Every moment they spend sparring over the New Deal and Great Society is a boon to Barack Obama. Even if the incumbent cannot win a referendum on his own presidency, he can win a competition between the ghost of Barry Goldwater and the ghosts of FDR and LBJ.It seems to me that Perry is giving Mitt Romney a great opportunity to demonstrate his fighting skills.
१२ सप्टेंबर, २०११
"Why the Perry-Romney Slugfest Plays Right Into Obama’s Hands."
TNR's Ed Kilgore says:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
Ed Kilgore, Journolist member. Liar, fabricater, a person not to be trusted with the written word.
Yes, by all means, the Republican Party should take advice from people who will be voting for Obama.
Remember how Hillary Clinton's demolishment of Obama's lack of experience helped McCain win in the general election?
Me neither.
I am not buying this theory. If anything the Perry Romney slugfest makes the winner a stronger candidate to take Obama on.
I get tired of tedious, forced historical comparisons. Historical perspective has taken the luster off both of those eras. So good luck with those comparisons. Also, while American are nostalgic, they also look forward and fewer and fewer want 4 more years of what we have now.
he can win a competition between the ghost of Barry Goldwater and the ghosts of FDR and LBJ.
At this point, Barry couldn't win a competition between himself and an opponent that forfeits the day before.
Even if the incumbent cannot win a referendum on his own presidency, he can win a competition between the ghost of Barry Goldwater and the ghosts of FDR and LBJ.
This same fantasy propelled Jimmy Carter to his historic defeat. It was inconceivable that the great society could lose to the sagebrush rebellion.
Ed Kilgore is Americas Politico with EFL.
Perry is wining because he is speaking truth to power when we are in a tailspin towards crashing the country and the passengers want a pilot with correct vision more than comforting baloney.
Romney loses by hiding behind a rote of comforting baloney while the Country is in a tailspin towards a daeth crash.
We are all on a this Flight 93 and we refuse to comfortably sit down and let the hijacked country we are on be flown by suicide jihadists disguised as Democrats.
Kilgore is delusional if he believes this. I don't think he does, really, believe it. If this is the best he can do to buck up Democratic voters, then they're in worse trouble than I imagined.
The left won nearly all the economic and social arguments since FDR.
And here we are.
They would still like to pretend that the the question is whether to vote for Santa Claus over the Grinch, but Santa's broke, and promised the moon to too many good children, and he can't fulfill those dreams.
Re-electing Prez Feelgood Spendalot won't change the inevitable contraction that will occur, that is occurring.
There is no more road to kick the can down. The Big Lie of FDR (and Hoover) can no longer avoid the fact of bankruptcy.
This just in:
Dullard pundit uses 50 year-old battle to analyse today's political issues even though six out of ten voters say "Barry Who?"
Obama should come out for denying all social security benefits and medicare for Baby Boomers whose entire working career was under the Reagan Tax Cuts, the 80s economic boom, the 90s stock market and receiving the inheritance of their parents in the 00s while also shifting their parents onto those two programs so they could be the first generation to avoid taking care of their parents in their old age. Just imagine the cut to the projected debt if that happened.
Will never happen, but it's fun to toss such political hand grenades on a monday morning.
be flown by suicide jihadists disguised as Democrats
I'm coining this as the Allah-faaza (literal Arabic: God-win) corollary, in which Hitler/Nazis are replaced with terrorists in a political discussion.
This is why the media is so doggedly trying to promote a fight between the top two candidates.
Newt Gingrich, who has a snowball's chance of being President, rightly and smartly called them out on it and refused to play that game. He should keep doing that, attacking the media for their total dishonesty. I would hope the rest of the pack of robo candidates and RINO wanna be's would also continue to take that tactic.
As Newt said. They can highlight the different stances that each candidate has, but in the end....they are running against Obama.
About 70% of voters have no idea who Barry Goldwater was. But, the GOP does specialize in internecine bloodletting.
Sure, the Dems love that Romney is using the Democrat playbook.
In the general election, they'll be able to attack nominee Perry by pointing out that even Republican Romney thought Perry an evil stupid extremist.
Meanwhile, if the party chooses to commit suicide by nominating the Weasel, much of the party will be so disgusted and unwilling to yet again hold their noses when they vote and simply will stay home.
I for one will never vote for Romney, who proves himself every day, together with his insider-establishment-elitist campaign staff, to be more and more of a POS.
I for one will never vote for Romney
I don't believe robots are allowed to vote.
It was tactics like these, originating from McCain's insider-establishment-elitist staff, that poisoned Sarah Palin's political future. And it is the exact same people and exact same kind of people who are now attacking Perry from within the Romney camp.
These are the policies that are failing, and their result is 26% unemployment.
Also, What Mark O said, but the Demos can be just as nasty with each other, especially if The Wiener's seat goes R tomorrow.
Ann Althouse said...
It seems to me that Perry is giving Mitt Romney a great opportunity to demonstrate his fighting skills.
That seems to be all that's keeping Milton afloat these days.
I don't believe robots are allowed to vote.
What are you implying? That I'm a non-voting felon?
Whatever the case may be, my vote here usually doesn't count anyway. Ninety percent of the time the candidate/ballot proposal I vote for loses.
I don't believe robots are allowed to vote
I think the real issue is whether you can vote for a robot. Let's give this one to constitutional scholar Mick.
What are you implying? That I'm a non-voting felon?
That your name is Bender.
Imagine what this country would be like if Goldwater had won in 64. Perhaps we would not be in the current fiscal disaster we are in now.
He may not be much of a thinker, but his name is good for a Wheel of Fortune before-and-after: Ed Kilgore Trout.
Barry Goldwater??! As if the average voter knows who Barry Goldwater is.
So, how do the ghosts of FDR and LBJ stack up against the ghost of RR?
Whatta twit.
cubanbob said...
Imagine what this country would be like if Goldwater had won in 64. Perhaps we would not be in the current fiscal disaster we are in now.
===================
Nuclear bomb cratered America would owe no money to China! WE would be a nation of 14 million one-eyed, green scaly-skinned Freedom Lovers!!
What annoys me about Perry is that he says things I would say, if I was drunk in a bar.
Only political junkies are paying attention now. But just wait until the Democrats start looping that "social security is a ponzi scheme" comment when they run attack ads with their $400 million dollar campaign.
You think that's going to fly with seniors in Florida?
Name me the Sarah Palin gaffe that is a tenth that bad. Please, please, please! Tell me why she is so unelectable! Because I don't remember Sarah saying anything that politically stupid. Ever.
You saw what the Democrats did to Ryan when all he wanted to do was make the program solvent. He was pushing little old ladies off a cliff.
Perry is helping them write the campaign against him, with his off-the-cuff, stupid comments.
His Fed comment was moronic, too, but at least that doesn't scare the whole fucking state of Florida.
Why would you make this election about social security when our #1 goal is to repeal Obamacare?
Isn't it? Did I miss a meeting?
Yeah yeah, let's attack the popular program. It's not like old people vote or anything.
Holy crap.
just wait until the Democrats start looping that "social security is a ponzi scheme" comment
More likely, they will start looping the comments made by those who make themselves tools for the Dems.
More likely, they will start looping the comments made by those who make themselves tools for the Dems.
They'll do both!
But it's Perry who decided to make social security an issue. If you dislike Romney attacking him on it, wait until the libs get started.
Romney: "Social security needs to be fixed."
Perry: "Social security is a ponzi scheme."
Romney sounds like a politician trying to solve a problem. Perry sounds like a drunk mouthing off in a bar.
It's an idiotic thing to say when you are running for office.
Al Gore: "Social security is a lockbox."
Al Gore is a liar. You see the difference? Social security is in trouble. But Perry's rhetoric seems to be a declaration of war on social security. It's over the top rhetoric, and unncessary.
I am so not a diplomat. As somebody who has made dumbass comments my entire fucking life, can I just say I recognize one when I hear it?
And it's not like Perry goes around clueless in the state of Texas. For instance, Texas has a lot of hispanic voters. So Perry is soft on illegal immigration.
If Perry was ready for the national stage, he would be making similar wussy statements on social security. But he's not ready. I hope he learns fast. Right now he's screwing up.
And I like the guy. But cripes, let's stop patting him on the back for starting a social security brouhaha.
Perry: "Social security is a ponzi scheme."
Romney sounds like a politician trying to solve a problem. Perry sounds like a drunk mouthing off in a bar.
It's an idiotic thing to say when you are running for office.
It would have been, just a few years ago.
Are you so sure it is now?
Ed Kilgore is—he imagines it's going to be LBJ vs. Barry Goldwater all over again.
But now we've seen LBJ's Great Society programs implemented and Medicare's on its way to going broke.
And, by the way, Social Security meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
And a number of economists have said the same thing in print.
Did that make them the equivalent of drunks mouthing off?
And, by the way, Social Security meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
I didn't say he was wrong. I said it's a stupid thing to say. I like and appreciate honesty. But you also need to have diplomatic skills.
Perry is soft on illegal immigration because in Texas, you need to be soft on illegal immigration. That's a political calculation.
I do not believe this was a political calculation at all. It was a stupid, off-the-cuff remark. Romney (and Palin) have been through a national campaign before. Perry has not. And it shows. Badly.
Palin says "death panels" and it's a powerful attack on Obamacare. You can scare people on Obamacare because we don't know how it will shake out. Maybe there will be death panels? We don't know. Boom, boom, boom. She takes over the debate.
Perry says "ponzi scheme." It's a similar kind of statement, one that sticks in your mind. But he's talking about Social Security, not Obamacare. Dumb! She goes after Obama's weak spot. Perry attacks one of the left's most cherished programs. Dumb!
People like social security. We've been receiving it for 70 years. Bush tried to turn it into individual IRAs--which is a fantastic idea--and he was killed.
Palin wants to destroy Obamacare, so she says "death panels." What does Perry want? Do you know? I have no idea. Does he want to stop the ponzi scheme? How? Is he doing away with social security? His little quip raises fears, but in a bad, self-destructive way.
It's a stupid thing to say!
And a number of economists have said the same thing in print.
You understand there are all kinds of ways to phrase things? You could be far more subtle. For instance, you could attack the criminals who raided the social security trust fund. You could make clear that we need to save social security from the criminals. Is that clear from his quip? No.
He took his sock off and put his foot in his mouth. Come on.
You do know that I wasn't referring only to Romney with that "tools" comment?
But speaking of Romney, he is a needless tool on this issue since he himself has essentially said the same thing as he is now attacking Perry for.
Here is Perry, writing an article in USA Today. All of this talk sound reasonable. I agree with all of it. The whole point of this article is to undue the damage of "ponzi scheme."
You know what his editorial is actually saying? "Mend it, don't end it." That's the sort of wussy thing Republicans have been saying about Social Security for 70 fucking years.
Yes, we want to attack Obamacare. "Death panels." Smart political move. Sarah Palin is a political genius. She knows what she's doing.
No, we do not want to attack Social Security. Why are you saying anything about Social Security at all?
It's a frickin' disaster, man.
He wrote that article to reassure people that he's not attacking Social Security when he called it a "Ponzi scheme."
But the problem is that the media will endlessly recycle the bumper sticker adage and spread the meme that Perry is hostile to social security.
He's on the defensive now, don't you get that? This is a self-inflicted wound. The media hasn't even gone after him yet. They're just cranking up now.
But speaking of Romney, he is a needless tool on this issue since he himself has essentially said the same thing as he is now attacking Perry for.
Well, he broke the 11th Commandment. He's attacking a fellow Republican, which pisses off Republicans. He's making the liberal argument, which makes us mad.
But we shouldn't be talking about Social Security at all. This is Perry's fault. This is not a discussion we need to be having now.
Obamacare. Unemployment. Overregulation. Debt. Stagflation.
That's what we need to be talking about.
Who decided to attack social security? With a nice, easy-to-remember sound bite? It's so stupid, politically.
I used to subscribe to the New Republic, by the way. It was an awesome magazine 20 years ago. Fred Barnes, Mickey Kaus, Morton Kondracke, Hanna Rosin. This was when Michael Kelly was the editor, I think. He was terrific. It was a superb mix of right and left. And of course strongly pro-Israel.
I think I quit reading it while Andrew Sullivan was the editor-in-chief? Or maybe it was the next guy. Now it seems like another predictable liberal rag. It's a shame.
It seems to me that Perry is giving Mitt Romney a great opportunity to demonstrate his fighting skills.
Yes, he is. And he expects them to come up wanting.
Obama ain't got no "hands."
I am on social security and I know it is a ponzi scheme. I also know it has to be reformed and all proposed reforms I have heard of pretty much leave current recipients alone. I don't think I am the only social security recipient who knows this.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा