A Super Tuesday Nailbiter Puts Romney on His HeelsBut then... that's the one I linked to. You can see why they do it. Sensationalism. It's embarrassing, but it's a way of life in the media.
With a shockingly thin margin in Ohio, Mitt Romney has a shaky Super Tuesday and Rick Santorum claims a moral victory.
IN THE COMMENTS: chickenlittle said:
I don't quite fathom the "put on his heels" idiom. Does it mean like making a dog heel? Does mean put on woman's heels? Or it is a "round heels" reference?Romney said he wasn't going to set his hair on fire, and I don't think he's going to don stilettos. "Round heels" is an old-fashioned expression signifying women who are easy to tip over. Rush Limbaugh resurrected it in one of his Sandra Fluke rants last week. ("OK, so, she’s not a slut. She’s round-heeled.")
I don't think Romney is cooling his heels or taking to his heels or showing a clean pair of heels. He's certainly not hairy at the heel. ("The Colonel delivered himself of the opinion that Godfrey Burrows was slightly hairy at the heel, a pronouncement which baffled Poirot completely.")
And it's got nothing to do with that Marvin Gaye song "Sexual Heeling." (Arf!)
I think the relevant idiom the headline writer intended to approximate is: rock back on one's heels. I'm visualizing a comics version of Mitt Romney, dramatically angled backwards. Aw! In my mind's eye, he looks just like Dagwood. And Ann is Blondie.
ADDED: For Dylan fans:
Take me on a trip upon your magic swirlin’ ship
My senses have been stripped, my hands can’t feel to grip
My toes too numb to step
Wait only for my boot heels to be wanderin’
Seen you turn the corner, seen your boot heels spark
Seen you in the daylight, and watched you in the dark
Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
You have slayed me, you have made me
I got to laugh halfways off my heels
I got to know, babe, will you surround me?
So I can tell if I’m really real
Posts
168 comments:
The Hell you say, it's the way of life in America,...
Really, why is a competitive race a bad thing? Why are we supposed to pretend that something is wrong with a system where people's votes count?
I don't quite fathom the "put on his heels" idiom. Does it mean like making a dog heel? Does mean put on woman's heels? Or it is a "round heels" reference?
On his heels refers to a boxer that was hit hard and he is no longer is on his toes but is flat footed and backing up.
Romney is not on his heels. All the rest of them are.
He is weak, weak, they say! But who do they have that is stronger? Santorum? No, even Palin could not bring herself to vote for that loser.
{On a side note, what is with all the wives fondling their husbands on stage as they arrive/introduce them -- the worst is Santorum's wife}
Thanks trad guy!
I'm quite annoyed with the 40% of Republican voters in Virginia who voted for Crazy Ron. Why don't they love Willard the way the Professor and I do?
pm317 said: {On a side note, what is with all the wives fondling their husbands on stage as they arrive/introduce them -- the worst is Santorum's wife}
You're either homosexist or against PDA in general.
Romney is on his feels because he can't win decisively against frothy. It's an indication of how weak a candidate he is and Republicans know it
"{On a side note, what is with all the wives fondling their husbands on stage as they arrive/introduce them -- the worst is Santorum's wife}"
-- They are trying to reignite the magic that was the Gore kiss 2000.
Everything in the US is about hype, wind chill, heat index, any kind of large numbers, headlines seem to sell. This would explain sales of National Enquirer, little content, all headline and soundbite. Our national attention span is too short.
Romney is not on his heels.
Willard is quite light on his feet. He dances almost as well as he sings! I can't wait to see him at the Inaugural Ball.
Santorum would almost have to win every single state from here on in to win the nomination. I haven't done the math the way team Obama did 4 years ago when that incredibly influencial article appeared which showed mathematically Hillary could not win the nomination, but I'm sure it's even more conclusive for Romney now than it was for Obama then.
What in the world does "moral victory" mean? Just a week or 2 ago Santorum was leading in Ohio by double digits, and even days ago was favored to win.
Yet Romney closed that gap and won (and would have won by a larger margin if Democrats hadn't voted for Santorum).
Just yesterday, most pundits claimed that Santorum needed to win Ohio (a state which was politically favorable to him, and which was recently considered in the bag) in order to stay "relevant"-- otherwise it was game over. Santorum lost.
What "moral victory"?
Whatever Romney wins, he just can't win the spin.
NRO's Corner said pretty much the same thing about Romney.
Meh.
It's ABO for me. I'd vote for the pug if it ran.
Hell, I'd vote for the purple bandana over King barry.
Remind me again when Bambi decisively defeated Hillary!
A moral victory is what cemented Gore as President in 2000.
BTW, is there an amoral victory?
I thought the best coverage was, surprisingly, on MSNBC. Rachel Maddow had a good round table discussion. Somebody pointed out that if Gingrich hadn't been in it then Santorum would have won Georgia and Ohio. To be outspent 10:1 in Ohio and to come within 1% of victory (Santorum) is pretty good. For the analogy, Romney is a boxer who is 'put back on his heels' by his opponent. If Gingrich would accept the prospect of a UN ambassadorship in a Santorum administration then the race belongs to Santorum. As far as religious prejudice, is their a Jewish thing against the Catholic?
Romney's got more than double the next best candidate's delegates, but the media is knitting a narrative: GOP is weak, so weak that they can't get behind their frontrunner. You think that they won't play this out through November? You think in Sept and Oct they won't be constantly beating the drum of the nominee that no one wanted?
Stop playing into their hands, here. If you're not supporting Romney right now, you might as well just give up and let Obama take it. It's time to stop attacking conservatives and remember what this race is actually about.
Personally I don't count on anything from the media.
Pundits have to earn their money to keep the 24/7 cable TV bullshit going--This is simply a dumb headline promulgated by journalists who are a step below lawyers on the disgusting scale.
"For the analogy, Romney is a boxer who is 'put back on his heels' by his opponent."
-- You normally aren't put on your heels when you're winning. It's more "failed to deliver a knock-out punch."
So, Romney will win on points. Still a win, but not as decisive as a 10-count.
I love me some boxing metaphors.
The Republicans are weak and the media are just reporting that - it's obvious. The media cares that they are accurate. They pay for it when they're not.
Partisans are the ones who don't necessarily care if the narrative is all that 100% accurate. Spinning by partisans is not exactly the crime of the century.
If Gingrich would accept the prospect of a UN ambassadorship in a Santorum administration then the race belongs to Santorum.
Santo still has to win 2/3 of the remaining delegates to win. Does that really seem likely?
But sure, let's keep holding onto "hope" and keep watching all of our potential nominees' negatives climb. Might as well just keep hoping that the Obama recovery will magically improve.
phx, you seem to be assuming that "the media" and "partisans" are mutually exclusive.
Big ol' fallacy right there.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKhUhkdKu1TqnFTIA63E12XjXCZg?docId=30a34685713d4b77a8ca0433956ddc54
-- This amused me. I wonder if this shows an inherent weakness if Obama can't even win against this guy, or if this will just be a fluke.
Yeah I know. Not all media cares if they are accurate. But complaining about violations of neutrality or accuracy from HuffPo or Drudge seems pointless to me. It's just another tear in the time-space continuum.
yashu, you seem to be assuming that "the media" and "partisans" are mutually inclusive.
Mine's a fallacy but your contention isn't?
I think what's most impressive is that Willard is defeating some awfully good competition. Maybe he's not winning by a lot, but he's winning nevertheless.
Willard has nearly 50% of all pledged delegates so far. The race is over folks!
Not all media. :)
Please, please, please tell which is it --
that we have to end this NOW, NOW, NOW and settle on one candidate NOW and everyone fall in line NOW?
or
that it is no big deal if the journey to the nomination has not been quick?
If you really MUST know, one of the BIG reasons that Romney has not rolled in all up is because of the Romney Mandate that you all insist on shoving down everyone's throats, the mandate that we all must shut up and get behind him no matter what. People are quite resistant to such arrogant presumption.
We would never read something like that about a democrat.
As an antidote to these kinds of articles, see William McGurn's piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "Reagan Was a Loser, Too." Don't know if this links works if you don't have a subscription:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577263624201684582.html
McGurn discusses a NYTimes piece from Feb 1980 called "Jimmy Carter's Luck." The conventional wisdom was that Carter was lucky Reagan had won the New Hampshire primary, because he would be Carter's easiest opponent. Truly clueless.
phx, I don't see where I necessarily assume that.
You're the one who defines "the media" and "partisans" against each other @9:03.
But I take your point, it's nothing new or surprising or extraordinary. News at 11: it's the news at 11.
Blogger chickenlittle said...
---------
I am neither. Just an observation -- with politicians everything is suspect and I am seeing some kind of 'oh, look at us, how happy and romantic we are and how supportive I am of my husband' kind of display. Ron Paul and Mrs. excluded. They behave like an old mature couple.
It is all about sensationalizing the presidential candidate -- remember Judith Warner's NYT piece on Obama (she dreamed she was taking a shower with him).
Exceptfor Michael Barone, it is not obvious that many in the media have he remotest understanding of the American people.
Yashu that's my point, thanks.
Now and then you gotta help your opponent to make his best case.
And then you demolish it. Otherwise, you're just another punk!
Bender said: that we have to end this NOW, NOW, NOW and settle on one candidate NOW and everyone fall in line NOW?
Bender, realistically speaking, what do you think the chances are that Santorum and/or Gingrich can win 2/3 of the remaining delegates?
If they can't, and Romney can't cinch it before then so it goes to the convention, there's no nominee until mid-August. How realistic is it that the GOP nominee can build a message and win in 2.5 months, when Obama's been running since 2009?
Lyssa what if Gingrich gives up this week? What do you think then?
phx: I suspect Mr G's ego is much to large to have him give up
To all of you holdouts, it is very simple --
Mitt Romney does not have to earn your support. He is entitled to it. Now get in line with the rest of the sheep.
Lyssa said...
Romney's got more than double the next best candidate's delegates, but the media is knitting a narrative: GOP is weak, so weak that they can't get behind their frontrunner.
-----------------
Yeah, that seems to be the name of the game. Whatever Romney does is not enough. I am surprised that Fox is playing along and people like George Will and Krauthammer seem to be working for Obama, denigrating Romney at every stage.
phxLyssa what if Gingrich gives up this week? What do you think then?
Not much, Santo is still way behind. He can drag this thing out even more, though.
I also wouldn't be too tied to the idea that Santo gets all of Gingrich's votes. For example, my husband backed Gingrich, but likes Romney and hates Santo.
Actually my earlier point was it's not just a libtard media conspiracy that the GOP is weak. The GOP *is* weak.
Lyssa yeah but IF Gingrich were to drop out soon, very soon, it might make sense for Santorum to carry on. That's all I'm sayin'
Bender said: Mitt Romney does not have to earn your support. He is entitled to it. Now get in line with the rest of the sheep.
Romney's long past won my eager support. He's not a perfect candidate, but he's really impressive in a lot of things that we really need right now.
I understand that you feel differently - so I'll ask you again to just look at this practically, realistically speaking, what are the chances of a non-Romney outcome?
there's no nominee until mid-August
So? Why the hell is the convention in August then? Why isn't it in April?
Why are we wasting our time and money with all of these post-New Hampshire primaries anyway? Why are we bothering to allow everyone all around the country to say their say?
They should do what they are told, damn it.
And here's another reason that Romney does not have to earn your support and you must back him -- because you suck, that's why, because you are a stupid idiot for not doing so already.
So, Bender, I take it you absolutely refuse to even consider the actual rational practical evaluation of the situation. You'd rather just be mad and not even consider the math?
If Obama wins this thing, it's because of people like you.
At least half of the so-called Romney supporters do so because of the Lyssa argument -- well, he is going to be the nominee regardless, so we might as well get on board. And the other half is the other half of the Lyssa argument -- well, the others have been successfully torn down, and by tearing down the others, Romney builds himself up.
For example there clearly is a divide among the Republicans. It's not partisanship that makes media report on that.
I know that I haven't actually seen an example of such a split, hmmm, but I'm pretty sure that there are some Republicans who aren't getting along together.
If you guys see an example let me know, ok? Because I'm pretty sure it's not just a lieberal media untruth.
If Obama wins this thing, it's because of people like you
I repeat myself --
Here's another reason that Romney does not have to earn your support and you must back him -- because you suck, that's why, because you are a stupid idiot for not doing so already.
______________
If Romney is the nominee, then Obama wins regardless of what happens in November.
phx, you're not entirely wrong. It's people like Bender who are far more harmful then just the media. They're playing into the media's and the liberal's hands, is my point.
If Romney is the nominee, then Obama wins regardless of what happens in November.
That's just stupid. Romney has a solid chance at beating Obama, based on polling. A Romney presidency is extremely different from an Obama presidency in countless ways.
I'm sorry that you'd rather throw a hissy fit then put someone who has respect for the country and for business in the White House.
That's it Lyssa -- just keep digging that hole. Nothing like presumption and insults to win people over.
You do know that instead of convincing and persuading, all you do is alienate people further away from Romney?
Jim Gust, that was a very interesting read. Thanks for linking to it.
I think it's just cover for douchebags like Andy (who incorrectly imagines a difference between characterizing the religious as idiots and characterizing homosexuals as psychologically ill) who want to pretend that Romney's as weak on substance as Obama.
Before asking that candidates bow out, everyone should remember that the primaries are covered by the media as a short term battle to pick the nominee.
Well, they are that, but they're also the battle that shapes who gets what in a future Republican administration.
The candidates are standard bearers for their wings of the party, and whatever bargaining chips they have (delegates, ability to draw the press, energized supporters, ability to make life difficult for the nominee) translates into influence in the administration of the winner.
Believe it or not, the longer Santorum fights, the better chance his campaign people have of getting a job in a Romney campaign or administration.
"But then... that's the one I linked to. You can see why they do it. Sensationalism. It's embarrassing, but it's a way of life in the media."
True enough, and of no consequence.
Romney will, despite his obvious flaws, win the Republican nomination.
Once that happens, and voters begin to focus on the race between the two candidates, the Republican primary dynamic will not matter. Romney will win or lose because of the race he runs against the failed affirmative-action hire for which too many idiots voted, not because of anything that happened between he, Santorum and Gingrich.
Chances are, given the manifest, obvious failure Obama has been, enough people learn from their mistakes and vote for Romney in November.
Nearly everyone knows someone unemployed; nearly everyone knows someone foreclosed upon or upside down; nearly everyone will have spent a summer paying unprecedented gas prices.
November 12 will show us, in Obama's vote total, what the irreducible quotient of idiots in America is.
I'm betting it's 49% of voters.
Now for a flat-out partisan statement:
Regardless of how much Republicans hate Obama or hate his policies, they aren't offering *anyone* who is an improvement. These guys aren't even as good as McCain was (up until the point he selected Palin).
The fact is Obama's policies and his warped view of human nature re what motivates the average person is destroying the economy. If he gets a second term, he will put the final nail in the free market coffin.
That is why I support Romney- he can draw the support of independents and moderates. Neither Saintorum nor Gingrich can match that. Romney will cast Obama and his socialist policies out of power. Romney will be a steady hand and a calming, unifying influence on the American people.
This is not merely a battle for the nomination, this is a WAR for the soul of the Republican Party.
Let's be completely honest here -- if you want to know what a Romney Administration would look like, just take a look at the Boehner House, which has done nothing of substance to stop Obama on anything and has, in fact, facilitated Obama's program of destroying the country by, among other things, voting in favor of increasing the debt limit by over $2 trillion dollars and by voting in favor of spending that leaves $1.5 trillion deficits.
If Romney is the nominee, then Obama wins regardless of what happens in November.
This is a logical impossibility.
By the way, Roger Murdoch is a big Santorum fan, effusively endorsed and extolled him a while back. For whatever that's worth.
phx, I'm not convinced most Newt supporters would move to Santorum, even if Newt droppod out and endorsed him.
Those who are sticking with Newt-- haven't yet moved on to Santorum as the most viable not-Romney-- are sticking with Newt for a reason. The sheer gravitational pull of not-Romneyness is not enough for Santorum to attract them (yet).
IMO, those sticking with Newt aren't sticking with him because their priority is to prevent Romney from getting the nomination-- otherwise they'd have moved on to Santorum already. They genuinely believe Newt would be the best candidate, and maybe have some slim hope he might re-surge-- worth sticking it out for.
But if/ when they're forced to give up on Newt, IMO they're just as likely to make a pragmatic ABO choice for Romney as an antiRomney choice for Santorum. The current Newt supporters are not, by and large, ultra-social-con-- i.e. they may be social conservatives, but if they're going for Newt over Santorum, social conservatism isn't at the top of their electoral agenda.
For many of them, in the end, Romney may be the more palatable (albeit grudging and reluctant) choice.
Vote for Romney because he's not Rick Perry.
Vote for Romney because he's not Herman Cain.
Vote for Romney because he's not Newt Gingrich.
Vote for Romney because he's not Rick Santorum.
Vote for Romney because he's not Barack Obama.
Why don't we nominate Hillary? She's not any of these people either, and she would be certain to capture a large proportion of independent and Democrat voters.
Projecting much, Bender? Do you have so little confidence in your own opinion that you feel you are being forced toward the Romney Alternative? What if the majority of Republican voters back Romney, are they just tools, or is there really such a thing as democracy? Your bitterness comes off a pissy whining. go ahead and back your candidate until he inevitably backs out, but don't try to take down everybody else as you fall.
Bender: That's it Lyssa -- just keep digging that hole. Nothing like presumption and insults to win people over.
Well, how can I argue with such iron clad logic as "A victory for Romney is a victory for Obama!" I don't know, maybe if you caps locked a few more words. . .
Santorum and Gingrich can't raise money like Rick Perry did and they don't have organization like Ron Paul. Romney is outspending Santorum because Romney can raise money and Santorum and Gingrich can't. Romney is organized and efficient and calm, as he has been since he was probably 6 years old.
Romney is going to beat Obama and he is going to be President. Hopefully he will be a decent one.
Why shouldn't a good libtard like me love a WAR for the soul of the Republican Party?
I couldn't disagree more with phx's statement at 9:41. There's no use even arguing about it-- neither one of us has a chance of swaying the other on that point.
I couldn't disagree more with phx's statement at 9:41. There's no use even arguing about it-- neither one of us has a chance of swaying the other on that point.
But think about the missed opportunities to demonize one another yashu.
In fact I may call you a slut or some such thing anyway.
Romney is on his feels because he can't win decisively against frothy. It's an indication of how weak a candidate he is and Republicans know it
If this is as true as you say, it's going to be all the more embarrassing when the milquetoast guy from central casting beats the left's messiah.
@Bender 9:46--
Each reason you list is a good reason.
Would that be the same Enquirer that was the only news source to hunt down the Edwards-Hunter affair?
But seriously, this proportional assignment of delegates is killing the news media. It's complicated and drawn out (and much more democratic than the Democrat's Superdelegate system). It doesn't make for snappy newsertainment...and it requires *blech* math skills.
What would Bob Dylan do?
Vote for Romney because he's a smart, successful business leader.
Vote for Romney becuase he understands and respects businesses and the job market.
Vote for Romney because he has a history of turning around failed businesses and can turn around our economy.
Vote for Romney because's he smart, mature, and reasonable, and won't shoot off his mouth.
Vote for Romney because he agrees with you on 99% of the issues, if you're a Santorum/Gingrich fan.
Vote for Romney because he has leadership experience as governor.
Vote for Romney because he's focused on the issues that matter and won't allow the media to sidetrack him into stupid issues.
Vote for Romney because he's tough and doesn't allow criticism to get under his thin skin.
Vote for Romney because he loves America and wants to make it better than Obama.
phx
That's cool, but I prefer "harlot" or "wanton".
phx said...
"What would Bob Dylan do?"
"There was no point arguing with Dave (Van Ronk), not intellectually anyway. I had a primitive way of looking at things and I liked country fair politics. My favorite politician was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who reminded me of Tom Mix, and there wasn't any way to explain that to anybody. I wasn't that comfortable with all the psycho polemic babble." -Bob Dylan, Chronicles, page 283
Phx,
By the same logic, the democrats were weak in 2008 because Obama and Clinton were both fighting it out until the PA primary near the end of the primary season.
The primary fight is a long slog, a numbers game and fratricidal. It should never be an annointment. Has there ever been a Presidential nominee that didn't have a tough primary fight since this modern, non-brokered convention system started? Did such a nominee ever win if they weren't already in the White House?
There you go. No point arguing with Dave Van Ronk he says. You might notice that's actually my motto too.
The media want a winner now so that they can concentrate on him and him alone. It's too distracting for the media to have to concentrate on four (!) candidates right now.
Hurry up you stupid sheeple. There should be a clear winner by now. There was in the GOP race in 2008.
This is why we need a national primary day. The old arguments against (all the candidates can't travel the country or pay for ad buys everywhere at the same time) don't really work anymore what with youtube and viral videos. As it is the candidates don't visit all the states where primaries are being held, just the "important" ones.
wv: homptic estuting
Sorry Lyssa -- folks like me are not allowed in the Big Tent in order to cast our votes.
The big problem is that the story the media (and the trolls) have is not the story they want, and the trolls are too dumb to analyze it.
2 big things out of yesterday:
When he has to, Milton always pulls out the big win, as he did in MI.
Without a Demo effort, Santorum would not have given a good effort in OH, as was the case in MI (which, of course, shows how weak the unions really are).
Milton is far from on his heels. As Lyssa notes, he's way ahead in delegates (name of the game, after all) and keeps winning the big city states.
All the trolls and the media have right now is FUD.
No point arguing with Dave.
By the same logic, the democrats were weak in 2008 because Obama and Clinton were both fighting it out until the PA primary near the end of the primary season.
And, we can always wonder when Hillary! was offered the job of Secretary of State. Hard to believe that she was the best candidate for the job, esp. how poorly she has done, likely because she really had no training in this area. We will probably always wonder if there was some sort of quid pro quo here, with her being offered the job in trade for dropping out and letting Obama get an early start on the general election (though, still pretending to be running for the nomination, which allowed him to use federal funding while building his war chest (much of which appears to have come from illegal contributions, but with AG Holder at his back, BFD) for the general election).
I do think that Romney could find places in his Administration for both Santorum and Gingrich. I like the idea of the UN for Gingrich. There, he wouldn't have much in managerial responsibilities that he could screw up, but would have a great soap box. Not sure of where he should put Santorum, but I do think that there would be a lot more cabinet level posts available for him in an Romney Administration than for Gingrich.
@Pogo,
BTW, is there an amoral victory?
Gregoire's victory for WA Governor.
Franken's victory for MN Senator.
Sorry Lyssa -- folks like me are not allowed in the Big Tent in order to cast our votes.
That's a crock.
1) Register Republican
2) Vote in Republican primary or caucus
Not difficult. A variation is:
1) Register Democrat
2) Vote in Democrat primary or caucus
Stunning in it's simplicity. In some states they even reduce step one to Register to vote. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be voting.
@phx,
You can't judge the strength of the GOP by its intra-party battle.
The topics of discussion are entirely different than the ones that will come up when the GOP nominee takes on Obama.
One thing I like about Mitt is that he has been trained to tune out static and wishful thinking to determine the actual value of any particular proposition.
In the end, Romney won way more than Santorum did last night. He widened his delegate lead.
The next round of primaries are distinctly hostile to Romney. But he'll still pick up delegates, holding on to most of his current overwhelming lead.
He does not do well in the South, true. But does that mean in November Obama will sweep up all the Santorum and Gingrich votes looking for a safe place to go? No.
The proportional delegate system that the GOP has this year assures that Santorum, Paul and Gingrich will find reasons to keep going. So does the new nature of grassroots self-organizing on the web. Santorum fans can talk to whole lot of other Santorum fans and keep themselves motivated.
But I think what Romney plans to do and would be advised to do is this: Take the battle to Obama. No reason to keep beating up Santorum so much.
The Dem race in 2008 was very different from the current race.
1) They had the chance to stroke themselves about having one of 2 historic and unassailable (by which I mean, they could yell "racist" or "sexist" at their opponents) candidates. Win-win, either way.
2) The Republicans were so prepared to hate Hillary that they didn't even see Obama coming until it was too late.
3) Republicans were in an incredibly weak place throughout - Everyone pretty much agreed that Bush was bad, and Republicans never really expected to have a good chance in the first place. Plus, McCain was a terrible candidate who wouldn't fight.
4) Most importantly, Republicans aren't Democrats. The parties simply choose their candidates differently - D's like new and exciting and sexy and greivance-mongering, while R's tend to prefer more boring and familiar candidates. They have different values; otherwise, they wouldn't be Rs and Ds. Examples from Dem elections are rarely going to show anything useful for Rep elections. It's foolish to think that they would.
@Bruce,
Not sure of where he should put Santorum....
I think Romney should fund a brand new Dept. of Piety and appoint Santorum the head.
I've already got the uniform & theme song all picked out.
Stunning in it's simplicity.
No need to duck there, Joe -- it went way over your head.
Althouse, your boy outspent Santo by quite a bit and once again squeaked by as most conservatives and evangelicals don't like him.
Republican political operatives don't like him as his unfavorability is quite high. Again, he's runnin' against (3) frickin' train wrecks w/no $$$ and he still can't seal the deal. And yes, he will (((probably))) (((eventually))) win by default ie a pyrrhic victory.
There's a reason he hasn't been on MTP or any other cable news shows for quite some time ie he's chicken, not comfortable in his own skin, a disaster w/out a script er not and never will be ready for prime time ... which are many of the same reasons he easily lost to another flip/flopping RINO (4) years ago.
>
But as always, it's ok for you to be smitten w/mittens as he is quite polished in his appearance if nothing else lol.
Althouse conservatives, keep the faith as that's what you delusional fools do best.
take care
there are two reasons for the "absurd hyperventilating". One objective, one partisanly subjectively.
Partisan view: it's all about the narrative. Obama's media allies want the weakest candidate possible. They are a little scared of Newt's quick intelligence and oration ability, because it would highlight that Obama's only ability is to read a teleprompter well. They are a little scared of Santorum's growing support from women and Christians for his moral commitment, because it would highlight Obama's secular humanism and lack of moral center.
Romney is the best answer for them: unable to eloquently defend any plank of the conservative platform, damaged in his ability to argue against Obamacare, unable to unite/inspire conservative voters.
But even he scares the Obama allies in the media because he's telegenic, has a great record, is well-organized and funded, and is somewhat moderate and unthreatening.
So the point is to make his victory seem pyrrhic: depress conservative enthusiasm as much as possible. Identify weak points for Obama to go after later.
The only objective reason to hyperventilate over the protracted nomination process is that it will drain Romney's campaign funds, allowing Obama to hit Romney with reduced fear of being hit back.
Even Clinton would have lost against even an extremely weak candidate like Bob Dole if the campaign funds had been equal going into the general election. But Dole lacked enough funds to hit back on Clinton's attacks, and Dole doesn't get the in-kind contributions that the news media automatically gives to Democrats.
The difference this year is that Romney should be able to replenish his funds for the general election, Obama has only the worst record in modern history to run on, most people recognize that the news media has the same lack of objective reality in their reporting as the liberal trolls on this site, and that a majority of the voting citizens of the US would vote for a syphilitic camel over Obama these days.
And that's before there has been a full accounting of how Obama's policies have ruined the recovery, ruined energy pricing, trampled on liberty, undermined the separation of equal branches of govt, and used the DoJ to push Marxist goals in contravention of the US Constitution.
I think 'back on his heels' is a boxing metaphor. When you're against the ropes and leaning back, your weight shifts to your heels, rather than the balls of your feet.
But Romney is winning, and being on the ropes suggests you are losing, so it is puzzling.
I view this narrative as FUD for the Republicans. Anything to help the One win in November.
I do think that Romney could find places in his Administration for both Santorum and Gingrich. I like the idea of the UN for Gingrich.
He should make deals like that with Gingrich and Santorum's friends. No way Gingrich gets into any new administration. Back-stabber, arrogant, show pony. Santorum is, to me, poison to the independents. To all of you non-RINOs, I guess he's your beau ideal in wanting the roles of men and women to be returned to the 1880s, but to RINO women, independent women and conservative Democratic woman who might vote for a Romney, they don't want to see Santorum anywhere near the new president. We get it that Santorum will have to speak at the convention. We get it that Gingrich and Paul will too. But if Romney wants to appease Santorum or his fans, appoint Sam Brownbeck to something. If Gingrich fans need a stroke, appoint Nathan Deal to something. But let the principals go off and write books and work for Fox News.
Romney's boots have big hard heels that are meant for stomping. But will the soles get lose and start to flip flop?
If Mitt's campaign in the General Election tries to pander semi-Obama policy positions on National Health Care and on remedies for the Hoax CO2/ dirty energy, then he wont get a single vote from the base that he solemnly assured he was Conservative.
Obama is such a train wreck it's almost impossible to imagine him winning. The republicans will turn out like the dems in 2008.
Even among democrats except for the die hard left and those dependant on government there really isn't that much ethusuasm for Obama. In my extended family there are a lot die hard democrats ( in NYC) and they already can see themselves voting for Romney. When liberal New Yorkers are looking for a reason to vote for a democrat it does not bode well for the democrats.
Ann forget about Rush. It's safe to vote for Mittens.
It took forever for GodZero to seal the deal, too - even with all of Dr Evil's money - and he was faced with PUMA even after he got the nomination.
I don't think Milton will have that problem.
It is not hyperbole. They are just out there shilling for their side, and portraying Romney and the Republicans as weak is intended to make the voters follow the instinct to join with the strong and winning side, i.e. the Democrats.
It is not reporting, just oldfashioned propaganda.
Well, most of this primary has been the media reporting on "controversies" that they created themselves using the debates to set said controversies up for their fellow Democrats as best they could.
If Mitt's campaign in the General Election tries to pander semi-Obama policy positions on National Health Care and on remedies for the Hoax CO2/ dirty energy, then he wont get a single vote from the base that he solemnly assured he was Conservative.
It's an article of faith among non-RINOs that Romney surely will do this. Based on what?
What he WILL do, so be prepared, is answer questions from the mainstream media that will be presented as if the CO2 problem is a looming crisis. What Romney's done so far in the campaign, gives him a way to answer it. "I can tell you what I wouldn't do: Throw money away on companies like Solyndra that never had a workable business model. We can make energy more efficient in this country if we unleash the private sector." In other word, he should basically dodge it into areas where non-RINOs and RINOs alike can agree. Certainly efficiency is a virtue -- even Cheney thought that. Whether we're doing it to reduce carbon emissions or just to save people money, it's a good thing, but only if it's the private sector's initiative.
What he should do and I think will do is pull a reverse Clinton 1992: "It's the economy, chucklehead, and fixing the economy is a man's job, not a job for someone who only knows how to run for office. The past four years have proved that. I might not be adorable or inspiring. You'll never see my face in a socialist-realist poster. But I'm a man who knows about economic issues and turning around failing enterprises that were drowning in debt. In 2008 you voted with your heart, America. In 2012 you want to vote with your head."
Okay, I'm a DINO, I'm moderate, not totally stupid, always vote, but I'm not losing my enthusiasm. Maybe that's not all Obama. I'm okay with Obama, mostly. Maybe it's just getting fed up with the process. Figuring there's more important things in my life.
That's my demo for the pollsters. And to me the Republican's offering this year so far, not even worth a close look. I'll give them one anyway. But I'm not expecting anything from this years' model.
Just sayin' that's how it is for me.
Well, most of this primary has been the media reporting on "controversies" that they created themselves
Yeah, the media did that.
Go ahead and cry
Let the tears fall from your eyes
Let them fall all down your dress
Who cares if they make a mess?
phx, I'm understanding you to say that you could see yourself considering voting R in some circumstances.
What is the problem with Romney, or what could Romney do to make you consider him, from your point of view?
(I'm just curious and trying to discuss, not trying to make any argument.)
John Stoddard says:
What he should do and I think will do is pull a reverse Clinton 1992: "It's the economy, chucklehead, and fixing the economy is a man's job, not a job for someone who only knows how to run for office
See, you admitted he isn't telling you what he will do, and then assume he will do what you think he should do. That's a problem with Romney.
Let him run, then we will get mo' of BO and mo' MO. Then perhaps we can elect a real conservative.
Absolutely Lyssa. That's a great question. I'm not pretending there was a real great chance for any Repub to win my vote. But I seriously entertained voting for McCain (Palin was a total deal breaker) and in a fit of pique I once voted for Carl Palladino.
I'll think about how to answer you seriously.
Bruce Hayden - "I do think that Romney could find places in his Administration for both Santorum and Gingrich. I like the idea of the UN for Gingrich. There, he wouldn't have much in managerial responsibilities that he could screw up, but would have a great soap box. Not sure of where he should put Santorum, but I do think that there would be a lot more cabinet level posts available for him in an Romney Administration than for Gingrich."
================
My sense is that about the last place any Republican President would want Newt Gingrich is as Sec of State or UN Ambassador.
Sure, Newt would please the rightwing rubes with lots of red meat "zingers" - but then he would fail epically.
Because Newts vast ego and instinct to be a self-centered blowhard would not allow him to be an instrument of foreign policy but instead seek to be in charge of foreign policy..and worst..soon communicating to peers and media that Newt Knows Best.
Better he go back to lobbying, hopefully making a lot less money than he did under Bush, Hastert, Delay, Frist, and his dear friend Nancy Pelosi.
Saint Torum might be a fit. But putting him in as AG, where he could try to enforce his morality on all Americans - would be a horrendous choice.
In fact, I hope Romny runs and in running specifically excludes the possibility of him appointing Newt in a foreign policy spot and Saint Torum in any position where he could try foisting his morality on us using the coercive powers of the Federal Government.
I really don't trust the GOP on foreign policy - particularly Iran, and with the exception of R Paul they are in lockstep from what I can see. I don't think they understand how to deal with the outside world. Romney was one of the "me too's" on waterboarding as I recall, only somewhat incidentally. Getting our strength up vis a vis the rest of the world is important to me. GOP really hurt that in recent years, IMO.
Economy - Romney/Obama, it's a wash to me. Obama probably kept us from tailspinning into an actual depression. I hope whoever gets in will start the process of rebuilding our economy. Really rich successful people don't get to the front of the line in my book, when it comes to a task like that. If someone thinks Obama's a total incompetent I'm sure they would think so. But I think Obama's done all right economically in the face of a miserable world eco crisis.
Like a libtard I think the environment is very important, and I don't trust Romney with that. I see him as a "profits first" guy, whatever the cost. I'm not into that style. I believe more in balance.
I don't want to repeal Obamacare. I'm open to improving it but I'm not convinced it should be repealed. In this sense Romney might be better than other GOP candidates.
I don't think Romney has the emotional intelligence that Obama has. I know, call me a fag or a libtard for thinking that's important, but I do. This is one thing I will give Romney a closer look at though. Maybe he'll surprise me.
@phx,
This isn't a slam, okay?
But you aren't anywhere near as moderate as you think.
"left", "right" and "centrist" are always relative. Agree or not as you wish, but the people/viewpoints you compare yourself with to self-designate as "moderate" are actually pretty extreme left.
The media has done what it does best: it shifted the Overton Window leftward as the Democrats shifted leftward on all sorts of identity issues.
Independent studies have used objective measures to determine that the most truly centrist news is actually Fox News. Stop a moment and think how vilified it is as being "extreme" rightist, and consider how far left the liberal gravity center is to so fervently believe that the most objectively centrist news organization in the US is actually a far-right wing nutjob wacko conservative "Faux" news propaganda.
@Nathan No slam taken.
One reason I ID myself as moderate in spite of your argument is that I don't feel at all upset by who's managing my economy, Repub or Dem. In a personal way I don't much care whether my taxes are up or down, and I'm not ideologically driven one way or the other. I also don't think either party influences the true state of the economy with their theories and tweaks.
I think whoever is president the USA will probably survive and endure and it doesn't make my blood pressure spike if a Repub is in. I think that makes me moderate.
I believe in showing the world a very strong defense and an open, generous hand. So that makes me a moderate, kind of.
Union stuff: I'm undecided. Seen good in unions and some really terrible stuff as well. My union friends say it's not their fault but I think some of it is at least.
Environment - Yeah, more libtard than moderate, guilty.
I like John Stewart, can't stand Michael Moore. I think Assange was really bad for the USA, not a friend.
I think pot should be legal, not sure of other drugs.
I think poverty and poor education are really killing the inner cities. I don't know how to fix that. It seems pointless to blame anyone now. I want a fix. But I don't think there's one at hand.
I believe in taking the full responsibility for my own life. I would never blame anyone else for what happens to me. Isn't that conservative?
I always say Don't Argue with Dave.
Anyone can call me what they want. I don't mind.
... About as exciting as watching Dewey getting nominated back in '48.
Why is it that the insiders who do the "picking" ... always think they've got a handle on who can win "because non-republicans will love the choice?
What is it? As long as he's white?
Dole and McCain taught you nothing?
In '48 you could have gotten General Douglas MacArthur. But, no'ooo. Why go with someone who could actually win?
Yeah, Obama's messed up.
So did Jimmy Carter during his one and only term. But Jimmy Carter had to run against Ronald Reagan in '80.
The day Wal-Mart's begins selling Mormon underwear to non-Mormon's ... I'll know Romney's made in-roads.
"Setting you back on your heels" may have started as a discription used in boxing. But it also means you're losing money. You've done something that makes you lighter in your pocketbook.
My sense is that about the last place any Republican President would want Newt Gingrich is as Sec of State or UN Ambassador.
Definitely not Sec. of State. That would require some sort of management skills, and he would likely be a looser cannon than Hillary! has turned out to be (when she isn't being cut out of the loop). A lot of us loved the job that John Bolton did with the UN, not playing politics and going along with their anti-American agenda, just to play nice, but, rather, was a cheerleader for this country there. That is what I was thinking of when I suggested the UN for Gingrich.
That is what I was thinking of when I suggested the UN for Gingrich.
A point of order, sir. Gingrich does not have the mustache for what you are suggesting.
@phx,
Your description is pretty moderate, as far as it goes.
But with as horrible as Obama has been as President (I could list it all, but it would take pages), I consider anyone who wouldn't crawl across broken glass to get Obama out of office to be fully and firmly within the hard left.
Heck, I'll try to list a few:
-firing Inspector Generals
-funneling taxpayer dollars to cronies' failing businesses
-screwing over creditors to reward the unions in GM and Chrysler
-threatening the financial sector with mobs
-attacking private citizens for engaging in the political process
-Fast and Furious
-defying court orders in letter and spirit with drilling permits
-using executive organizations to enact laws he couldn't get passed in Congress (undermining Rule of Law *and* the US govt system)
-the staggering number of things he continued from President Bush after running on a campaign of overturning them
-objectively lousy Supreme Court nominees (both were about as qualified as Harriet Miers was)
-all the stonewalling after promising to be the most transparent administration in history
-"I won"
-thin skin
-the contraception mandate undermining religious freedom
-the things he blamed Bush for on the economy were things he voted for as a Senator
-constant complaints about "the mess he inherited" even though he sought the job
These are all things he did, caused, or allowed. So even aside from how much influence a President has over the economy, if any, there is no reason to give President Obama a 2nd term for anything except leftist ideology.
Especially with a clear moderate likely to win the GOP nomination. Being unable to vote for Romney is about as strong of a "left-liberal" designator as you can get.
And, yes: using Rush Limbaugh or Santorum as an excuse to vote for Obama again is no different...it is just self-deception of your true leanings.
It has been suggested that Gingrich voters might support Romney. Hopefully, Gingrich will go take the temperature in a couple of Southern states and announce he is dropping out. Then the R voters can choose betweem Romney and Santorum.
So there are no moderates supporting Obama. By definition you cannot be a moderate and support Obama. If you were a moderate you would support Romney.
Shrug
In Ohio, Mitt picked up 35 delegates and Santorum picked up 21 delegates, so Mitt picked up 67% more delegates than Santorum.
I really appreciate your response, phx. Thank you.
I hope you'll come around, of course, but I don't see a lot I can work with, there. :)
Awesome specific points, Nathan.
Phx, maybe you could respond Nathan's list of specific dem transgressions in the Obama prez regime. Surprise me.
Damn, Nathan A is really gonna be pissed when Obama easily wins re-election.
I feel your pain!
In 2008, you could support Obama and be a moderate.
But just pick one issue: known tax cheats in the Obama Administration.
Based on his announcements of "paying fair share" and "raising taxes on millionaires (who make $250k/year)" and "at some point you've made enough money" and "it's better for everyone when you spread the money around" and blaming the W tax cuts for the deficit, the stunning hypocrisy of the number of tax cheats in his administration should alienate any and all people who would objectively seek the best leader of the nation.
But I'll ask, just in case I'm missing something:
What moderate arguments are there to continue to support Obama this year?
What moderate positions is he advocating that are more important than his corruption, lack of transparency, rewards to cronies, victim/identity politics, class warfare, excessive spending/deficits ($1T+/year), pro-union actions, and liberal energy policy?
These are all significant issues that clearly affect the day-to-day lives of everyone. They are all clearly extremely liberal stances, lacking in moderation at all. Remember, he refused to concede anything to Republicans at all because as he said, "I won".
I guess my bottom line is:
If your definition of "moderate" excludes any concession at all to Republican policy or conservative principles, it can't be moderate. No matter how many times liberals claim the "moderate" mantle.
What concession has Obama made to conservative principles?
Lyssa I didn't think you would find much there! Good wishes.
Steve - get bogged down in THAT list? OMG why would I do that? That would be like getting bogged down in the Viet Nam War.
I never sold myself as an Obama apologist anyway. Even if the list strikes me as just a tad partisan.
Even if the list strikes me as just a tad partisan.
The list is what it is, isn't it? It's the pointing out of it that's partisan.
"Even if the list strikes me as just a tad partisan."
phx, this is a 24/7 Obama sucks blog which is part of it's appeal to liberals. :-P
The dem troll strategy is to paint Romney as being not too different from Obama, that voting for one or the other won't make much difference. The idea is to suppress enthusiasm for Romney and thus reduce the probability of Mitt winning the GOP prez nomination or at least reduce votes for Romney in November. The dems fear Mitt because they know he is the one GOP candidate running who can beat Obama.
Most likely phx is a dem troll performing this function on the Althouse blog.
Why anyone would want my opinion anyway other than the fact that I say I'm not impressed by the GOP offerings this year. But just for fun:
-firing Inspector Generals - Don't know, missed it.
-funneling taxpayer dollars to cronies' failing businesses - I don't know I'll wait to see. Maybe you got something here.
-screwing over creditors to reward the unions in GM and Chrysler - I accept someone had to get screwed. Glad to see GM and Chrysler still hiring workers.
-threatening the financial sector with mobs - Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure.
-attacking private citizens for engaging in the political process : I have no idea what this means.
-Fast and Furious - Maybe you got something here. Eric Holder doesn't strike me as very impressive
-defying court orders in letter and spirit with drilling permits - Did he? Can we sue? Someone get on that.
-using executive organizations to enact laws he couldn't get passed in Congress (undermining Rule of Law *and* the US govt system) - I don't know what this means. Sounds like Repubs need a hankie though. Maybe I'm just uninformed though.
-the staggering number of things he continued from President Bush after running on a campaign of overturning them' - Which things? Gitmo? Patriot Act provisions? I'm not real upset by those things, I don't claim to know the right or wrong of treating terrorist prisoners. I say don't waterboard them. Other than that I don't know what you are referring to.
-objectively lousy Supreme Court nominees (both were about as qualified as Harriet Miers was) - History has a way of judging SC appointees best. I didn't think they were bad. "Ojbectively lousy" just sounds like partisan BS.
-all the stonewalling after promising to be the most transparent administration in history - What are you referring to?
-"I won" - What are you referring to?
-thin skin - Heh. You can just toss this one out right? It's not a serious complaint right?
-the contraception mandate undermining religious freedom - He stepped in it, didn't he? Seems like he came up with a compromise that defused some of the problems he created with Catholic leadership
-the things he blamed Bush for on the economy were things he voted for as a Senator - I don't know
-constant complaints about "the mess he inherited" even though he sought the job - This is just spin
Thank you, thank you. Have fun.
@phx,
I freely admit I'm a staunch, maybe even, excessive conservative.
I follow the facts where they lead, and they led me to being about as far right wing as you can be, meaning, in line with MLK, Jr on race, Dick Cheney on war, W on spreading democracy making the world better, just about any libertarian on taxes, etc.
But the list is exactly what Obama has done, caused, or allowed that are extreme left in nature.
To be moderate, he has to provide an equal conservative weight of actions. Even if he is moderate in a number of things, it just means he could be considered a little less left.
But I haven't even seen anything resembling a list of "moderate" actions by Obama.
Even the things he did to continue W's policies were done in direct contradiction to his campaign, and w/o acknowledgment that W was correct to have the policy, and in some cases were continued even while Obama criticized W for those policies. Which makes it seem more like crass posturing for political benefit than because he is moderate at all. Crass posturing can be revoked at a whim. Pretending to be a moderate to only get votes does not make someone a moderate.
And asking a President to make only a few token, ineffectual posturings toward a plausible semi-moderate stance (while still rejecting any/all conservative principles) so that you can pass yourself off as a moderate voter is deception.
Self-deception, maybe. But still deception.
"Moderate" cannot just be "the absence of conservative principles" and still have any coherent meaning.
phx,
It is a great list. Respond to one or two points. Or you could just say how many points you agree with and how many you disagree with. Anyone who is not a hard core dem is going to agree with some of those points.
phx,
Thanks for responding.
"Respond to one or two points."
SK, phx just responded to NA's partisan propaganda.
Please pay attention!
Steve, you're welcome!
Do you want to take the Nathan List challenge?
How about someone with skills make a list of complaints about Obama - something where all the points can be taken seriously. Try THAT!
"He's thin-skinned". Ha.
phx,
I already commended Nathan for his list. Be happy to discuss any specific point of his list with you. Or I could respond to your responses if you are interested.
In general, based on your responses to Nathan's list, you seem not well informed. A great web site to understand intelligent conservative thinking is NRO. A more interesting, fun site that leans libertarian is InstaPundit.
Which party wins in November will make a large difference in our future.
"Which party wins in November will make a large difference in our future."
SK's keen grasp of the obvious aside, let the record show we have found common ground. :D
Thanks Steve. If I am admittedly not well-informed on some of the issues on that list it's because I choose not to be. Life is short.
"Life is short"
phx, Gore getting more votes nationally than Bush43 notwithstanding, the 2000 election was decided because more folk thought Bush was more likely to stop and help someone change a tire than Gore. Although neither probably ever changed a tire.
This is part of mittens big problem ie he's uncomfortable in his own skin, can't relate to the common man to save his life and were not yet talking about his ever changing positions on every political issue.
Indeed, his big $$$ advantage and runnning 90% negative ads in Ohio, he squeaked by against a frickin' train wreck!
He's not likable and all the $$$ in the world will ever change that reality.
>
If the economy totally tanks, mittens may have a chance in Nov., if he gets that far. :-P
phx,
Perfectly reasonable choice on your part but why should well informed people (or anybody else, for that matter) pay attention to someone who isn't well informed? How can you make an informed political decision if you are not well informed?
Which party wins in November will make a large difference in our future.
I don't believe this.
why should well informed people (or anybody else, for that matter) pay attention to someone who isn't well informed?
"Why anyone would want my opinion anyway"
- phx at 1:34 pm
Dole and McCain taught you nothing?
This is the non-RINO meme about Romney I understand least.
What on earth does Romney have in common (and Santorum and Gingrich don't) with Dole and McCain?
Dole and McCain are political/governmental lifers -- kind of like Rick and Newt, and unlike Mitt. You heard Santorum say it himself: "Sometimes you take one for the team," meaning vote for a big, expensive intrusive federal program as part of a horse-trade that might bring money to your district. He's Dole!
If you don't want a rerun of Dole or McCain, then avoid Gingrich or Santorum.
At least I took the challenge of The List.
Some people admit they are not well-informed. This does not mean that everyone else who says that they are well-informed are actually well-informed.
At least you know the people who admit they are not well-informed are probably not lying.
Or self-deluded.
Nathan Alexander said...
In 2008, you could support Obama and be a moderate...
==================
Kudos, Nathan, for starting to shift the conversation away from how unhappy conservatives are since they can't run Reagan's corpse - to the general election argument.
Why moderates, independents, libertarians, women, professionals, dem small business owners,young people just starting on careers, hispanic workers, even non-favored union workers that MIGHT have had plausible reasons to vote for Obama in 2008 now have a myriad of reasons to reconsider.
If their vote might be better with an alternative - especially Romney. To go with someone that might better serve their interests, without threatening them.
The conversation has dwelt too long on how the fundies, die-hard rural conservatives must be coddled. Sort of like when a centrist democrat runs and diehard leftists run around crazy scared...saying they hate the centrist and will never vote for them..
Had to cut this back a bit.
-firing Inspector Generals - Don't know, missed it.
Missed a lot, didn't you? IGs are supposed to be the departmental watchdogs, and one of the first things that the Obama people did was to get rid of any of them who wouldn't go along with the program.
Probably the most egregious example of a lack of IG independence is with the DoJ. AG Holder has used the ongoing IG investigation of Fast and Furious, etc. to stone wall Congressional investigations. BUT, the current DoJ IG worked for and with him closely when he was the DC USA under Clinton. Independence? Significant appearance of partiality, esp. with evidence suggesting the commission of felonies by DoJ officials up to, and maybe including, Holder.
-funneling taxpayer dollars to cronies' failing businesses - I don't know I'll wait to see. Maybe you got something here.
Again, where have you been over the last three years? Pretty much all of the larger "green energy" loans, loan guarantees, and grants can be traced to big Obama bundlers or friends and family of prominent Democrats (including Pelosi).
And, should we be surprised that so many have gone bust, and many more on the horizon.
"Green Energy" money isn't the only government money involved either. GE got TARP funds. Yes, the same GE that had NBC/PMSNBC flogging for the President, and whose CEO remains close to Obama. Also getting TARP funds was AIG, apparently because the biggest loser if it collapsed would have been Goldman Sachs, the investment firm from which so many of his financial people came from.
-Fast and Furious - Maybe you got something here. Eric Holder doesn't strike me as very impressive
Not just F&F with the DoJ. Holder has turned out to be the most corrupt AG of our lifetimes.
Add in dropping the NBP voter intimidation case, because the perps were, well, Black. And, the Voting Rights section being run expressly to advantage Blacks, through selective enforcement of laws, opposition to voter ID laws, attacks on state reapportionments based solely on how many Blacks would have safe Democratic seats, regardless of Supreme Court precedent to the contrary.
But Fast and Furious is AG Holder's crowning jewel. Well over 2,000 weapons were encouraged to walk through known straw purchasers from Phoenix area gun dealers with no attempt whatsoever to track the weapons that were known to be destined to Mexican drug cartels, and no communications at all with the Mexican govt. that any of this was happening. The idea, apparently, was that they could be tracked at the crime scene after they were used – ie they could only be used after they had been used for murder.
The result has been 300+ Mexicans killed with these "walked" weapons, and as well as at least one American border agent. And, maybe 2/3 of the guns have yet to be recovered (at crime scenes).
So, how has the DoJ responded? A number of the higher ranked people directly involved were promoted or reassigned. The DoJ has provided about 10% of the documents requested by Congress, basing their failure to respond to the investigation of their hand picked IG. And, one of them has already plead the 5th Amdt. Plus AG holder appearing to perjure himself before Congress pretty much every time he has testified.
Nerd, please.
Anyway, those are three things I wasn't contending. Have it your way on them, you know best. I would like to hear someone else who is informed offer a counter argument before cosigning on your interpretations, however.
phx,
A lot of of people don't inform themselves about politics and have great reasons for doing so. Like you said, life is short, what you do with your life is your choice.
Thanks Steve. I agree with that. I do make an effort to be sober when I vote.
"On his heels refers to a boxer that was hit hard and he is no longer is on his toes but is flat footed and backing up."
To take it a bit further, the implication in the expression is that it will now take only a slight punch to knock the fighter over backwards.
Hardly the case with Mitt obviously, but who are they to let that get in the way with a pre-planned narrative?
I'm starting to think that newspapers are written months in advance, and all staff member who aren't involved in printing or distribution are off playing Angry Birds someplace.
Funny!
If you happen to be a young person, you probably should pay attention to the fed government debt situation. Fed gov spending is out of control. The amount spent on just paying the interest on that debt is projected to consume most of the fed gov budget in your lifetime (if you are not old). It will happen much sooner if the interest rates on financing the debt jump back to normal historical levels or beyond.
The dems won't address this problem because the core of the dem business model is to relentlessly expand the size of the fed gov.
The GOP hasn't been much better but at least the vast majority of GOP voters want to reduce the size, cost, and power of the fed gov and are figuring out (eg: Tea party) how to effectively pressure the pols of the GOP to do the right thing.
@phx,
If I am admittedly not well-informed on some of the issues on that list it's because I choose not to be.
Actually, to me, this is the most persuasive argument you've made so far that you are a moderate.
Some moderates try to take the high road of "I'm not extreme, I seek balance between extremes," and I assumed you were one of those.
But in reality, most moderates/independents are those who don't know and/or don't care about political issues. They vote based on quality of hair, or who gets the best sound-bite treatment by the media, or other such shallow points.
Basically, the politically somnambulant moderates are the ones that provide the payoff for the liberal media's false claim of "objectivity" (which veil actually takes a little effort to pierce, at least at first...too much effort for most "moderates").
But in reality, most moderates/independents are those who don't know and/or don't care about political issues. They vote based on quality of hair, or who gets the best sound-bite treatment by the media, or other such shallow points.
That's an interesting idea. I don't know, I don't speak for moderates, and they don't speak for me of course.
I have my own ways.
@phx,
A capacity for hard work, research, memorization of facts are admirable. But without good judgment, they're not so totally impressive.
And with good judgment, they (hard work, research, and memorization of facts) make you a solid conservative.
"On his heels refers to a boxer that was hit hard and he is no longer is on his toes but is flat footed and backing up."
That makes it hard to picture the nail biting. What with the boxing gloves.
Althouse is here. Look busy.
@ Althouse
Jeesh Maneesh!
'nailbiter' modifies 'super Tuesday,' speaks to the fans of the contest and contestants,, and 'on his heels' modifies 'Romney.' Passive aggressive may modify a smart law prof.
From a Romney campaign advisor:
"Super Tuesday dramatically reduced the likelihood that any of governor Romney's opponents can obtain the Republican nomination. As governor Romney's opponents attempt to ignore the basic principles of math, the only person's odds of winning they are increasing are President Obama's."
Willard is inevitable. :)
Q: "So, about that 'I like to fire people' business..."
Romney: "I have three words in response, that will provide all the context anyone needs to understand what I mean: Miramonte Elementary School."
Yeah, right; like that exchange would ever happen. If it did, though, he'd probably win the election.
@phx,
Althouse is here. Look busy.
I laughed out loud.
You rise in my regard.
Post a Comment