All they have is a clown show…

Two news story waves popped up today about the competition to be the 2012 Republican Nominee for President. One concerned the latest Gallup poll about the horse race–you could just feel the panic as Republicans contemplated their choices.

Underwhelmed, would be an understatement.

And then the other news wave broke that the Quitta from Wassila might join the fray. She is number two in the poll and the base is just crazy enough to make her a viable–and yet laughable–GOP standard bearer.

And the BoBo Republicans are so hurt by the Daniels rejection that they can barely lift their heads off the floor. It sad to to watch them bravely type on and try to articulate some reason to support Mittens or Huntsman. Their courage in the face of such sadness, is all the more remarkable because the astroturf TeaBaggers have marked the last two BoBo-ready dudes as future road kill. Meanwhile, old T-Paw has decided to compete with Gingrich to see who can be the biggest liar in the race. And all the candidates are working overtime to “out-crazy” each other.

What a clown show.

As this fail parade marches over every cliff, it strike me that it is the polar opposite of the Democratic Primary race in 2007-2008. That race inspired the base and was exciting from day one. “Exciting” will never be a word used to describe the 2012 GOP race for the White House.

Think back to May 2007. It was already one hell of a race for the Democratic Nomination–and it would last for more than another year before it was decided. It was passionate and interesting. Even if you didn’t follow politics it was news you followed. The stars were Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and even Gravel had their supporters and they all made the race more competitive–and interesting.

By this time in 2007 I had already seen all the candidates speak at events in DC. I was undecided but leaning towards Obama, but it was a great feeling to be undecided. I knew the bench of possible candidates was deep and felt that any of my top choices would be just fine. It was exciting to know that your vote–and your support–mattered.

2007 Yearly KosPresidential Debate

In August all the candidate, except Biden (who needed to stay behind for a vote) showed up at Yearly Kos for a debate in front of progressive bloggers. We were mobilized and passionate about the race. It played out over the next year with lots of ups and downs and twists and turns and it was never dull.

OTOH, the current GOP race just screams dull. The only fun is watching the endless series of mistakes the candidates make like clockwork. It is one train wreck after another. And when Queen Palin and Countessa Bachmann jump in the crazy train will never stop.

This race will get the attention of the 27 percenters of wingnutopia and they will decide it, because they make the most noise. Then the rest of the Republicans will follow them over the edge and to their doom. BoBo will weep, but that’s not a bad thing.

Cheers

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

127 replies
  1. 1
    dr. bloor says:

    Spot on as usual, but it’s worth reminding everyone that whichever undermedicated clown emerges from the car with the nomination will immediately have no less than 45% of the popular vote locked down. The fate of the nation for the next four years rests in the hands of those tough-minded “independents,” many of whom should really be working in sheltered workshops, who are ready to be duped by a well-timed Republican promise of cake and ice cream for all.

  2. 2
    Cat Lady says:

    The debates are going to be epic. I don’t think Queen Sarah of the Teatards will deign to participate though. She’s gone rogue, and if she’s running she’s going to pied piper the 27%ers right off the cliff, and the rest of the party won’t be able to stop it. There isn’t enough popcorn in the world.

  3. 3
    General Stuck says:

    It might be the only thing saving this nation, that the wingnut king/queen maker is stuck of stupid. Otherwise, this fucked up country would vote republican sure as shit 2012. For purely tribal reasons. At least the indie swing voters, who have glass in their heads.

    And there is no such thing as a good republican anymore, as far as candidates go. They are all owned and operated by Koch Industries, and the tea party jackals. I don’t care if they were eagle scouts ten times over. Luckily, they don’t have a silver tongued bullshitter like Reagan, or we would be toast.

  4. 4
    Dennis G. says:

    @dr. bloor: Yes, there is a built in clown car advantage that is inflated by the IOKIYAR rule of balance. I would peg the threshold at a guarantee of 40% with another 5-10 percent who are always suckers for a red nose and big shoes.

    Cheers

  5. 5
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    You’re right, and unfortunately so is Dr Bloor. The one almost bright side I see is that between Palin, Bachmann, Paul and apparently Herman Cain, Pawlenty is going to have a lot of baggage going into the convention. Chuck Todd and Ruth Marcus will be working overtime telling us Tim Pawlenty is the kind of heartland moderate America is looking for after the Obama experiment, but Pawlenty strikes me as kind of dumb, quick to pander, and if you’ll forgive me for indulging in the superficial, kind of a pencilneck. I think Obama will win, but it will be damn close, and no one on MTP will be talking about his second term mandate.

  6. 6
    gnomedad says:

    OT and apologies if someone already posted this: Rick Perlstein on the 100th anniversary of Hubert H. Humphrey’s birth.

    Humphrey made his national political debut in 1948 when, as mayor of Minneapolis and a candidate for Senate, he headed the Minnesota delegation to the Democratic National Convention. There he led a faction insisting the platform include a federal fair employment commission, a controversial goal of the civil rights movement.
    __
    Segregationist Southerners threatened to walk out, a move that could have paralyzed the entire fragile Democratic coalition and handed the White House to the Republicans. The Democrats’ first presidential defeat in 16 years might have been laid at the feet of this ambitious 37-year-old.
    __
    Humphrey could have been excused for quietly backing down. Instead, the man who had earned the nickname the Happy Warrior gave one of the greatest speeches in American political history.
    __
    “To those who say this civil rights program is an infringement on states’ rights,” he thundered from the convention podium, “I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.”
    __
    The motion carried. The Southerners walked out and ran Strom Thurmond for president. When Harry S. Truman won nonetheless, Democrats were on their way to becoming the party of civil rights. Hubert Humphrey catalyzed that change.

  7. 7
    gex says:

    @Cat Lady: Bachmann on the other hand will. So I guess I give her a slight edge over Palin. Bachmann’s the head of the Tea Party caucus (whatever the f that is) and has way better cred with the religious nutcases.

  8. 8
    Jenny says:

    Sarah is my dream candidate. I dream of Obama winning every state in the union! FDR came close, winning 46 or 48 states in 1936.

  9. 9
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @dr. bloor:

    The fate of the nation for the next four years rests in the hands of those tough-minded “independents”,

    Are those the low-information kind of “independents”, or the high-misinformation “independents”?

    This ‘democracy’ thing is tricky….

  10. 10
    Jenny says:

    Slightly off topic:

    Beltway darling Crisp Christie plummets to 40%, after only 16 months in office.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....-poll.html

  11. 11
    Fred says:

    What is with this 27percenter thing? Was there some poll that nailed it down to that exact figure or something? Why not round it up to 30 or down to 25 and call it a day.

  12. 12
    Roger Moore says:

    @General Stuck:
    I don’t think you can separate the lameness of the Republican candidate pool from the general stupidity of the party. They’re intimately connected. Even the candidates who aren’t dunderheads have to act that way in order attract votes from the base. If the base weren’t demanding stupidity as a major qualification, maybe there would be some candidates who wouldn’t make you puke just considering them as the next president.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    AnotherBruce says:

    Apparently 2% of Republicans are into santorum, that seems about right. I think probably that double wet suits are leading the pack.

  15. 15
    jacy says:

    @Fred:

    What is with this 27percenter thing? Was there some poll that nailed it down to that exact figure or something? Why not round it up to 30 or down to 25 and call it a day.

    You are sadly not aware of all internet traditions.

  16. 16
    hildebrand says:

    I think that a decent percentage of what used to be called moderate Republicans will sit this one out, or vote for Obama. Likewise, I think that a decent number of the frothing loons will sit this one out if they don’t have some kind of real tea party zombie as their candidate. If either Mittens or Pawlenty is the candidate some of the zealous conspiracy types will likewise sit this one out – can’t be a martyr without a cause.

    All of this points to depressed turn-out on the Republican side. Yes, they hate Obama, but it may simply not be enough to get them to summon the necessary energy to vote against him – much better to scream about him for the next four years than to have work to actually vote him out of office.

  17. 17
    srv says:

    Who ever thought the wingularity would be so anti-climatic?

    2012 may just be a complete snore-fest.

  18. 18
    Dennis G. says:

    @gnomedad: That post is still a thing of timeless beauty.

  19. 19
    Evolved Deep Southerner says:

    You know, empirically I know everything you say is spot-on, Dennis, but … I don’t know, there’s something inside of me shouting something about hubris and I’m trying to talk over that shit and ignore it.

    The Democrats can fuck up most anything. I enjoyed the NY-26 thing as much as anybody, and based on just the cards in both sides’ hands, you’d wonder why the Republicans would even FIELD a candidate given the lay of the land, but …

    I don’t know. I have this foreboding feeling about 2012 that I can’t shake.

  20. 20
    Roger Moore says:

    @hildebrand:
    That’s why you can expect a whole host of right wing culture war initiatives on state ballots. It’s their standard method of motivating the waverers to come out to vote. Maybe they can’t work up the motivation to vote for Mittens, but they’ll turn out for a largely symbolic vote to ban Sharia Law or instate Old Testament punishments for theft and adultery.

  21. 21
    Nylund says:

    The post-debate columns by David Brooks will be a real hoot. Its going to be fun to watch him writhe as he tries to spin the Bachmann/Palin crazy-fest into a column about brave, serious, and intelligent policy suggestions. He keeps acting as if the GOP is full of William F. Buckleys when its increasingly nothing but Alfred E. Neumans.

  22. 22
    The Dangerman says:

    @Cat Lady:

    The debates are going to be epic. I don’t think Queen Sarah of the Teatards will deign to participate though.

    Not only will she likely not participate in Republican debates, if she gets the nomination, she might not debate Obama. She has to play to her strengths and answering hard questions aren’t in her skill set.

    @Evolved Deep Southerner:

    I don’t know. I have this foreboding feeling about 2012 that I can’t shake.

    I’ll share my foreboding: the Right will be desperate beyond belief and all the tricks are coming out; outright voter suppression, not enough voting booths in neighborhoods with “those people”, Diebold, everything but the fucking kitchen sink.

  23. 23
    Mike in NC says:

    “Exciting” will never be a word used to describe the 2012 GOP race for the White House.

    Would “excreting” be more appropriate?

  24. 24
    AnotherBruce says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Hell after watching the Couric debacle, answering dumb questions aren’t in her skill set.

  25. 25
    joel says:

    Check the crosstabs on the Gallup.

    Romney is essentially the “conservative” candidate right now. Even in comparison to Palin (who does better than Romney in the cafeteria churchgoer category).

  26. 26
    Ash Can says:

    @Roger Moore:

    they’ll turn out for a largely symbolic vote to ban Sharia Law or instate Old Testament punishments for theft and adultery.

    Banning Sharia law I can see, but no way are they touching theft or adultery unless they can codify exceptions for family-values conservatives.

  27. 27
    Jenny says:

    @hildebrand:

    I think that a decent percentage of what used to be called moderate Republicans will sit this one out, or vote for Obama.

    We have to remember Palin is poisonous. Not only will McCain’s ex staffers (steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, Mike Murphy) and Reagan Beltway darlings (Bobo, Noonan, George Will) lead the Republicans for Obama campaign, but after 6 months on the trail with her, Mittens et. al. will endorse Obama.

  28. 28
    GregB says:

    @The Dangerman:

    I get creeped out that these fuckers will decide that they better burn the house down if they can’t have it.

  29. 29
    The Dangerman says:

    @AnotherBruce:

    …answering dumb questions aren’t in her skill set.

    True dat; I expect two things in the near future:

    1) Sarah announces she’s running

    2) Tina Fey is shopping for a newer model car

    @GregB:

    I get creeped out that these fuckers will decide that they better burn the house down if they can’t have it.

    True dat again; when Obama wins, it better be a clear win, or the Right will be screaming ACORN or some such shit.

  30. 30
    Dennis G. says:

    @Evolved Deep Southerner: Even with the freak show, it will be a close race. We live in a Nation that almost elected Bush once and actually elected him after four years of failure. Anything is possible. Yes, the GOP field is a clown show, but there is a reason why clowns scare people.

  31. 31
    Evolved Deep Southerner says:

    @Dennis G.:

    [T]here is a reason why clowns scare people.

    This. For me, I guess it all goes back to the time a clown killed my dad. (h/t Jack Handey)

  32. 32
    joeyess says:

    BoBo will weep, but that’s not a bad thing.

    this needs to be on the rotating thingamajigger.

  33. 33
    joeyess says:

    Coulrophobia is the only phobia that Teahadists don’t embrace.

  34. 34
    joel hanes says:

    @Fred:

    What is with this 27percenter thing?

    It represents George W. Bush’s apparently-immune-to-all-reality ultimate base of support, as measured by his final approval ratings.

  35. 35
    srv says:

    @Evolved Deep Southerner:

    I don’t know. I have this foreboding feeling about 2012 that I can’t shake.

    As much as I would have never imagined the horrors of the aughts could ever happen, I think the 2012 debates will be like a dull season of MS3TK.

    That’s even given the ‘3rd’ Depression our best-and-brightest are making inevitable.

  36. 36
    Yutsano says:

    @The Dangerman:

    2) Tina Fey is shopping for a newer model car announces her takeover of the universe

    .

    Adjusted that for you good sir.

    And it won’t matter how much Obama wins by. His election will never be legitimate in their eyes.

  37. 37

    Sarah will not run. She’ll milk the moment as long as possible. The question is how she’ll keep the money tree watered after she doesn’t run.

  38. 38
    Roger Moore says:

    @AnotherBruce:
    I’d say more that giving unscripted answers isn’t in her skill set. In that respect, the Couric interview was probably worse for her than a debate would be. With Couric, she actually had to think on her feet and answer questions she couldn’t be prepped for. With a debate, she could memorize short speeches on 10 or 15 hot button topics and then recite whichever one seemed closer to the question she was asked. That seems to be standard practice at presidential “debates” these days.

  39. 39
    Carl Nyberg says:

    2004 is probably a better comparison than 2008.

    Dems were more enthusiastic in 2004, but the GOP won.

  40. 40
    Mark S. says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Not only will she likely not participate in Republican debates, if she gets the nomination, she might not debate Obama.

    Wow, I don’t think she could get away with that. She would be mocked mercilessly and lose every state.

    I know it’s stupid to analyze polls this early, but I’m impressed with how well Cain is doing. I thought he’d be at like 2%. Not bad for someone I’d never heard of a month ago.

  41. 41
    The Dangerman says:

    @Roger Moore:

    With a debate, she could memorize short speeches on 10 or 15 hot button topics and then recite whichever one seemed closer to the question she was asked.

    As I recall (and I’m at +?, so the synapses are firing like a car missing a few cylinders), she didn’t do that very well with Biden; Biden just gave her a pass to prevent looking like the big, bad meanie; shit, Obama would slice and dice her and do it with a smile.

  42. 42
    Carl Nyberg says:

    @gnomedad:
    Humphrey saying clearly that states rights should not be the excuse to abridge human rights seems appropriate.

    Israel’s “right to exist” also should not abridge human rights.

  43. 43
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Mark S.:

    We need a SIRIYUS BIDNISSMAN in charge, donchaknow.

    But seriously, if you looked at who was high in the polls 18 months before every election, I bet you’d get some pretty weird results.

  44. 44
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    And for people who feel some undefined dread about 2012, I sometimes wonder if we give the Republicans more power than they deserve. Yes, they’re greedy and sociopathic and willing to play every dirty trick in the book, but that doesn’t mean they’re unbeatable. Hell, they’ve already basically pissed away all the goodwill they had 6 months ago. In fact, I’d argue that the current Republican Party is singularly incompetent, and the only thing keeping them afloat is a constant influx of money from powerful interests who want Republican ideas to be mainstream. Otherwise, they’d be buried in their own stupidity long ago.

  45. 45
    Mark S. says:

    @Roger Moore:

    With a debate, she could memorize short speeches on 10 or 15 2 or 3 hot button topics and then recite whichever one seemed closer to the question she was asked.

    Come on, this is Sarah we’re talking about. She’s had plenty of time the past year and a half to bone up on the issues and she’s still hopeless when the interviewer isn’t Hannity.

  46. 46
    Jenny says:

    @Carl Nyberg:

    Dems were more enthusiastic in 2004, but the GOP won.

    I disagree. Before Katrina, before Shrub’s effort to privatize social security, before spygate, before Teri Schivao debacle, before Libby was indicted, before nominating harriet miers, the holy rollers loved bush, especially his anti gay marriage ballot initiatives.

    http://media.washingtonpost.co.....2004Nov07L

  47. 47
    Violet says:

    @The Dangerman:

    I’ll share my foreboding: the Right will be desperate beyond belief and all the tricks are coming out; outright voter suppression, not enough voting booths in neighborhoods with “those people”, Diebold, everything but the fucking kitchen sink.

    They’re already using the Netanyahu/Israel thing to take money away from the campaign.

    One of the most important Democratic donors in the past two decades, whose generous contributions helped pay for the DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration’s stance on Israel.
    __
    Billionaire financier Haim Saban told CNBC last night that Obama hasn’t done enough to show support for Israel. He also said that he has no plans to contribute to the president’s campaign.

    Plenty of other examples of wingnuts screeching about how American Jews don’t understand how terrible the Democrats are for Israel, how could any Jew be a Democrat, etc., etc.

    Not only will she likely not participate in Republican debates, if she gets the nomination, she might not debate Obama. She has to play to her strengths and answering hard questions aren’t in her skill set.

    She can avoid the Republican debates, but if she wins the nomination she can’t avoid the Presidential debates. No one will let her get away with that, least of all the media.

  48. 48
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Roger Moore: You are correct. Our “debates” are heavily scripted and dumbed down so that any robot with a script can give a reasonable sounding answer even if it doesn’t make sense. The pundits were so damn impressed that Palin’s brain didn’t freeze enough for her to suffer lockjaw during her debate with Biden. It’s odd that only Republicans get the benefit of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

  49. 49
    RossInDetroit says:

    I can’t see who looks best in the GOP race. And I can’t even see who looks least bad. They’ve spent so much of the last 2+ years shooting themselves in the feet they’ll barely be able to run.

  50. 50
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Carl Nyberg:

    Dems were more enthusiastic in 2004, but the GOP won.

    Dems were more enthusiastic about the presidential race than Republicans. Republicans were even more enthusiastic about voting against gay marriage, and they voted for Bush since they were in the booth anyway.

    It’s what Karl Rove is really good at — deflecting attention away from the message he’s sending voters and running his campaign under the radar. Republicans won in 2004 thanks to anti-gay voters, and they won again in 2010 because Rove’s organizations spent a full year convincing old people that the Democrats were going to kill Medicare.

    Now the Republicans have publicly announced that they’re going to kill Medicare. I’m not sure if they’ll be able to recover from that.

    ETA: Also, too, the incumbent’s advantage works in our favor this time. In 2004, Bush was the incumbent, not Kerry, and a surprisingly large number of people are unwilling to vote out an incumbent.

  51. 51

    @The Dangerman:
    Yeah, people need to remember – Palin is a MORON. She really is that dumb, and she really is that lazy, and she really is that full of herself, and she really is that petty. Nobody ever comes out from behind the scenes and says anything nice about her. Even Bush had a few people go ‘No, he’s much smarter than he looks’. Sarah has no friends.

    That she’s got a lot of money does not mean she’s smart. Being lucky and stupid will get you rich faster than just being smart. There’s nothing she has that she’s earned, it was all given to her because she was convenient.

    So, to sum up, don’t ever expect Sarah to do the smart thing.

  52. 52
    Mark S. says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Yeah, they are dumber than shit. The Ryan plan might be the dumbest political move I’ve ever seen. I’ll say it again, the candidate who denounces that POS will immediately go up by ten points.

  53. 53
    The Dangerman says:

    @Violet:

    She can avoid the Republican debates, but if she wins the nomination she can’t avoid the Presidential debates. No one will let her get away with that, least of all the media.

    Which would fit perfectly into her claims that the Media isn’t treating her fairly, the Media runs the debates and the debates are stacked against her, it will be the persecution complex run amok; I could see her sitting out the debates.

  54. 54
    AnotherBruce says:

    I’ll say it again, little Ricky Santorum is polling at the bottom of both polls, in arguably the weakest Republican candidate field of all time, that and he’s a disgusting sexual neologism. How can he get through the day without dying of embarrassment?

  55. 55
    Violet says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus):

    Palin is a MORON. She really is that dumb, and she really is that lazy, and she really is that full of herself, and she really is that petty. Nobody ever comes out from behind the scenes and says anything nice about her. Even Bush had a few people go ‘No, he’s much smarter than he looks’. Sarah has no friends.

    She may not be very smart, but she’s charismatic and cunning. Her Achilles heel is that she’s greedy. If she weren’t greedy and a grifter and really wanted to govern and lead she’d be scary as hell. But her greed means she’s a lot more vulnerable if she does decide to jump in the race. It leads her to make a lot of mistakes.

    And she’s definitely lazy. Sarah Palin doesn’t do work. And running for President is hard work. People want to see you out there working for it. Her lack of interest in working could be a big problem for her in that regard.

  56. 56
    gex says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus): And a big thank fuck you to John McCain for being the one to give her a lucky break.

  57. 57

    @The Dangerman:
    I can see her sitting out the debates, too. It would be utterly disastrous and she’d do it in a fit of pique after every adviser she has told her strenuously that she can’t possibly win the election if she’s publicly afraid to confront her opponent. However, everything about a Palin candidacy would be disastrous. Even the 27 percenters are losing interest in her, presumably because it’s more and more obvious her movie will be a remake of The Mummy. The rest of the country loathes her. She’s got Dick Cheney level approval ratings and they’ll only nosedive once she’s in the spotlight again.

    But exactly because the 27 percent are starting to lose interest in Palin, I think Bachmann will be their star. Interestingly, if Bachmann gets the nomination she’s the only candidate batshit insane enough to think bringing Palin onto the ticket as VP might be a good idea. Bachmann really lives in her own little world.

    EDIT – @Violet:
    I honestly don’t see ‘cunning’. What has she ever done that’s cunning? Everything clever done in regards to Palin was done for her by the people manipulating her. Often while she was doing her damnedest to screw it up. And while she’s very charismatic, it’s that particular kind of charisma where anyone who’s not charmed is horribly turned off.

  58. 58
    Violet says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Which would fit perfectly into her claims that the Media isn’t treating her fairly, the Media runs the debates and the debates are stacked against her, it will be the persecution complex run amok; I could see her sitting out the debates.

    Her teabagging base might buy that line, but the independents needed to win the general won’t. What Presidential candidate has refused to show up for the debates since they first started? Any? She can whine all she wants, but I don’t think that will go down very well with most voters save the 27%. Late night comedians will have a field day with it, SNL/Tina Fey won’t let her live it down, Serious Pundits will discuss it with concern about how the American people “deserve to hear both sides.” Etc.

    She could try to spin it how she wants, but it would smack of fear and timidity. She’d be a scardy cat backing down from a fight. So much for the Mama Grizzly.

  59. 59
    gex says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus): I agree. As I said upthread or in another thread, Bachmann has real cred with the religious wing of the GOP. She’s positioned herself as the head of the Tea Party caucus (is that a thing?). And she was recently in Iowa and was a big hit with all the loonies that are ousting judges because of SSM. She’ll do well in the caucus.

  60. 60
    Violet says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus):

    But exactly because the 27 percent are starting to lose interest in Palin, I think Bachmann will be their star. Interestingly, if Bachmann gets the nomination she’s the only candidate batshit insane enough to think bringing Palin onto the ticket as VP might be a good idea. Bachmann really lives in her own little world.

    Sarah Palin’s wrath if Michele Bachmann does better with the voters would be something to behold. Hell hath no fury…

  61. 61
    Suffern ACE says:

    @The Dangerman: I think McCain kind of showed that you can be a maverick, but you can’t behave erratically like a chicken what’s lost its head in the campaign. Also, Obama would show up and turn the thing into an hour long prime time bit of media exposure and unlike SoU, there isn’t time allotted afterwards for a rebuttal by the opposition. How’s she gonna face down Ahmadinejad when she won’t face Chuck Todd?

  62. 62
    RossInDetroit says:

    This could be a year of record low turnout for the GOP. No candidate worth turning off Matlock and heaving themselves out of the Barcalounger for.
    Obama could have long coat tails by default.

  63. 63

    @Violet:
    Good point. A Mean Girl who’s tasted #1 will never settle for being #2. Jealousy and spite are among their most defining features. Bachmann might be loopy enough to think Palin would add to her ticket, but Palin would spit in her face.

  64. 64
    Mike says:

    @joel hanes:

    What is with this 27percenter thing?
    It represents George W. Bush’s apparently-immune-to-all-reality ultimate base of support, as measured by his final approval ratings.

    Incorrect. Try again.

    Hint, look up!

  65. 65
    Violet says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus):

    I honestly don’t see ‘cunning’. What has she ever done that’s cunning?

    I think getting this movie made and keeping it utterly under wraps until right when she’s ready to release it/launch her “exploratory campaign” is cunning. Her timing is good too. She waited until a lot of the attention-grabbers either decided not to run or imploded (Trump, Huckabee, Daniels, Gingrich) and then BOOM, there she is, bursting on the scene.

    I think her use of Trig as a prop to bring in the Christianist/anti-abortion votes is cunning, if despicable.

    There are plenty of other examples that imho show her cunning. I think she’s got good gut political instincts, but her greed and narcissism get in the way. And her laziness.

  66. 66
    Hill Dweller says:

    Republicans control several state governments for the first time in a very long time, and they are busy passing crazy, draconian voter ID laws which will surely suppress votes in key Democratic demographics.

    There will also be a gay marriage vote in Minnesota, which will turn out the evangelicals.

    Even with awful candidates at the top of the ticket, the Republicans will pull out all the stops and spend a ton of money to win the Senate and keep the House. Because they know that even if Obama wins, Congressional Republicans can block/obstruct everything.

  67. 67
    The Dangerman says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus):

    Interestingly, if Bachmann gets the nomination she’s the only candidate batshit insane enough to think bringing Palin onto the ticket as VP might be a good idea.

    No way Palin will agree to a 2nd chair again, least of all for Bachmann.

    I dunno; I think Palin is in the race (movie, bus tour, etc.) and, unless she gets kneecapped by the Power Players, I think it’s hers to lose. Everyone else is even more deeply flawed then she is (how is that possible?).

    Now, the Power Players might find that they can play her like the played Bush, get a powerful person for the 2nd chair, and he’ll (it won’t be a she) will be the de facto President while Sarah joyrides on Air Force one (if she won, of course, which isn’t likely to happen).

  68. 68
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    the Republicans will pull out all the stops and spend a ton of money to win the Senate and keep the House. Because they know that even if Obama wins, Congressional Republicans can block/obstruct everything.make up a scandal and oust him.

  69. 69

    @The Dangerman:
    I can’t see it. Palin has proven that she’s too arrogant, stupid, and crazy to be led. She’s also the least likely candidate to win the general. They’ll do what they can if she wins the nomination, but they really don’t want her to.

  70. 70
    Hill Dweller says:

    @Violet: We’ll see if Saban follows through on his threat. I can’t believe people are that upset over Obama just stating US policy that has been in place for decades.

    The transparent charade was set up by the Republicans and Netanyahu to embarrass Obama, but somehow he is viewed as the bad guy.

  71. 71
    gex says:

    Bachmann may be announcing before Palin. Time to pop some more corn.

  72. 72
    The Dangerman says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus):

    Palin has proven that she’s too arrogant, stupid, and crazy to be led.

    Replace “Palin” with “George W. Bush” in that sentence.

  73. 73
    Triassic Sands says:

    And all the candidates are working overtime to “out-crazy” each other.

    If this was all it took to be the Republican nominee, all the uncertainty would disappear. As a party, Republicans have embraced insanity — policy positions that don’t and won’t and can’t work, but are ideologically acceptable. Some of the insanity may not even be able to be presented to voters in such a way that the suckers will fall for it and vote against their own interests yet again (Kill Medicare anyone?).

    However, if insanity, sheer basket case, complete nut job, out of touch with reality lunatic fringe insanity were all that the next nominee needed, then Michele Bachmann would walk away with the nomination. Then, she would suffer one of the worst presidential electoral defeats in history — even taking into account the current landscape where the Bubonic Plague could probably get 45% of the vote. Yes, I think Bachmann would do worse than the Bubonic Plague, if only because the Bubonic Plague can’t talk and Bachmann can — and, in fact, won’t shut up, i.e., can’t shut up. By the time election day 2012 rolled around, Michele B. would have said so much offensive, idiotic, bat-shit crazy stuff that she would be the laughing stock of the entire planet. I doubt even Bobo could find a reason to support her.

    There is something horribly sickening about the idea that one of the two major parties could even consider nominating someone like Bachmann (and the Democrats really don’t have anyone of comparable stature — sure Mike Gravel comes across as pretty nutty, but it’s often nuttiness in support of some defensible policy positions. And a Gravel campaign would have to get by on a few thousand dollars, while Bachmann has shown herself to be an impressive fundraiser, which just goes to show how desperately insane a chunk of the Republican Party is.)

    (Note: the Modern Republican Party is insane…period, but all individual lunatics are not created equal.)

    An Obama-Bachmann debate would be nothing short of bizarre. If you think Palin avoided answering questions in her debate with Biden, just imagine Bachmann jabbering on endlessly about some arcane (and historically nonsensical) constitutional topics. Pundits might even give her the win, because without ever answering a single question, she still might totally dominate the debate. Obama might not have the presence of mind to respond effectively to someone who is operating in the Kuiper Belt region of American politics. But then, how could anyone respond effectively to a totally insane candidate? I wouldn’t envy anyone who had to debate the Minnesota Loon.

    A while ago I googled Michele Bachmann and discovered a new reference source, something I hadn’t seen before — Dickipedia. About Bachmann:

    Michele Marie Bachmann (born April 6, 1956) is a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, a former Senator, a homophobe, and a dick.

    In addition to being a dick, Bachmann’s track record has proven she is also a full-fledged nutjob.

    Well, there’s nothing there a factchecker could complain about except maybe to point out that “Senator” means state senator. Otherwise, it’s factually spot on.

    Bachmann has the whole girl next door thing working for her. But only if you grew up next to an insane asylum.

    And relevant to my comments about Obama not being able to respond to her in a debate (and I only saw the Dickipedia entry after I wrote the stuff about BO):

    If you give Michele Bachmann a microphone, there’s a pretty solid chance she’ll say something stupid. The kinds of statements that leave you speechless – not because you don’t know how to respond, but because there is no applicable response to gibberish.

    I wonder how I missed Dickipedia before tonight?

  74. 74
    burnspbesq says:

    @The Dangerman:

    I’m with you. I see a scary amount of complacency on our side. Folks, most of the people who cast over 115 million votes for George W. Bush across two elections are still out there and still eligible to vote. Never forget that.

  75. 75
    Violet says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    The transparent charade was set up by the Republicans and Netanyahu to embarrass Obama, but somehow he is viewed as the bad guy.

    It’s not just about embarrassing him, it’s also about drying up his donations and/or getting American Jews to donate to Republicans since they “support Israel” and all.

    I actually heard one of the wingnut talkers, I think it was Rush, say, “What Would Netanyahu do” after talking about some issue in American politics and how Obama was failing (of course). It was a bit wingnut talking point this week, imagining Bibi as President of the United States and how awesome that would be.

  76. 76
    The Dangerman says:

    @Triassic Sands:

    …Dickipedi…

    …is fucking hilarious; I forget when I found it and I’m sad to find that some of it is out of date.

    My favorite is Ann Coulter.

  77. 77
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Bush was, as far as I could tell, amiable to the point of obliviousness, or at least amiable enough to get along with his fellow Republicans. Palin, from what I’ve seen, is extremely petty, deeply resentful, and completely wrapped up in her own ego. I’m not sure it’s a good comparison.

  78. 78
    The Dangerman says:

    @burnspbesq:

    I see a scary amount of complacency on our side.

    Which would go away if Palin gets the nomination; people on our side will walk over broken glass and pits of vipers to vote against her.

    Everyone else, well, all they have to do is get within cheating distance (which, last time, they could not do).

  79. 79
    Splitting Image says:

    @gnomedad:

    Much obliged for the link. Between him and Bob, it’s a good week to celebrate being from Minnesota.

  80. 80

    @The Dangerman:
    If you replace ‘Palin’ with ‘Bush’ in that sentence it stops fitting. Bush was quite easy to lead. His entire life was based on making figurehead decisions while other people did the work. He got along well with people and was half-inclined to any conservative policy to begin with. He was manipulable.

    Palin is not. Ask McCain’s staffers. She never listened, she was arrogant and mean to the help, she refused to do anything she was ever told would help her win. If somehow you convince her to do something, she’s so damn stupid she gets it wrong. Have you watched her give speeches or try to debate? And she’s short-sighted. She’s the kind of grifter who brought her whole family in to steal a green room blind… when if she’d waited two hours all the stuff would have been given to her and she’d be publicly praised for accepting it.

  81. 81
    fraught says:

    Gandhi said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    This just might be the sort of thing Sarah Palin might think pertains to herself and might take encouragement from. …if she ever heard of Gandhi.

  82. 82
    Hill Dweller says:

    @Violet: Limbaugh is a moron. Netanyahu’s approval ratings were in the high 30’s before his trip over here. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the reasoning for that dog and pony show was to boost his ratings at home.

    Let the Republicans revel in it, but Netanyahu will ultimately lose, just as he did with Clinton.

  83. 83
    Violet says:

    @fraught:
    Gandhi? He was in a movie, right?

  84. 84
    Jenny says:

    @Violet: Haim Saban is a long time PUMA.

    http://webcache.googleusercont.....google.com

  85. 85
    Violet says:

    @Jenny:
    I’m sure that’s right, but it doesn’t change the dynamic that the Republicans are trying to make Obama look like he doesn’t support Israel in part because they want to pry away Jewish donors/voters.

  86. 86
    Splitting Image says:

    @dr. bloor:

    Spot on as usual, but it’s worth reminding everyone that whichever undermedicated clown emerges from the car with the nomination will immediately have no less than 45% of the popular vote locked down. The fate of the nation for the next four years rests in the hands of those tough-minded “independents,” many of whom should really be working in sheltered workshops, who are ready to be duped by a well-timed Republican promise of cake and ice cream for all.

    I would put the Republican floor at closer to 40%. Every state has about 10% or so of the vote who don’t pay attention to the issues and vote for whoever they think is going to win. These are highly desirable swing voters in Florida and Ohio, but in places like Massachusetts and Utah, they just walk into the booth, vote for the same party they always have, and walk out.

    In a landslide election, a lot of states that wouldn’t ordinarily have many swing voters suddenly start having tons of people changing their votes all at the same time. People see a historic occasion and jump on the bandwagon. This is how Reagan carried Massachusetts in 1984.

    Obama versus Palin or Bachmann (or worse, Gingrich) is likely to produce a similar result. Once it’s apparent that Obama has a solid 55% of the vote and Palin won’t win a single swing state, her support will collapse in most of the red states. It won’t be because of her supporters getting any saner, but because a not-insignificant portion of “likely Republican” voters in deep red country are simply “vote for the winner” types who never vote Democratic because the Dems are never in a position to win.

    I would actually argue that the McCain vote came very close to collapsing down to 40% in 2008 and would have done so if McCain hadn’t put Palin on the ticket. It gave the campaign enough of a shot that people thought the G.O.P. had a real shot at winning as late as mid-October. That kept a lot of potential swing voters in the G.O.P. camp and probably saved a half-dozen states from going over to Obama.

    I don’t see how the G.O.P. can manage to prevent a similar crash in 2012 if they find themselves in the same situation. The 27%ers aren’t going to get enthusiastic if a Palin-type gets the VP nod this time. They’re more likely to be infuriated if someone like her isn’t the actual candidate.

    The real danger for the G.O.P. isn’t simply losing the election next year; it’s having people realize that their coalition contains a lot of people who aren’t as married to the cause as the party heads and the Villagers like to claim. Again, the comparable example is Reagan in 1984. Reagan carrying every state while the Democrats were unable to make a game of it in 10 or 15 states “proved” that the Republicans were in touch with the people and the Democrats were not. That will be the takeaway if Obama carries every state but Alabama and Oklahoma, even if it has nothing to do with why he actually took them.

    TL,DR version: It will probably be harder for Obama to get to 55% of the vote than to get from 55% to 60% or more. Conversely, it might be very difficult to hold the G.O.P. down to 45%, but if Obama succeeds in doing that, the dam will very likely break.

  87. 87
    joel hanes says:

    @Mike:

    While I bow to the Authoritay of the Lexicon, I protest weakly that both definitions identify the same wingnuts.

  88. 88
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Splitting Image:

    But didn’t even Reagan in 1984 only get about 60% of the popular vote? I’d be overjoyed if Obama got that much, but I think that’s about the upper limit any candidate can get these days.

  89. 89

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    A candidate approaches his or her upper limit as the certainty of victory causes supporters to stay home. I think a presidential candidate’s upper limit is below 60% and may be as low as 55% in the current climate. There are always enough down ticket races or issues that will keep the floor from falling too low.

  90. 90
    Triassic Sands says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Ann Coulter.

    Thanks for the suggestion. I just finished reading the Coulter entry, and you’re right, it’s hilarious.

    I liked this —

    Those concerned with the future of humankind are watching Coulter’s biological clock, counting the days until the onset of the menopause that will render the species safe from her virulent strain of DNA.

    Coulter is 49 now. Are we safe?

  91. 91
    Valdivia says:

    @Violet:

    These stories of losing donors are pure spin. Saban is not just a PUMA, he was never an Obama donor and he is not just a Jew but an Israeli with very strong politics of making Israel his #1 issue. Obama ain’t losing anything yet and repeating it is just doing the Republicans the favor, IMHO.

  92. 92
    Yutsano says:

    @Valdivia: Jews are not one issue voters. And the ones who do vote Israel only are rather rare. And I tend to look at them funny.

  93. 93
    maryQ says:

    I had the same 07-08 experience. Thanks for reminding me. It was great trying to decide between Obama, Clinton and Biden. Like trying to decide between a Pinot, Zin, or a trusty Cab.

    What I find most interesting about the GOP field is that whenever anyone mentions Herman Cain, I start craving pizza. Badly.

  94. 94
    Alex S. says:

    I said it a few days ago. If Romney can’t break 20% after the exit of Huckabee, Trump and especially Daniels, he’s toast. And he still can’t do it. Instead, it’s Palin and Cain who gain. The latest polls also show Obama’s approval rating being above 50% and beating Romney with 7% nationally. So I think I’m going to relax for a while.
    I don’t think that Palin really wants the job, but she might jump in for one last grift (RNC paying her to quit, it’s what she does best). And she is probably the one candidate who can break all the rules of campaigning. I could see her announcing her run one day before Iowa caucuses, so to say. And she would still be able to get 10+% of the vote.

  95. 95
    Chris says:

    @hildebrand:

    All of this points to depressed turn-out on the Republican side. Yes, they hate Obama, but it may simply not be enough to get them to summon the necessary energy to vote against him – much better to scream about him for the next four years than to have work to actually vote him out of office.

    That’s the key. It all depends on how much they hate or are terrified of Obama and the Democrats.

  96. 96
    Chris says:

    @Frankensteinbeck (The ex-Uloborus):

    That she’s got a lot of money does not mean she’s smart. Being lucky and stupid will get you rich faster than just being smart. There’s nothing she has that she’s earned, it was all given to her because she was convenient.

    Surely you can’t be saying that Sarah Palin is a moocher or welfare queen of some sort.

  97. 97
    JD Rhoades says:

    GO LEMMINGS GO!

  98. 98
    dsc says:

    @GregB:

    I get creeped out that these fuckers will decide that they better burn the house down if they can’t have it.

    They know they’ll collect on the insurance

  99. 99
    kay says:

    @Carl Nyberg:

    Dems were more enthusiastic in 2004, but the GOP won.

    I don’t think that’s true. I know it’s the conventional wisdom, but it wasn’t true in Ohio.
    Democrats were angrier than Bush supporters, so there was energy there, but I think (to a certain extent) conservatives and media have re-written what happened.
    Conservatives here loved Bush. I think it is beneficial to conservatives to pretend that wasn’t true (they had no choice, they craved a True Conservative, Bush was a hold your nose and pull the lever typa thing) but that isn’t what happened.
    The conservative base were absolutely in love with Bush in 2004. They had all the positive energy. His campaign was GREAT, too, on the ground. They did everything right.
    Here locally, the Bush grunt workers were Christian conservatives. They were like some kind of religious army. Election day, they were all over the place. For every one Kerry volunteer, there were three of them.
    I think we underestimated them as an organized passionately pro-Bush (as opposed to anti-Kerry) entity. They loved him.

  100. 100
    EconWatcher says:

    It’s in my nature to be a worrier. But those second-quarter growth numbers don’t look like they’re going to be good. And if we stagnate or slide back into recession, President Palin is not impossible.

  101. 101
    kay says:

    @Carl Nyberg:

    Shorter, I think it is NOW beneficial to conservatives and Republicans to claim Bush was their reluctant choice, versus Kerry, and that they were sort of lackadaisically endorsing him given no better option, because he’s now recognized as a poor choice.
    That wasn’t true in 2004. They were all still 100% enthusiastic about him. They thought he was doing a great job, and would be vindicated and recognized as visionary with a second term.

  102. 102
    Chris says:

    @kay:

    That wasn’t true in 2004. They were all still 100% enthusiastic about him. They thought he was doing a great job, and would be vindicated and recognized as visionary with a second term.

    I agree. It was the first election cycle I ever followed, and “love” is too mild a word. They adored him; he was the culmination of the Reagan revolution, a hero to all wings of the party, a wartime leader on par with Lincoln and FDR. I think the worst thing I heard about him from their side of the aisle during the entire election season was from a conservative who opposed the Iraq war, and wrote that it only went to prove that “good men make mistakes.”

    It’d be a mistake to think he’s “not a real conservative” by comparing him to today’s teabaggers – the definition of what is and isn’t “a real conservative” changes every few years anyway. What matters is how their leaders make them feel, and in 2004 Bush was still their superstar.

  103. 103
    4tehlulz says:

    I doubt that Palin would run unless there was a clear shot at Obama.

  104. 104
    kay says:

    @Chris:

    in 2004 Bush was still their superstar

    One of the things people do for “election protection” (poll watching) is go to polling places and record numbers. In Ohio, the numbers are posted every three hours. You have to enter the polling place and read them off a list. So, that was my “job”. I would go to the polling place and the Bush people would be there too. We have a religious raido station, YES, it’s called, and the listeners have YES stickers on their cars. All the Bush people had YES stickers.
    I went back to my house about 3:30 after one of these runs and I had to sort of hide, because my house was full of earnest, hopeful GOTV volunteers, some of whom came from Indiana, and I knew we were going to lose.
    I wasn’t reading politics on the internet then, so I didn’t hear any of the rumors, but I just felt like I knew.

  105. 105
    WereBear says:

    @kay: Here locally, the Bush grunt workers were Christian conservatives. They were like some kind of religious army.

    And that is Palin’s strength, too, I understand.

    Just finished reading Blind Allegiance, by one of her disgruntled staffers. He starts out as an enthused volunteer wondering why she has no people leftover from her two successful races for Mayor of Wasilla. He had the heavy starbursts; he had to be thrown under the bus several times for him to figure out that this was his actual job as far as Sarah Palin was concerned.

    It was interesting throughout; the man has a lot of earnestness and what I think is genuine Christianity to bring to the table. Yet he also, without much hesitation, lied and covered up and threw himself on his sword for Palin. Quite happily. Many times.

    As an insight into modern Conservatism it is well worth the read. He became enamored of Palin-the-candidate because she said all the right things. She supports everything the rabid evangelicals say they want.

    They are completely helpless when a candidate does that.

  106. 106
    kay says:

    @WereBear:

    Just finished reading Blind Allegiance, by one of her disgruntled staffers. He starts out as an enthused volunteer wondering why she has no people leftover from her two successful races for Mayor of Wasilla. He had the heavy starbursts; he had to be thrown under the bus several times for him to figure out that this was his actual job as far as Sarah Palin was concerned.

    I remember reading (early) in 2008 that Palin and Todd had inserted themselves into her sister’s custody dispute with her husband. They ruined that guy. They destroyed him, and the used her state position to do it. He lost his kids, he lost his job, the family court judge chastised them for making it impossible for him to pay child support.
    Those kids are her nieces and nephews. She flat-out went after their father, out of pure malicious vengeance, in a dispute that didn’t involve her and had nothing to do with her. Willingly. With relish.
    I don’t think she’ll last through a 2 year campaign. She’ll be fighting everyone and everything, including her own team.

  107. 107
    WereBear says:

    @kay: I don’t think she’ll last through a 2 year campaign. She’ll be fighting everyone and everything, including her own team.

    Yes, but that doesn’t matter. She can pluck another bunch of hapless followers from obscurity and they will do anything for for her until they can’t any more. She’ll rotate those out and then a new bunch can show up and take their crack at it.

    Her MO is clearly delineated in the book. She charms these people into complete submission with her celebrity leverage and her flawless rendition of their shared version of Christianity. She absolutely burns through them; and there’s always more lining up to grab the gold ring she holds out.

    She has to personally alienate her fans for them to drop out. This is a deep and gullible pool, and they are still on her side.

  108. 108
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @joel hanes: Closely related to the crazification factor, I’m disappointed that The Poor Man’s BTKWB concept never really caught on.

  109. 109
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Violet:

    What Presidential candidate has refused to show up for the debates since they first started?

    LBJ and Nixon (twice).

  110. 110
    kay says:

    @WereBear:

    She’ll rotate those out and then a new bunch can show up and take their crack at it.

    Okay, but the notable aspect of Bush’s 2004 campaign (to me) the reason we underestimated his passionate supporters, was the discipline. They were really, really good. Partly that was because Bush was a third generation politician with an incredible advantage going in: his whole lifetime of contacts.

    I don’t think she attracts really good people, and she’s mad all the time, and vindictive. She, personally, is a loose cannon. I think she attracts star-struck dummies and grifters. That’s who she’ll hire.

    I hope they nominate her. I don’t think we could hand-pick a better opponent.

  111. 111
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Carl Nyberg:

    Dems were more enthusiastic in 2004, but the GOP won.

    No, there was a well-recognized enthusiasm gap in 2004 that favored Republicans.

  112. 112
    WereBear says:

    @kay: I hope they nominate her. I don’t think we could hand-pick a better opponent.

    Oh, gosh, yes; her negatives are huge. She turned off Independents waaaay back, and I think she energized the Democratic side as much as she did the Republicans’ in 2008. It’s still a point of incredulity to me that after decades of claiming they want women barefoot and pregnant, they put a woman in as a VP candidate. Proof that time marches on even in conservative circles, no matter how much they complain.

    IF she could charge up the evangelical army, she could get something that looks like a campaign. And that’s the thing that astonishes me; for her and her followers, appearances are absolutely all that matters.

  113. 113
    Chris says:

    @WereBear:

    It’s still a point of incredulity to me that after decades of claiming they want women barefoot and pregnant, they put a woman in as a VP candidate.

    I find it interesting that the woman in question happened to be both nicely sculpted, and mind-bogglingly stupid. And that that seems to be the trend for GOP candidates. Tells you a lot about what the conservative base expects from their women.

    And that’s the thing that astonishes me; for her and her followers, appearances are absolutely all that matters.

    Well… yeah. That’s been the GOP in a nutshell. Appearance of patriotism via electoral rhetoric, concealing a coterie of draft-dodging records. Appearance of family values, concealing the philandering records of people like Gingrich. Appearance of faith in free trade, concealing more under-the-table crony capitalism than in any urban machine. Etc, etc, etc.

    The GOP’s about shallow, skin-deep appearances and has been for as long as I can remember and probably much more than that.

  114. 114
    kay says:

    @WereBear:

    that after decades of claiming they want women barefoot and pregnant, they put a woman in as a VP candidate.

    I think it’s a measure of how arrogant, clueless and out of touch conservative intellectuals are that they thought middle class women would identify with Palin, and that they highlighted her approach to raising children.

    I think everyone, middle class, lower class, upper class, whatever, wants their children to do well. I don’t think there’s a person on the planet that wouldn’t be pleased that their kid ended up “an elitist” at an elite college, or however the term is defined.
    Bill Kristol thinks middle class women aren’t ambitious or aspirational for their children.
    What a deeply cynical, patronizing and just wrong assumption.
    Kristol thinks people not of his class aim LOW.

  115. 115
    Chris says:

    @kay:

    I think it’s a measure of how arrogant, clueless and out of touch conservative intellectuals are that they thought middle class women would identify with Palin, and that they highlighted her approach to raising children.

    This. Also. Too.

  116. 116

    @kay:
    And let me point out that while there’s an infinite supply of people dumb enough to be her personal worshipers, there is only one American voting population. Even her base is tiring of her.

  117. 117

    @kay: Well, to be fair, it’s not really Kristol’s class, since he’s a legacy project to begin with, as are most of the RW hacks.

  118. 118
    nepat says:

    I’m with Dr. Bloor way, way upthread. At the end of the day, the whole Republican “nominating” process is a charade. Republicans would pull the lever for a potted plant as long as it isn’t Obama. Many independents would too. That’s the whole point of the three-year, uninterrupted campaign (and, yes, it has been organized) by right-wing machers to define Obama as the scary Other. Scaring the wingnuts about Obama = motivating the Republican base (ref. 2010, mid-terms).

    The election will boil down to what it always boils down to for Democrats: base motivation and GOTV.

  119. 119
    WereBear says:

    @kay: Kristol thinks people not of his class aim LOW.

    And in the meantime, they promote policies that make sure the lower classes don’t get to aim any higher, either.

    @Chris: The GOP’s about shallow, skin-deep appearances and has been for as long as I can remember and probably much more than that.

    Well, when you can’t be honest about what you are really after…

  120. 120
    RoonieRoo says:

    I can easily see Palin running, winning the primary and refusing to do debates. I don’t think it will be a negative hit for her at all. The people that would be upset about her not doing a debate would be the people that would not vote for her anyway. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

    Several GOPers refused to do any debates and won just fine this past election season. Perry was one of them. It’s now becoming acceptable for the right. Since we no longer have a Press or real journalists anymore, there is no consequence.

    Don’t be surprised when it happens.

  121. 121
    les says:

    I can’t see her running. If she’s an actual candidate, there are restrictions on use of the millions the dupes send her; she ain’t goin’ there. She’ll keep poncing about, shootin’ them starbursts and cashin’ them checks, and then gin up some shit to wind up the victim machine to keep ’em coming.

  122. 122
    Anoniminous says:

    Quinnipiac did a poll asking:

    .. American voters if they are “enthusiastic” about a candidate; would consider voting for the candidate or would never vote for the candidate.

    Palin topped the “would never vote for” at 58%.

    The link goes on to say:

    “‘It is difficult to get a handle on the 2012 Republican race. Many contenders are not well known and many who are known are not liked, making their candidacies problematic. You could call this the ‘No Way’ measure,’ said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are in the best shape. Sarah Palin and Donald Trump suffer from the reality that, as our mothers told us, ‘You never get a second chance to make a first impression.'”

    The poll was released May 4th thus it’s out of date wrt Trump and Huckabee. But it’s not out of date regarding ‘No Way’ viz a viz Palin; she’s had her shot at creating a her public image; she blew it.

    A recent Gallup poll put the race at:

    Romney 17%
    Palin 15%
    Paul 10%

    Which is terrible for Grizzly Mommy since, as the previous VP candidate, she SHOULD be the front-runner or, at least, polling in the 20% range merely from her name recognition.

    The GOP establishment know she is a terrible candidate so they aren’t going to fritter away their time, money, energy, and political ‘chops’ working for her.

    Granted she has her fans but a collection of odds & sods goof-balls does not a primary campaign staff make.

    I don’t know if she will join the hunt. I do think people are over-rating her chance of winning.

  123. 123
    Carl Nyberg says:

    I was unclear in my words. Dems in 2004 were more enthusiastic than Republicans are in 2012.

    Sorry.

  124. 124
    Shoemaker-Levy 9 says:

    Per CNN
    Respectable Wing (Giuliani, Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman) 37%
    Libertarian Wing (Paul, Johnson) 13%
    Lunatic Wing (Palin, Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum) 40%

    Per Gallup
    Respectable (no Giuliani) 25%
    Libertarian 12%
    Lunatic 39%

    Interesting that the respectable candidates are all white guys, whereas the lunatics are women, a black man, a serial adulterer, and something to do with sex.

  125. 125
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Splitting Image:

    In a landslide election, a lot of states that wouldn’t ordinarily have many swing voters suddenly start having tons of people changing their votes all at the same time. People see a historic occasion and jump on the bandwagon.

    I don’t think this can happen in today’s media climate. Mainstream news will fight like rabid wolverines to prevent the meme from getting out that the election is in the bag for Obama and the Dems, because the horse-race aspect of their coverage is their meal-ticket. They will resort to Soviet propaganda levels of deception if necessary, but by hook or by crook they will make sure that low info everybody thinks the contest is going to be close right up to the very last minute, and they’ll have plenty of Rassmussen push-polls to work with in doing it. As usual Rass will pull back from pushing the Kool Aid about a week before the election so his results can revert back to reality just in time to salvage his reputation as a serious polling outfit rather than a right-wing ratfucker, but the damage will be done.

  126. 126
    SqueakyRat says:

    Mittens, T-Paw, Blingrich. It’s kind of like watching people you hate getting tortured. I feel guilty about enjoying it.

  127. 127
    mclaren says:

    The nomination is Mooseolini’s if she wants it.

Comments are closed.