January 11, 2008

"Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win."

Kos incites mischief. But how can he be so sure Mitt is good for Democrats? I'd come to think he would be the strongest choice for Republicans. Kos's theory:
If we can help push Mitt over the line, not only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney's victory. How "legitimate" will the Mittster's victory look if liberals provide the margin of victory? Think of the hilarity that will ensue. We'll simply be adding fuel to their civil war, never a bad thing from our vantage point.
Because it's all a big game, right? A big funny game.
"Politics isn't a game. It's about people..."
Oh, that's Hillary. You want Hillary, or hilarity? Or maybe both.

Anyway, Kos's theory seems not to be that Mitt is the weakest Republican candidate, but that a fragmented field is bad. But look at last night's debate. All the serious candidates — i.e., everyone but Ron Paul — looked good and made each other interesting. I think if one candidate had a lock on the nomination, we'd focus on him and get tired of him. And the other party would know whom they needed to attack and they'd frame their own choices accordingly. And that guy would receive all the attacks. Really, Kos, are you at all thinking straight?

61 comments:

JackDRipper said...

Leaving aside Kos' little boy Oedipal anxieties about Mitt Romney's stature as an adult man, the real reason he and the other lefties are stirring up trouble is because they know that Romney is the strongest Republican candidate once people get to know more about him.

We live in a celebrity culture and that is what is aiding Guiliani and McCain. And the wingnut vote for Huckabee in the primaries is not enough in the general election.

After the Golden Boy takes down the Broom Rider look for Captain America to win the presidency.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But how can he be so sure Mitt is good for Democrats? I'd come to think he would be the strongest choice for Republicans.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the strongest as Thompson I think is the favorite among most conservatives. Mitt is definitely the second choice I think. The Dems should be rooting for a Huckleberry nomination cause that's the weak link overall.

Randy (Internet Ronin) said...

The phrase "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" promptly springs to mind.

Middle Class Guy said...

What Kos is advocating borders on the criminal. Hilarious mischief and pranks are some of the things the Watergate people went to prison for. Kos is no longer just some propaganda blogger appealing to the conspiracy theorists in the Democratic Party. He is a power player in the party and a member of the media. As such, he is expected to have some standards and ethics. Also, he is advocating the same corruption that he rants against. I guess there is no higher plane in Democratic Politics. Kos is nothing more than an irresponsible teen ager in an adult world.

rastajenk said...

"Really, Kos, are you at all thinking straight?"

Really, Ann, has he ever?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Taking Kos' advice about who the dtrong and weak candidates are would be like acting on a hot stock tip from a guy wearing a barrel.

G said...

Let's hope Kos will do for the Democratic Presidential nominee what he did for Ned Lamont.

Roger said...

Kos, and apparently most of his acolytes, are idiots--and juvenile idiots at that. How are those netroots going? how did that Lamont thing work out? What children.

George said...

Ron Paul will do well in Michigan.

The economy is terrible there.

Terrible, especially around Detroit.

Worst residential housing market in the country.

Crimso said...

Early voting begins here next week. I was going to vote for Fred, but I'm voting for Hillary so as to cancel out at least one of the Kidz' (how aptly named) votes for Romney.

Pogo said...

Hasn't Kos graduated from high school yet?

Doyle said...

Mickey Kaus annoys me in a lot of the same ways that Ann annoys me, but at least as a political analyst he knows what he's talking about.

Having a fragmented field whaling on each other in the primaries is bad for the Republican party's chances. It may make each of them look more "interesting" to you, but it makes most people think of Huckabee as a liberal, McCain as an immigrant-coddler, etc.

Same goes for the Democratic primary, btw. I supported John Edwards but now want him to step aside and endorse Obama to keep Hillary from the nomination and keep the power struggle to a single front.

And Mitt as the most viable GOP candidate? B please. He talks like John Kerry fer cryin' out loud. He said foreign policy is like "three-dimensional chess" last night.

Lastly, I have reservations about encouraging Dems to vote for Mitt, even though I think it would help us and the graphic is very funny.

tightspotkilo said...

The leftards would be thrilled with either Romney or Hucklebee for the most obvious reason: they get to make fun of them over their religion.

Roger said...

Doyle: I am starting to worry about you, man. You really seem to be getting more rational and lucid. You arent turning conservative, are you? :)

Doyle said...

BTW, are the Republicans here as excited about Fred Thompson's debate performance as the folks at the Corner? I thought it was pretty impressive myself. When he has a little energy he really does sound like a ferocious wingnut, which of course scares me but even I find him more appealing now than when he was just bored.

how did that Lamont thing work out?

You see a "D" next to Joe Lieberman's name? That man is vermin, and Lamont has my eternal gratitude for trying to remove him from office.

Fred said...

It's all b.s. Democrats can't lose in 2008. Without cheating and fudging a bit, the GOP winning is a near impossibility. After watching last night's debate, the only conclusion I can come up with is that the GOP has become the party of assholes. Even comments here, often by a few staunch supporters that champion the GOP's "cause" are pretty indicative of where the party's soul is.

All of the Mike Huckabees in the world won't help reclaim the party's soul, and the GOP would be wise to veer towards the more liberal of the GOP candidates if they want a fighting chance against the anti-War Democrats.

"Tax and Spend liberals" and "Moonbats" and "Leftards" indeed. Keep fighting the good fight.

kb said...

Ann, why on earth do you think that Romney has the best chance? I know that polling has taken a dip in reputation since New Hampshire, but still - all the RCP polls show McCain has the best chance to beat either Clinton or Obama. And if anyone takes second or third, it'd be Giuliani or Thompson.

Besides, Romney is repugnant. The man will say anything to get elected. Makes my stomach turn.

Crimso said...

"Keep fighting the good fight."

By all means, keep assuming victory. Of course, if it doesn't happen, we'll have to listen to the incessant shite from the anus of a bull about a stolen election, so maybe I will vote for the Dem in the general just to avoid having to hear such idiocy (again).

Doyle said...

the only conclusion I can come up with is that the GOP has become the party of assholes.

Occam's razor in action!

AJ Lynch said...

Doyle is an Edwards supporter. I find that interesting as many of the nutroots seem to be backing Edwards too.

Does that mean Edwards is viewed by Dems as the most far-left of the Dem candidates? I guess it does though Obama is out there too.

Crimso said...

"Occam's razor in action!"

Occam is in desperate need of a good strop.

Doyle said...

I wanted Edwards because I don't like Obama's incessant Sister Souljah'ing of the liberal base, or his "bipartisan" rhetoric which gives Republicans an olive branch that they obviously don't deserve.

The redeeming quality is that Obama can win, and there's every reason to think that when he talks about "bipartisanship" he's really talking about Republicans abandoning their bankrupt party and doing the right thing for once.

I have many problems with Edwards, actually, but felt that if he won he would be in hoc to the liberal wing of the party (instead of to moderate Republicans) and thus would be less likely to run to the center once elected.

Bob said...

Ann, Your analysis is spot on. Let them play their games. The Republicans have five very strong candidates.

paul a'barge said...

It's past time for Michigan to make it legal for only registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primary.

Pogo said...

All of the Mike Huckabees in the world won't help reclaim the party's soul

Huckabee is a Truman-Kennedy Democrat, like NYC's Lindsay in the 1960s. When they are independently rich they're called Rockefeller Republicans.

The Republican soul is at its best when characterized by conservatism. But the US has been the land of social democrats since FDR. Despite the loyal opposition run by WF Buckley et al arranging a Reagan victory in 1980, we have really been a one-party state, with two factions of statism jockeying for power.

Statist Dems ask: Do you want a large and growing State dictating your speech, homelife, school, work, and health care, with a mostly isolationist foreign policy?
Statist GOPers ask: Do you want a large and growing State dictating your speech, homelife, school, work, and health care, with a mostly interventionist foreign policy?

jeff said...

"That man is vermin, and Lamont has my eternal gratitude for trying to remove him from office."

He disagrees with you on something and that makes him vermin?

Kirk Parker said...

What rastajenk said: why start now?

And Doyle, could you possibly be more despicable than this: "his "bipartisan" rhetoric which gives Republicans an olive branch that they obviously don't deserve." OK, hope you enjoy your civil war, a**h*le!

Pogo, I'm not so sure--I seem the recall the Scoop Jackson wing of the party as being pretty interventionist.

jeff said...

"The redeeming quality is that Obama can win, and there's every reason to think that when he talks about "bipartisanship" he's really talking about Republicans abandoning their bankrupt party and doing the right thing for once."


In other words, We need to give up our principles because you disagree with them and cave to your principles and that's what you call bipartisanship. Always suspected as much, surprised you actually come out and said it.

ZPS said...

Kos is an idiot. Voting for Romney in Michigan would be a disaster because it would only help Giuliani.

The more fragmented (Huckabee-Iowa, McCain-NH, Romney, MI), the better odds for no one to have momentum going in to Florida...allowing the crooked mayor to swoop in...which would be a disaster. He is the worst of all of them and his strategy all along has been Florida.

The best outcome would be for McCain to win Michigan thus maintaining momentum and blocking the crooked mayor from claiming the party is fragmented and taking Florida. No delegates for the crooked mayor, please! I'd rather have Huckabee! (At least he's not a thief or a liar.)

madawaskan said...

Does anyone know why Huckabee is dropping like a rock on Intrade-in the primary for Michigan?

Roger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger said...

ZPS: The Guardian UK did an interesting piece on Huckabee and his little habit of patronage in Arkansas--might want to google it as the Huck had a pay for play thing going: give him a gift and get a state position in effect. Or you can ask someone from Arkansas state government what they think about the Huck--for example putting his brother in law in homeland security position in the Arkansas Departmenet of Emergency Management with the position funded, however, by the Arkansas housing authority. The American media is asleep at the switch when it comes to Huck. Why they might be I will leave for you to speculate on.

Doyle said...

We need to give up our principles because you disagree with them

No you need to give up your principles because they're wrong. In fact they aren't even coherent enough to be called principles. They're just policies which benefit a small segment of the population to the detriment of everyone else.

Doyle said...

Put another way: assuming your "principles" involve blocking universal health care, staying in Iraq, and not doing anything about global warming, a lot of you already HAVE abandoned those principles.

So you 30 percenters are welcome to keep the faith but don't mind us while we steamroll your party in November and do what has to be done.

JohnAnnArbor said...

Doyle, has it ever occurred to you that people who disagree with you might just DISAGREE, rather than be inherently evil people?

Doyle said...

Whatever. I'm less concerned with their immortal souls than I am with ensuring that they are finally, at long last, discredited and marginalized as a political movement.

joe said...

Welcome to Doyle's world.
Whose principles are, socialized medicine, surrender to al qaeda and dismantling industrial society on the basis of a hoax.

Tano said...

Are you guys serious at all?

Romney is clearly the weakest candidate of the possible nominees. A plastic panderer who cannot even win the primary in his neighboring state! He is certain to lose big time.

The only Republican that Dems have any reason to fear in John McCain. He may have p.o.ed quite a number of Republicans but they sure are not going to stay home and watch Hillary or Barack become president.

This type of cross voting goes on all the time. In Michigan, Republicans have intervened in Dem primaries many times, most recently to support Geoff Fieger in a governors race to insure Engler's third term. And the Dems deliverd this state to McCain 8 years ago as well. There is nothing out of the ordinary in Kos's request.

And what on earth are people talking about when it comes to Ned Lamont? How did that hurt the Dems? A statement was made that neoconism has no place in the Democratic party, but we still control the seat in the Senate. Worked out just fine.

Crimso said...

"It's past time for Michigan to make it legal for only registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primary."

But to do that, you'd actually have to prove you are who you say you are. Can't have that.

"not doing anything about global warming"

You obviously didn't get the memo. It's "climate change" now. But let me know when you've determined the optimal climate, much less how we are to achieve it. Perhaps we could shift the Earth's orbit somehow, eh? Let's construct a computer model to determine where the new orbit should be!

Roger said...

Doyle: statements of values--that is, a statement of what "ought" to be--cannot be wrong. At least thats the deontological position. Politics is sometimes defined as the struggle for which of those values will be, in David Easton's words, "authoritatively allocated." (prevail as policy.)

JohnAnnArbor said...

"Neoconism"?

Crimso said...

"but we still control the seat in the Senate."

But it's still not Democratic. Nice big tent you've got there. Tolerant and all (see Doyle's above comments as well). Lieberman a neocon? Oh, that's right. He's Jewish. Odd how many Dems thought Lieberman was okay enough for VP in 2000. Must have something to do with Rove. It HAS to.

Crimso said...

"but don't mind us while we steamroll your party in November"

Keep counting those chickens and we'll be treated to yet another attempt to recount and recount and recount until the Dems get their desired result.

Crimso said...

And Doyle, let me guess. You don't understand how Bush was elected (twice; oh forgot, he was "selected" the first time by SCCOTUS and the second time by Diebold) because no one you know voted for him.

jeff said...

"Put another way: assuming your "principles" involve blocking universal health care, staying in Iraq, and not doing anything about global warming, a lot of you already HAVE abandoned those principles."

Damn straight. No need to screw up everyone's health care for something that actually effects about 15-20 million Americans. Work on getting insurance for them.
I don't feel comfortable tossing the Kurds to the wolves. Not to mention the rest of them just trying to get by. You may feel differently. As you may have learned by now, you can not go back in time, so arguing about being in there in the first place doesn't help anything. Unless your typing on your bicycle driven pc and internet connection, your using oil and like it or not, we have a interest in that part of the world.

The only thing that CAN be done about global warming or climate change or whatever the term is this week is to wring your hands and worry about it, and you have that covered. I see no reason to spend my money on it. Same reason I don't want to fund the search for Santa, or to find Bigfoot, or to fund the expedition to the middle world. In 20 years you will be bitching about the evil Republicans who won't spend the money to fight global cooling. And feeling morally superior over us because you ARE willing to spend our money to do so.

James said...

Jeff said:

"In other words, We need to give up our principles because you disagree with them and cave to your principles and that's what you call bipartisanship. Always suspected as much, surprised you actually come out and said it."

As a social liberal, economic moderate-to-conservative, I definitely don't agree with much of Doyle's rhetoric. However, his characterization of bipartisanship reminds me an awful lot of President Bush's "promises" for bipartisanship - essentially, yeah, you can say what you want, but I'm not going to do anything your way, because I'm the "decider"!

Crimso said...

"universal health care"

And since when does the universe end at our borders? Shouldn't Americans pay for health care for poor Chinese? Or Venezuelans? Or Cubans? Or Jovians? If we really want universal health care, let's truly make it universal (at our expense of course; we owe the Jovians).

Trooper York said...

I don't want to do that! The people on Uranus all have irritable bowel syndrome. That's gonna be pretty expensive.

Crimso said...

"President Bush's "promises" for bipartisanship"

An excellent point. I can't for the life of me figure out why Chimpy McBushitler can't be more cooperative with the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, and Durbin.

Crimso said...

I consider an ambush by TY to be the highest form of flattery (and I'm not at all being sarcastic). If I can be the straight man for you now and then, it's worth it!

jeff said...

"They're just policies which benefit a small segment of the population to the detriment of everyone else."

Wow. So you're against welfare? And food stamps? And free day care? And for voter id cards? Any number of federal entitlements that only effect a small portion of society? Your kind of harsh there.

Der Hahn said...

No Democrat has voted for something proposed by George Bush? Not ever?

jeff said...

"However, his characterization of bipartisanship reminds me an awful lot of President Bush's "promises" for bipartisanship - essentially, yeah, you can say what you want, but I'm not going to do anything your way, because I'm the "decider"!"


On which particular policies did he say that? It certainly wasn't applied broadly. On what issues did the Democrats try for bipartisanship? And that would mean meet in the middle, not come all the way over to my side. And how willing would you be to meet someone half way who spend most of their waking hours calling you Hitler and worse?

Revenant said...

People seem to forget that No Child Left Behind was a bipartisan effort between the White House and leading Congressional Democrats, receiving more Democratic votes than Republican ones. The ban on partial-birth abortion also enjoyed bipartisan support, as did Bush's global AIDS initiative.

Yeah, there were some tough partisan fights, such as over the Medicare drug entitlement (which Democrats wanted to be *bigger*, eesh), but the pre-war year of Bush's term was about as friendly as could be expected, given the circumstances under which he entered office. He even kept on some Clinton appointees!

Steven said...

It doesn't matter in the slightest how divided the Republican Party is at the current time. Nobody's going to give a damn come June, much less November. Kos couldn't do actual tactical politics if his life depended on it.

On bipartisanship . . .

The thing is, a "bipartisan" initiative, once it passes, is immediately characterized as the President's sole responsibility by the opposition party that gladly participated in its passage.

For example, take No Child Left Behind, co-written by Senator Ted Kennedy. Or the Patriot Act, which included large sections written by John Kerry (included at the insistence of Senate Democrats) and which passed the Senate 98-1. Or the Iraq AUMF, supported by Senate Democrats by a 29-21 margin.

Bush, repeatedly, in his two years sat down, worked out bipartisan deals, enacted a bipartisan policy, and then was denounced as a partisan divider in the 2002 election for the very policies he won bipartisan support to pass in the first place. The same will happen to anyone else, of any party, who tries "bipartisanship".

AlphaLiberal said...

Funny how all those bipartisans were quiet during years of Republcans poartisan excess.

But now that Dems are in the ascendency, they get the vapors over partisanship.

Cynical hypocrites.

Crimso said...

"years of Republcans poartisan excess"

Such as?

jeff said...

But now that Dems are in the ascendency, they get the vapors over partisanship.

Cynical hypocrites.

How many years democrats hold the house? 40 something? Disagreeing over policy is never something I get the vapor over. Being told I am evil because a disagreement over policy is a different story and seems to be your sides stock in trade.

Synova said...

The Truth is so obvious that anyone who denies it is obviously evil.

There are no honest differences of opinion or honest differences of philosophy. How quaint to think so!

And if the Democrats don't win in November it won't be because more people voted for Fred, it will be because someone tampered with the election.

Then a whole lot of famous and beautiful people will stomp and proclaim that this time they are SO moving to Canada and this time they really mean it too!

B.Q. Political Report said...

Romney is the weakest Republican due to his inherent inconsistencies. He is repulsive to the blue-collar Republicans that make their electoral calculus actually work. I know this from living among all breeds of Republicans my whole life. Granted, he is the strongest among the corporate types, but among the true rank and file, he is weak.

A populist appeal in contrast to Romney's corporatism is a recipe for a 56% Democratic majority.

kestenbaum said...

When it comes to primary voting, Michigan is not like other states. We don't have party registration or even choice-of-ballot in our primaries. Voters get to decide, within the privacy of the voting booth, which party primary to participate in (the ballot includes both).

Naturally, this makes it very easy for anyone to cross over and vote in the other party's primary and leave no tracks. It happens all the time.

The fact that, as a special deal for the presidential primary only, you have to DISCLOSE which party ballot you're voting on, is causing enormous angst here. Lots of angry voters think this invades their privacy.

Democratic and Republican activists are likely to be embarrassed by a record showing they voted in the other party's primary, so I expect a LOW number of crossovers.

I agree with several commenters above that Democrats should choose Democratic nominees and Republicans should choose Republican nominees. But that's a very controversial notion in Michigan, and Republicans in the legislature will fight like tigers to prevent it from coming about.

I strongly disagree with the notion that parties should run and pay for their own primaries. That way lies fraud, intimidation, and party boss control of government.