That's the meme of the day.
I think we know what it means, don't we?
It means that Gingrich has peaked and will decline. Everyone knows that Ron Paul can't possibly be the GOP candidate, so if he's headed for a peak, it's just the next in a series of waves that have broken over the 23% that is Mitt Romney.
December 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
115 comments:
Romney's wife must be one satisfied woman. Just sayin'...
I don't know what it means other than somebody will be elected president next year and that someone isn't going to be a democrat.
PPP is an admittedly Democratic polling outfit and the margin of error on this poll is a hefty 4.2%. They only polled 555 "likely" caucus attendees.
It is hard to take this poll as some kind of latest word.
I don't know what it means other than somebody will be elected president next year
You're partly right: somebody will be re-elected president next year.
a friend of mine on the other side posted a link to media matters "exposing" Romney as a progressive, not conservative. I sent him a note asking if that was something he just noticed and if he thought that might possibly be the reason he isnt leading.
Imus says that if Gingrich is the candidate he'll vote for Obama.
Imus has extremely high but completely random moral standards, like McCain.
My impression is that Gingrich will listen to an argument, so is more likely to do the right thing in the end than, for example, Romney or Paul, when presented with the right argument (which will not be lacking for long, in the new media world).
Some apparent concern with the truth is the difference.
You're partly right: somebody will be re-elected president next year.
Well, the teleprompter will be there, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, I suspect you're talking about GOP members of Congress. Surely you don't mean the current president.
Except that your analysis isn't just flawed, it's ridiculous. Cain didn't peak and recede, he was destroyed from within and without. Perry destroyed himself (and continues to do).
As Iowa gets closer the organizations become more critical. Paul has devoted, fanatical followers, a great many people who've attached to him all they hold dear--but positions he doesn't hold in some cases. Paul could well, like Howard Dean, win Iowa, then be destroyed in NH and SC.
And of course PPP is a bogus polling group, as Mr. Caird points out. Of course, you know that, right Professor, since you're all that and chips too?
As another Blogger said:
There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O'Bama, who represents the Bank Party.
Vox Day
Those are your choices so far.
Read em and weep.
DEAD COUNTRY WALKING.
You can go to a racetrack or an OTB parlor to watch and bet on horse races. They're much more interesting than this horse race of maiden fillies[not a stud among them]. You can even see politicians there. I see Mayor Soglin @ Ho-Chunk. I think he's more knowledgeable on horse races than politics. He seems genuinely happy there; that's noteworthy for a curmudgeon.
Iowa Sigh!
There are no good candidates. Some will ensure Obama is re-elected. That should be the only criteria
What if they give an election and nobody comes?
Tank, "Dead Country Walking." Bingo!
Just keep repeating:
Ron Paul Can't be elected
Ron Paul Can't be elected
Ron Paul Can't be elected.......
This is getting exhausting.
I don't want Gingrich, I don't want Paul. I'll get ahead of the curve and say that I don't want Santorum (heck, the next wave has got to be him or Huntsman, about whom I ferociously have no opinion).
I'm happy with Romney. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but he's a good one.
I'm happy with Romney. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but he's a good one.
I can see it now..
A Romney is Obama Tag.
Out of the bunch, nobody is more like Obama than Gov Romney.
What if they give an election and nobody comes?
This.
If this is true, then it is a serious commentary on the weak mindedness of the religious right and the easy to deceive Libertarians.
If Ron Paul can mind control you, then who can't mind control you?
Anybody with half a brain left that can analyse issues knows that Paul is a cult leader that intends to destroy his followers.
Ron Paul can't possibly win the nomination, and if he ran as a third party candidate he would be lucky to break double digits in the polls.
Hayley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, not to mention a host of new guys really too young to run, but who look very promising, like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindahl, guys who could united the Establishment and the Tea Party behind them, guys who can articulate the conservative cause, and lead too, could have run, but they chose to bow out.
So now we get this bunch of squishes, also rans, and second raters. It's like the GOP doesn't even want to win.
Newt has taken several hits lately, all of them aimed at his Tea Party support. Each one has hit me like a body blow.
1) The Ron Paul ad. I found it damning, really. And I know a lot of people go into Washington and come out rich. It's par for the course. I'm sick of it and want that sort of thing to go away. Put this under "shrink the damn government". Will Newt do this?
2) Glenn Beck did a hilarious bit yesterday after playing a clip of Gingrich calling himself a "realpolitik Wilsonian." I don't know what the hell Newt is thinking. Realpolitik is Kissinger and Nixon. It's basically a codeword for "evil shit." And Woodrow Wilson has to be one of the great assholes in American history. Read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fasicsm for some horror stories.
A quick google search on "Woodrow Wilson" and "Constitution" brought me to this site.
To not know this about Wilson is excusable--a lot of people are unaware of Wilson's shit--but Beck made the point that Gingrich is a historian, so he should know this. For a Republican to compare himself to Woodrow Wilson is insane.
Wilson was an elitist, a progressive nutjob, a university professor--maybe that's the connection Newt is referencing--but frankly we've had a far better success with generals as Presidents than we have had with fucking professors.
And of course Newt is a sloppy talker. He says a lot of things and he has to backtrack and say he didn't mean that. But if your job is to be a history teacher and you compare yourself to Woodrow Fucking Wilson--and that is his middle name--either you're an incompetent boob who doesn't actually read history, or you agree with all the shit that Wilson said and did. Which is it?
3) This morning, I heard Christine O'Donnell endorse Mitt Romney. And she made the not insignifcant point that Romney endorsed all the Tea Party candidates, while Newt was going the other way. At the time I thought--and still think--that Romney is an utter nihilist who was just following Sarah Palin around and endorsing everybody she endorsed. But one thing a nihilist amorphous non-entity has going for him is that he will obey the Tea Party mob. Maybe we can make the spineless jellyfish work for us. Should I go with spineless jellyfish or "Realpolitik Wilsonian"? Ugh.
Looks like I'm voting for Perry. My bumper sticker? Fuck it.
FWIW, PPP is a Dem poll, but actually leans a tad right when polling according to Nate Silver.
PPP's final Ohio Issue 2 (Unions) poll was off by (1) point.
carry on
Unless the game is fixed, anyone should be able to win....but a lot of folks agree with our hostess by saying Ron Paul won't be allowed on the ticket, no matter what happens.
So, is the primary system a crooked game? Are our votes even counted?
like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindahl
Why would Rubio subject himself to the meatgrinder presidential primary we've been witnessing? If conventional wisdom has anything to say about it, the eventual GOP presidential nominee will be asking him to run as veep to help with the hispanic vote and to deliver up FL.
So......it's over before anyone has voted.
The new American way.
Quoting/believing PPP is like using huffpo as research.
PPP will push a narrative that supports the dem party until the last set of data when they will swing to "real" data so they can say "see how accurate we were."
Intrade, where people put their actual money where their mouth is has Newt at 47.5% to win Iowa.
Unless the game is fixed, anyone should be able to win
"Anyone" filtered by the requirements laid out in the Constitution, correct? In which case "anyone" can win, but just being eligible doesn't make you "able" to garnish enough popular and institutional support to actually succeed.
We are getting way ahead of ourselves. Romney, Gingrich, or even Paul, it matters not a whit at this point. First the primaries, then the conventions. Then, after next Labor Day, the real campaign will begin, and we will have some idea. Meanwhile, Gingrich could redeem himself in the eyes of the base if he runs a good campaign through that gauntlet. Romney, I'm not so optimistic. Paul, maybe, if he stays on his meds, but I don't think he will.
"Everyone knows that Ron Paul can't possibly be the GOP candidate"
I didn't know that. A rather gratuitious assumption.
Ron Paul 2012.
The IA caucuses aren't about who wins, but who comes in third or fourth. We never heard of the IA caucuses until David Rockefeller bribed the networks to make a big deal about how Jimmy Carter came in third in '76.
CEO-MMP said...
Except that your analysis isn't just flawed, it's ridiculous. Cain didn't peak and recede, he was destroyed from within and without. Perry destroyed himself (and continues to do).
Wrong on Perry. Consensus is he's done pretty well the last month, but no one appears to be watching.
Oh, well, he may come in fourth in IA and the Lefty media will make a big fuss over his comeback, so they can have a story.
I'm happy with Romney. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but he's a good one.
I’ll take competent and boring twice a day and three times on Sunday.
Newt made a million dollars?
How could he?
I thought he was one of the good guys.
So what he didn't break any laws.. Lets Cain him.
Ron Paul followers are mostly democrat plants.
Salamandyr said...
Hayley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, not to mention a host of new guys really too young to run, but who look very promising, like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindahl, guys who could united the Establishment and the Tea Party behind them, guys who can articulate the conservative cause, and lead too, could have run, but they chose to bow out.
So now we get this bunch of squishes, also rans, and second raters. It's like the GOP doesn't even want to win.
The grass is always greener on the other side. All of these guys have issues which would come out as soon as they declared and got some traction.
I'm not saying none of them are could win or should win, but it's just like calling for the Q-back sitting on the bench. He often looks better, until he gets on the field, then ... not so much. Your exception, Tebow, but he has God on his team.
Hayley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, not to mention a host of new guys really too young to run, but who look very promising, like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindahl, guys who could united the Establishment and the Tea Party behind them, guys who can articulate the conservative cause, and lead too, could have run, but they chose to bow out.
It seems to me that a large part of the problem has been that so many people have put candidates in one of two buckets. They’re either (a) the savior of the conservative movement based on some rather unrealistic expectations not that dissimilar to what many people had for Obama in 2008 or (b) an evil Rino that if elected is going to pull off their mask like Old Man Smithers of Scooby-Doo fame. I have no doubt that if any aforementioned candidates were running this session, they would find themselves put in either (or more likely both) bucket(s) by voters who have done the same to Romney, Perry, Gingrich, etc.
People who want thrills are making the same mistake that was made in choosing Obama.
I agree with Thorley Winston: "I’ll take competent and boring twice a day and three times on Sunday."
Find something better to do with your time than get excited about political candidates. Excitement is not good. Especially from the conservative perspective.
Don't be a winger.
Its reminds me of when I was a kid.. the Christmas toys the other kids got always seemed superior to whatever I got.
The grass is always greener on the other side. All of these guys have issues which would come out as soon as they declared and got some traction.
Agreed, I seem to recall that the knives were out about Mitch Daniels before he announced that he wasn’t going to run. Chris Christie would probably get blasted for some of his comments about anthropogenic climate change much like Romney and Gingrich have been attacked for their comments on the issue (often by the supporters of the other candidate).
And God help them if any of them ever made a well-thought out comment about immigration . . . .
Yes,Newt played the DC games for his career and he understands how to play them to win.
That is not a defect unless we are like OWS revolutionaries and want all the ancient Regime leadership gotten rid of so that we can "feel safe."
OK, who should we trust then? Anybody but Ron Paul would be the first rule of sane people.
Dissatisfaction with prior leaders decisions is the easiest thing in the world to argue to justify a revolution. Being a Ron Paul follower is very easy indeed.
Ron Paul followers are mostly democrat plants.
I don't think that's true at all. Certainly not true in Iowa. That caucus is Republican-only.
New Hampshire is open, which means a lot of liberals will be voting.
I expect Paul to do well in Iowa and poorly in New Hampshire. I doubt any liberals are contemplating a "Reverse Operation Chaos" this early in the campaign. It seems to me you would vote your (liberal) conscience in the hopes that you would influence the ultimate nominee.
"Somebody will be re-elected president next year."
As much as I hate the thought, and as much as I would love to hear garage's lung-popping shrieks at the sight of a GOP blowout, campy, you're probably right.
Little Black Jesus is running the same campaign that snookered our good hostess and an additional 52% of morons in 2008 - somebody's holding the good life out on you, the game is rigged, the evil rich have too much money, this is a mean country, the GOP is a bunch of Christianist Nazi fascists, everything is Bush's fault and you're a racist if you don't vote for me.
He's stripped the "hope and change" bullshit, replacing it with an overlay of "I never promised you a rose garden," but it's all the same as before.
I forget who posted it on another thread here, but I'm coming to the viewpoint that one Obama term wasn't enough. I really think this country needs a full, uncensored, state planning from cradle to grave economy, in-your-face Obama before it wakes the hell up.
Anybody but Ron Paul would be the first rule of sane people.
I would vote for Paul over Obama. He's my least favorite candidate. But if he's our nominee, I'm voting for him.
Excitement is not good.
Yeah, we need our people to be bored and sedate. Not paying attention. Apathy, that works too.
Especially from the conservative perspective.
Yeah, liberals can get excited. We can trust excited liberals. Excited right-wingers, oh my goodness. Violence in the streets.
Calm down, Republicans! Take a chill pill. Work on your stamp collection.
, the game is rigged, the evil rich have too much money, this is a mean country, the GOP is a bunch of Christianist Nazi fascists, everything is Bush's fault and you're a racist if you don't vote for me.
There's plenty of non believing Nazi fascists in the GOP too. Don't be so exclusionary!
Don't be so exclusionary!
Exactly. The original Nazi's were left-wing statists. You have to make room in that big tent.
Ann Althouse said...
People who want thrills are making the same mistake that was made in choosing Obama.
I agree with Thorley Winston: "I’ll take competent and boring twice a day and three times on Sunday."
Find something better to do with your time than get excited about political candidates. Excitement is not good. Especially from the conservative perspective.
Don't be a winger.
Milton's problem isn't excitement, it's trust. If he'd renounced RomneyCare, you wouldn't find so many people thinking, "Yeah, but what if I vote for him and first thing he does is say, 'ObamaCare isn't so bad. We don't have to repeal it. We'll just fix it'".
Christopher in MA said...
I forget who posted it on another thread here, but I'm coming to the viewpoint that one Obama term wasn't enough. I really think this country needs a full, uncensored, state planning from cradle to grave economy, in-your-face Obama before it wakes the hell up.
You may want to practice your "Sieg Heil" or brush up on the lyrics to "The Internationale" in that case.
PS I agree that things will have to get worse before they get better, but I don't think they're going to wait for the election.
Anybody listening to Obama right now can hear him do Althouse's verbal frying, or whatever it's called.
He was doing that, but now he's kind of switched into his down home-y voice. He's going through his full retinue of vocalizations, so as to be inclusive.
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson nails it.
Obama also praised Michelle Obama for being so special, so amazing, and hard to be a follow-up act to. This after she spent her speech telling the troops what Barack Obama has done for them. Apparently Obama found that pretty impressive.
"Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask me what my husband has done for you."
the 23 percent that is Mitt Romney
_________________
I would wager Romney's $10,000 that ultimately it is only the 10-13 percent that is Mitt Romney, an of that, probably less than 5 percent is really all that excited about him.
Much of his "support" comes from the same folks that "supported" McCain for years and years, insisting that if he were to run, that they would vote for him -- and they did, in fact, get him the nomination -- and then in the general election, they all, as expected, abandoned him and voted Democrat instead.
Same thing here. Much of those claiming to support Romney and who will give him many votes in the primaries will NEVER vote for him in the general were he to be the nominee.
Nevertheless, the Weasel is all too happy to use their "support" now in his attempt to back into the nomination.
The original Nazi's were left-wing statists.
Pure teaparty bullshit, from historian-fraud Goldberg . The nazi leaders hated the bolsheviks, and took the Protocols OTEOZ as their manifesto. And the rich industrial capitalists were in charge (Krupps). Just brainfarts from people who never completed a real history course in their life.
I'm beginning to think even Ron Paul would be better than Obama.
Ron Paul has plenty of support from vegass glibertarians---gambling, booze, baccy, harley-boys, porno. Good ol Merican values. Sarah Klondike herself approves of Doktor Quackron
@Salamandyr: "It's like the GOP doesn't even want to win."
It's 2008 all over again, sadly. I always felt McCain was put out there becasue the GOP knew it couldn't win. He was the sacrificial lamb.
sv: suchm. Suchm up for four more years unless the GOP gets its act together...son
Saint Croix said...
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson nails it.
Excellent piece. Newt's revival has hinged on him making a zero out of Zero in the debates, but there hasn't been much consideration of what must come before and after.
As I say, I think Newt's gonna fade, but I wouldn't put the possibility of a brokered convention totally aside.
PS Whatever Ann Coulter's smoking these days, how she can say Milton is more Conservative than Perry, Santorum, Newt, or Herman (when he was in) testifies to a mighty high.
PPS So J's a closet Brownshirt.
Explains his antipathy to Mormons.
PPS
I'm surprised at your surprise.
Out of the bunch, nobody is more like Obama than Gov Romney.
But can Romney govern like Obama and expect to be re-elected himself in 2012?
My bet is that Romney can read the tea (party) leaves to an extent that he'd tack fiscally to the right, or suffer the same wrath.
Maybe I'm wrong.
"... I forget who posted it on another thread here, but I'm coming to the viewpoint that one Obama term wasn't enough. I really think this country needs a full, uncensored, state planning from cradle to grave economy, in-your-face Obama before it wakes the hell up..."
I've been saying that for some time. A good chunk of the electorate wants a Euro style social democratic state with cradle to grave benefits. The problem is that its unsustainable as Italy, Portugal, Greece, Ireland et. al, have proved.
Some addicts get themselves cleaned up when they wake up from a bender covered in vomit and shit while others just lay there and die. It remains to be seen how we manage.
I did enjoy Sununu (Souter's champion and the Chief of Staff that brokered Bush I's "Watch My Lips" tax hike) going after Gingrich as insufficiently conservative, in part for OPPOSING the aforementioned tax hike.
Ann wants boring and competent.
Unfortunately, boring is not one of the choices.
America is the brokest country ever. America has made promises to old people, sick people, union people, etc that it can not possibly keep. America is borrowing 40% of what it spends each year. Look. A second went by. We owe $50,000 more than last second.
Boring means keeping things more or less the way they are. To do otherwise ... will not be boring.
How many more years can we pretend we can spend almost twice as much as we have to spend? To continue the way we are, will also end up ... not boring.
No, boring is not an option.
Fail.
Polls show an increasing number of citizens, from all demographics, are leaning toward libertarian views. This is in large part because they see our political system as having only one party, with 2 wings.
The people that don't get it see the presidential election as winner-take-all, no matter the candidate. That's why pundits want to discount Ron Paul. As voters wake up to the fact that our country is going to hell in a toboggan, they see the only choice is Paul. Gary Johnson would have been an equally capable president, but was totally screwed by the media in the debates. The media, including, I think,
Althouse, doesn't want to have to deal with libertarians, because they are mostly ignorant of their beliefs, and don't fit into the template.
Obama also spent the first part of his speech talking about how cute Michelle is. How lucky he is. Aside from the fact that he was praising her for praising him, I think he's using the lovey-dovey couple thing to demonstrate that he is no Newt Gingrich.
I expect more of it.
(never mind the photos that come out when they are on vacation, of Michelle with her earbuds in while they ride in the limo together)
Yeah, let's nominate a guy whose own party wanted him to resign as speaker.
Do any you guys who think he's so great even remember what he was like? Christ he was the Nancy Pelosi of the GOP.
"Excitement is not good."
Echoing Saint Croix excitement wins elections ie the problem w/the current group of Rep wannabes is they barely have a pulse!
ok, that's just one their problems. :D
WV: unhos ~ honest!
sorepaw, J: See me HERE or email me.
Scott M said...
PPS
I'm surprised at your surprise.
Not surprised, just glad for the written confirmation.
All of this superfluidity will end with the first real result, the Iowa caucus result. And if Paul wins Iowa or comes in a close second all the establishment horsepucky in the world won't disappear him.
So......it's over before anyone has voted.
Is this your first election?
Imus has extremely high but completely random moral standards
I love that. The modern post-modern.
So many choices, so much indifference, plus vulgarity.
Doc Paul, President?? No. Though he'd make a good mayor of Hooterville
"...what I am saying now is of the available candidates, Romney is by far the most conservative, tied with Michele Bachmann."
A. Coulter
"Paul closes in on Gingrich."
(...)
I think we know what it means, don't we?
Yeah. It means that soon we will be hearing from all the women who've been assaulted, propositioned, spoken to, and nodded at by Ron Paul, the Libertarian lecher and no-helmet-bike-rider.
Electable or not, Ron Paul represents the only real threat to the status quo.
So rather than examining every detail of Ron Paul's vision and saying "he can't possibly be elected" ask yourself are you happy with the status quo?
If the answer is yes then by all means vote for any candidate but Ron Paul, because that's what you'll get.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
So rather than examining every detail of Ron Paul's vision and saying "he can't possibly be elected" ask yourself are you happy with the status quo?
If the answer is yes then by all means vote for any candidate but Ron Paul, because that's what you'll get
IF, Paul is the answer to the “Status Quo” than YES I like the status quo…thank you. From his foolish expounding of the Gold Standard, to his racism, to his kookiness, to his Isolationism, to his fundamental acceptance of Rothbardian/Lew Rockwellism, I reject Paul. And if he’s the answer to any of ur problems the questions are pretty stupid.
Romney is by far the most conservative..
Ann the Man might be correct. Newt at times has waffled a bit, as with his views on immigration, and occasionally supported tax increases. He may have a few Federalist aspects (as did...Reagan). Mitt Mormonic on the other hand is the true-blue masonic klan candidate.
"Lem said...
Ron Paul followers are mostly democrat plants."
Not even close. But that said Paul would be a terrible President. Paul's problem is that he, like many young or more extreme libertarians, believes Libertarianism is a Theory of Everything (TOE).
Einstein spent the second half of his life searching for what is now called a TOE: a set of principles capable of explaining everything without exception. He essentially believed this should exist and therefore it does exist. Maybe it does in Physics, but it doesn't in governance.
Recognizing the limits of your principles is as important as having principles in the first place. I've never heard Paul discuss the limits of Libertarianism, but he openly discusses things which are clearly beyond them - like his apparent belief that if the US had no or virtually no military violence in teh rest of the world would either remain the same or drop.
Since he doesn't understand the limits of his theory you get Obama again: someone who is absolutely wrong but who is convinced he's absolutely righteous. It's the most dangerous combination of possibilities and we should avoid it. Pragmatism of policy, not just pragmatism in process, is a huge plus.
Debbie (Posting anonymously as J) said:
"Pure teaparty bullshit, from historian-fraud Goldberg . The nazi leaders hated the bolsheviks,"
Quite right, though Bolshevik should be capitalized.
However Bolshevism was only one of perhaps hundreds of competing flavors of socialism over the years. Including what the Germans called "National Socialism" and which many call "Nazi" so as not go taint socialism's good name. (Good name in their eyes at least)
What the Germans practiced was socialism by any definition of the word. It was government control of the means of production (ostensibly) for the benefit of the working people.
The reason for the dispute was that Germany believed in national socialism. The Bolsheviks believed in international socialism.
John Henry
PHX quoted Ann Coulter saying
"... Romney is by far the most conservative, tied with Michele Bachmann."
What about those of us who do not want a conservative president? What about those of us who do not want a progressive candidate?
What about those of us who want a liberal (libertarian if you prefer) president?
I detest the conservatives as much as I detest the progressives. Both want to use govt to control my life in ever more invasive ways. Both want govt to grow and be more, not less powerful.
They differ on the details but not on the broad goals.
I think that what riles people most about Ron Paul is that he is not a conservative.
He is going to do his damndest to kick over the honeypot that is DC. He has made a pretty good start already. Witness how scared people are of him.
He is truly speaking truth to power.
John Henry
Proud liberal, Ron Paul fan
It's Byro-Debbie aka the Hulk Hogan Gerbil of the Tempe slums, posting anonymously as "John". (And note, Meade--this creep has been retaliating against people who have complained about his bunko mail order biz).
Don't bother commenting, wicca basura, until you get that AA, perp.
Indigo Red said:
Yeah. It means that soon we will be hearing from all the women who've been assaulted, propositioned, spoken to, and nodded at by Ron Paul"
Actually, he is a prime target. Think of all the women who can come forward and truthfully say:
"I was lying there in the office minding my own business and Ron Paul came in and fondled my vagina."
You don't think Gloria Allred might be able to do something with that?
John Henry
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
He is going to do his damndest to kick over the honeypot that is DC. He has made a pretty good start already. Witness how scared people are of him
Oh so that’s why he’s taken $40 BILLION in earmarks thru the years? He’s kicking over that honeypot, I guess if by that you mean he kicks it over and then licks up the honey that drips out.
The problem with Paulian isolationism is that it has no basis in reality. As long as we still import 40% of our oil consumption (drill baby, drill!) we have to take steps to insure that it is not interrupted. As long as CNN can show us starving babies in some third world hellhole the calls will go out to DO SOMETHING about it. As long as there are nutcases with bombs that hate us simply for who we are and what we represent, we will have to deal with them, and frankly, I'd rather fight them where they live instead of my own back yard, TYVM.
One armchair pundit's prediction of the Iowa Caucus results:
1) Gingrich
2) Perry
3) Romney
4) Paul
5) What's-her-name
All predictions correct or your money back.
wv: resin (in protest?)
Which mail order biz is that, Debbie? I need to see if I can get a taste of the income stream.
I sell some books at Amazon (buy them through Ann's link) but other than that I sell nothing except my expertise.
If I could figure out a way to do that by mail, I would. So far, I have not been able to.
John Henry
"I detest the conservatives as much as I detest the progressives. Both want to use govt to control my life in ever more invasive ways."
This is the kind of nonsense that gives libertarians a bad name. Conservatives desire nowhere near the level of government control progressives do. Conservatives don't even desire as much governmetn control as Progressives have succeeded in enacting, even if you ignore everything else on their to do list.
Douthat :
"If the [Tea Party] settle(s) on a Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider (N. Gingrich)as their not-Romney standard bearer in 2012, then every liberal who ever sneered at the Tea Party will get to say “I told you so.”
If Ron Paul wins the caucuses, on the other hand, the movement will keep its honor – but also deliver the Republican nomination gift-wrapped to Mitt Romney."
Which is it?
Saint Croix -
Newt is really the antithesis of what Ron Paul stands for. It is not surprising that the Paulistas would come out strong attacking this Ultimate Beltway Insider and Lobbyist - who made 100 million dollars serving his clients through remaining in DC after leaving the Speakership 14 years ago.
Like you, I was a little surprised when I heard perky Christine O'Donnell had backed Romney. But her reasoning is good. Romney and Palin backed people like her, Rubio, Christie, and Scott Brown..while Newt was off working as an "historian" for Fannie and Freddie.
And I remember 2 things. The man who stopped Obamacare was Senator Scott Brown. And the man Scott Brown said was the most helpful in electing him, with money and field people and organization - was Governor Romney.
And this in a state where Romneycare was endorsed 3-1, while the referandum on blocking Obamacare had voters pick Brown over Coakley.
"And I remember 2 things. The man who stopped Obamacare was Senator Scott Brown."
Psst. Obamacare was enacted.
Ann Althouse said...
People who want thrills are making the same mistake that was made in choosing Obama.
I agree with Thorley Winston: "I’ll take competent and boring twice a day and three times on Sunday
Not to put words in Althouse's mouth, I think she mentioned that Dems and Republicans had better candidates than McCain and Obama..just don't remember who she said was better. Probably Hillary and Romney...
In my own opinion, Dems selecting Obama over Hillary was a worse mistake than picking the incoherent, raging dimbulb McCain over Romney. Dem voters wanted "excitement"/ And we all paid for the silver-tongued con artist they chose. Who, unfortunately, was less bad than McCain, who was picked on some asinine grounds that he was captured by the enemy and suffered...we owed it to Johnny, just like his lifetime Senate seat.
================
One other thing from Saint Croix - Newt and his love of New Wilsonianism. Uggggh! That made my toes curl! Along with Ron Paul and most Republicans that worked with the guy - the message is being sent to the nuttier right-wingers, Fundies, and Tea Party extremists in the Tea Party faction:
1. Do you people realize what Newt is???
2. He is the antithesis of most things you stand for! A Greedy, Inside the Beltway operator that sabotages things like the Contract with America and the stability of institutions and the voters will - for personal gain.
3. Your idea of selecting "Perfessor Newt" because he will have some clever bon mots that skewer "Perfessor Obama" in debate does not account for what Gingrich will do when he is no longer accountable to the voters.
4. All his life, Romney is a man who is good to his word. He may change a position over time, but he keeps his promises - personal, business, political. Newt's whole life is breaking his personal, business, and political promises. How is Newt more trustworthy than Romney???
Marshal said...
"And I remember 2 things. The man who stopped Obamacare was Senator Scott Brown."
Psst. Obamacare was enacted.
==================
No, Senator Scott Brown deciding vote blocked it's implimentation.
"No, Senator Scott Brown deciding vote blocked it's implimentation."
So that alternate universe thingy is real. How do you get back and forth? Is there a wormhole or do you use a device?
At least 2.5 million younger Americans now have health insurance as a result of a provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans until 26 years of age, the Associated Press reports.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
At least 2.5 million younger Americans now have health insurance as a result of a provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans until 26 years of age, the Associated Press reports
How many of them would have found coverage, anyway? After all being 26 is being an adult….plus what did it do to their parent’s health care premiums or the profits of the Insurance Company, which bears upon the ability of ANYONE to purchase healthcare in the future? The fact that “J” is not only living in his mom’s basement, but still on her healthcare insurance is NOT a cause for celebration, IMO.
So you would rather the rest of us pay for "J"'s healthcare?
I rather his parents pay for it than me...just sayin...
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
So you would rather the rest of us pay for "J"'s healthcare?
I rather his parents pay for it than me...just sayin
It’s “J”’s job to find HIS OWN HEALTHCARE….s/he’s not a “child” anymore….and so, this claim that 2.5 million people found healthcare, is like saying 500,000 people bought houses…Ok, but how many of those house sales can be attributed to Obama, and how many would have occurred any way?
Are the FOX News talking heads still saying "but of course he can't win" after every mention of Ron Paul's name?
I don't care who it is attributed to...I just want the freeloaders to pay for healthcare...if the ACA is the way for this to happen, then hoorah...
I know "J" is too lazy or stupid to get his own healthcare, but there is nothing I can do about it one on one...what I can do is support healthcare reform...
Its not all about Obama...I know you want to believe that, but it is just not true...
so again I ask: Would you rather the rest of us pay for "J"'s healthcare?
It's weird, but all the tin foil hat wearing Ron Paul supporters I know are normal sensible people.
I guess they just haven't gotten the memo.
from now on lets be sure to use his full name:
Ron-he-can't-possibly-win-Paul
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I don't care who it is attributed to...I just want the freeloaders to pay for healthcare...if the ACA is the way for this to happen, then hoorah...
IF however, they would have gotten coverage ANYWAY it’s not a success to be attributed to ObamaCare, is it?
I know "J" is too lazy or stupid to get his own healthcare, but there is nothing I can do about it one on one...what I can do is support healthcare reform
And the answer to that is make his/her medical bills NON-DISCHARGEABLE in bankruptcy, akin to Student Loans…once “J” and the Occupy(City) Posse see that it’s cheaper to get Insurance than run up a $50,000 hospital bill they’ll get insurance. THAT’S Healthcare reform…anything else is expensive Death panels.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
It's weird, but all the tin foil hat wearing Ron Paul supporters I know are normal sensible people
Who believe that the US somehow provoked 9-11….or think that the Gold Standard is the solution to our problems? Or who like Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell…or listen to Alex Jones; if that’s your definition of sensible.
PBH said
"from now on lets be sure to use his full name:
Ron-he-can't-possibly-win-Paul"
Or, to take a page from the Muslims:
Ron Paul(HCPW)
John Henry
Re "closing in" on Gingrich, he is not. He has closed in and it happened a few weeks ago. Paul has been pretty consistently tied for first place in Iowa for a month or so. At first in a 4 way tie but now that Cain is gone and Romney is flailing, a 2 way tie.
Most pols everywhere have Paul in 2nd or 3rd place nationally and state by state and have for a while.
I still say Newt flames out. I think Krauthammer(?) nailed it back in June or so. He said Newt is not a serious candidate, he just wants the visibility so he can raise his speaking and consulting fees.
Like the dog chasing the car, what will be do if he gets it? I don't think he can afford to win the nomination. I predict he blows up sometime before March/April.
That will leave Paul and Romney as the main contenders down to the wire.
John Henry
Debbie/Anonymous J doesn't get Obamcare, they don't need it.
When she is in the pokey, which is about as often as not, the state of Oregon takes care of her.
She seems to be out at the moment which means she is not getting/taking her meds. Hence her irrational behavior here.
Byro/John Henry
(With 3 blogs, a newsletter and a website)
I don't care who it is attributed to...I just want the freeloaders to pay for healthcare...if the ACA is the way for this to happen, then hoorah
That strikes me, someone who's being forced to give up a perfectly serviceable HSA, as slaughtering the herd to kill a single flea.
Hey Joe, what's "kooky" about supporting an adherent of the Gold Standard? It would be a HUGE step in stopping Leviathan from printing printing printing backed by thin air.
Pure teaparty bullshit, from historian-fraud Goldberg . The nazi leaders hated the bolsheviks,
The National Socialists were indeed socialists, albeit ones who believed in racial purity. Putting Hitler and Mussolini on the right is one of the big lies I was taught in school.
Mussolini was obviously and utterly a progressive. Progressives created art in his name. It's shocking to read old New Republic editorials about Mussolini, how much they loved that guy. Mussolini was the future and democracy was the dead hand of the past.
The term "liberal fascism" was coined by H.G. Wells. Indeed, Wells' The Time Machine divides society into classes, the upper and the lower. The obsession with classes is a hallmark of the left. And Marx, while using language that attacks class structure, nonetheless argues that power needs to be centralized in the hands of a few superior people. Marx is utterly fascist. And of course the Marxist opposition to democracy is well known. Wells' flirtation with fascism is hardly different than Hitler and Stalin forming a pact.
The totalitarian similarities between Nazi Germany and Communist hellholes is well known. You can always spot the shit states with the posters of the leaders all over the place, with the lack of freedom of speech and voting, with the indoctrination of children and the songs they sing glorifying the state. All the artists in Nazi Germany and Communist Anywhere work for the state, and create art for the state.
The USA is a republic, one where popular sovereignty, free speech, and hostility to government control is the norm. The administrative state--one in which unelected bureaucrats pass laws, is a hallmark of the left, as is an unelected judiciary who defines human beings as commodities. I have heard you speak with utter disdain about Sarah Palin's child and how he should have been killed. This marks you as a creature of the left, a socialist of the first order. Whether you are "national" or not is rather beside the point.
Saint Croix said...
Gingrich calling himself a "realpolitik Wilsonian."
Wilsonian means idealism in foreign policy: "Making the world safe for Democracy"--see W's second inaugural address. Combining it with realpolitik is pretty much an oxymoron, but Krauthammer has claimed that's essentially what Reagan did, with considerable success.
Ralph, I think that's a very good guess at what Newt meant by the comment. I hope you're right.
Combining it with realpolitik is pretty much an oxymoron
Yeah, exactly!
but Krauthammer has claimed that's essentially what Reagan did, with considerable success.
Do you have a link? I'd love to read that. I am actually totally cool with the idea of combining human rights idealism with the danger (and hubris) of being the world's policeman.
Wilson was such a horrible President. Getting us involved in World War I was not even the worst thing he did. See this discussion on the Anti-Sedition Act. And note the Republican opposition. Including Teddy Roosevelt.
For Newt Gingrich, historian, to call himself "Wilsonian" on the grounds of what Wilson said, as opposed to what he did, is typical Newt glibness.
I guess I ought to cut him some slack. I mean, if he calls himself "Jeffersonian," I shouldn't go, "oh, so you like slavery."
Still, of all the guys to compare yourself to, Wilson? Ugh!
What about Henry Cabot Lodge and the brave Republican defiance to this oppression of our liberties? Tell that story, dumbass. Call yourself a Henry Cabot Lodgian.
Of course Lodge was a racist.
Note to Newt: when engaging in a discussion about train schedules, do not call yourself a Mussolinian.
All his life, Romney is a man who is good to his word. He may change a position over time, but he keeps his promises - personal, business, political.
C-4 has a good point here, I think. In fact Romney is not only honorable, he seems to be a genuinely nice man.
I think what I need to do is sit down and read his book. And Newt's book(s). And Perry's book.
Ugh.
Kiss. Of. Death.
Of course Sullivan wants Paul; he wants to fellate Barry another 4 years.
Do you have a link?
It was a speech he gave at a big DC dinner in his honor in the mid-Bush years, before neocon became a dirty word. I saw it on CSPAN, so you could check their archives.
"Wilsonian" has more to do with "good", idealistic intentions and less with what he actually did as President.
Post a Comment