) is live-blogging it! So is Jim Newell (http://gawker.com/#!5799164/live-coverage-of-the-first-republican-presidential-debate)!

They are agreed: Santorum convincingly lost.

operative
05-05-2011, 11:54 PM
They are agreed: Santorum convincingly lost.

They have a flare for the obvious.

I actually quite enjoyed the debate, particularly Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

bjkeefe
05-06-2011, 01:39 PM
They are agreed: Santorum convincingly lost.

RealAmericans* declare Herman Cain the winner in a landslide.

This proves that the Republican Party is racist against white people.

==========
* (Frank Luntz's focus group (http://wonkette.com/445460/republican-voters-apparently-really-really-like-herman-cain))

bjkeefe
05-10-2011, 03:03 PM
http://a.imageshack.us/img514/8605/erickwithhappymeal.jpg

The GHEMRotRSTF (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/09/why-i-will-not-support-jon-huntsman/) is not nearly as happy as he appears to be above! This is because notorious media creation and McCain puppet Jon "John" Huntsman wants to be your next preznit. Why should he not be preznit? NOT because of the "lefty record on the environment" or the love for Teh Gheys or the pro-stimulus remarks or the friendship with Arnold Schwarzenegger. No! It is because of the treason!

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/445678/u-s-was-prepared-to-fight-pakistan-in-getting-bin-laden) | pic. source (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/08/ghemrotrstf-is-yelling-on-twitter-again.html))

bjkeefe
05-19-2011, 07:59 PM
Pareene (http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/18/rick_perry_fantasy):

The Republican elites hate Mitt Romney and fear Michele Bachmann (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88608/the-gop-elites-not-so-secret-presidential-hopes-and-fears) and no one is remotely interested in Tim Pawlenty. The Republican base loves Bachmann (and is learning to love Herman Cain, our next president), because she sounds like their talk radio shouters and reads and believes the same awful websites that they do. Mike Allen says the elites are begging for someone who is serious but not Romney (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=496246FE-F9D2-4577-A717-CF42989789A1) to enter the race and magically win it. The top fantasy pick is Mitch Daniels, because Jeb Bush is not running. There is also a lot of talk of Chris Christie, who, as Jon Chait points out, is not actually very popular, despite the fact that he is a viral video celebrity. But Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie won't commit. All of this has led to the inevitable "Rick Perry is gearing up to run" story (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/17/rick_perry_presidential_push_quietly_gains_steam_1 09894.html).

[...]

bjkeefe
05-23-2011, 04:26 PM
... has a heartwarming new video (http://youtu.be/ATcl_5Czj4E) out that you must devote 80 seconds of your life to watching.

(h/t: Wonkette Jr. (http://wonkette.com/446350/tim-pawlenty-it-gets-better) | ? (http://wonkette.com/446319/tim-pawlenty-accidentally-announces-his-presidential-campaign))

bjkeefe
05-25-2011, 10:47 AM
“Five hundred thousand at Tiffany’s?” the comedian Stephen Colbert asked. “There’s a simple explanation. The guy clearly buys his engagement rings in bulk.”

(source (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/us/politics/25gingrich.html))