2012 Presidential Campaign

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

So close to "Friday"..

Just watch, Rick Perry will get within a couple hundred dislikes of Rebecca Black and pull the ad

The pull out method is probably part of his message, isn't it?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

So close to "Friday"..

Just watch, Rick Perry will get within a couple hundred dislikes of Rebecca Black and pull the ad

It's up to 241k now, and has a greater percentage of dislikes than Friday.



EDIT: Looks like it could pass Friday within the hour.

[stevew]

This is the first video of his that appears to have any kind of hits at all, so I'm sure he will claim that he is being persecuted by godless liberals.

[ISiddiqui]

[SirFozzie]

Congrats to Rick Perry:

His Video has not only surpassed Rebecca Black's "Friday" in dislikes, it's smashed through.. the current count as of this post:

9,843 likes, 412,884 dislikes

[sterlingice]

This GOP debate is looser than most have been

SI

[sterlingice]

This is quality:

Rick Santorum is like "Hey, guys, do I get air time?".
Rick Perry is just, well, dumb and overmatched
Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman just keep sniping Gingrich and Romney
And Romney and Gingrich keep wanting to pretend no one else in the stage except for them

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This is quality:

Rick Santorum is like "Hey, guys, do I get air time?".
Rick Perry is just, well, dumb and overmatched
Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman just keep sniping Gingrich and Romney
And Romney and Gingrich keep wanting to pretend no one else in the stage except for them

SI

That's smart for Gingrich, but not for Romney. He needs a crowded field to divide the anti-Romney vote. He has no chance against Newt one on one.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Congrats to Rick Perry:

His Video has not only surpassed Rebecca Black's "Friday" in dislikes, it's smashed through.. the current count as of this post:

9,843 likes, 412,884 dislikes

Rick Perry parody video - kinda funny:

Rick Perry Parody

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Congrats to Rick Perry:

His Video has not only surpassed Rebecca Black's "Friday" in dislikes, it's smashed through.. the current count as of this post:

9,843 likes, 412,884 dislikes

We should hold our Presidential Elections on the internets...saves money and we will eventually get to that 1-party system we have been craving for!

[PilotMan]

It's funny that Romney gets the third degree while Tebow gets lauded over the same religious beliefs.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It's funny that Romney gets the third degree while Tebow gets lauded over the same religious beliefs.

Did you mean Perry? Tebow is not a Mormon.

And I'd disagree anyways, because Tebow's religious beliefs have been ridiculed as much as they've been praised.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Did you mean Perry? Tebow is not a Mormon.

And I'd disagree anyways, because Tebow's religious beliefs have been ridiculed as much as they've been praised.

ack, that's my misunderstanding then.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Rick Perry parody video - kinda funny:

Rick Perry Parody

That is hard not to laugh out loud at while watching.

[larrymcg421]

Bizarre NBC News/Marist polls just came out that show Obama with huge leads in Florida (+7 ,+12) and South Carolina (+3, +4) against Romney/Gingrich. I certainly don't buy either of those just yet.

[Crapshoot]

If Obama wins South Carolina, JIMGA may just join a militia.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

If Obama wins South Carolina, JIMGA may just join a militia.

Eh, it wouldn't surprised me a whole lot actually.

I'm expecting him to win by close to double digits nationally at this point & there aren't too many states that would surprise me. Had a conversation about that very thing tonight, with a self-proclaimed "liberal who was pretty disappointed with Obama". As she said "I could live with Romney, he wouldn't be too bad, and Newt might actually be smart enough to figure a way to get the economy out of this mess but I'm still voting Obama". Under no circumstance was she voting for any (R) and I'm not voting for anyone that I'd be disgusted to see as President.

If Romney/Newt can't her vote and they can't get my vote, how the hell do they win since B.O. can manage at least one of them?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, it wouldn't surprised me a whole lot actually.

I'm expecting him to win by close to double digits nationally at this point & there aren't too many states that would surprise me. Had a conversation about that very thing tonight, with a self-proclaimed "liberal who was pretty disappointed with Obama". As she said "I could live with Romney, he wouldn't be too bad, and Newt might actually be smart enough to figure a way to get the economy out of this mess but I'm still voting Obama". Under no circumstance was she voting for any (R) and I'm not voting for anyone that I'd be disgusted to see as President.

If Romney/Newt can't her vote and they can't get my vote, how the hell do they win since B.O. can manage at least one of them?

But South Carolina? SOUTH frigging Carolina, home of Lee Atwater and co? And given Obama won by 7 points last time, I can't imagine a scenario (short of Bachmann or Palin being the nominee) that he exceeds that.

Also, Newt, ya or nay? Sounds like a nay for you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Also, Newt, ya or nay? Sounds like a nay for you.

Newt lost me at his version of amnesty.

He was already on thin ice given that he's probably one of the lowest character people to ever run for President in my lifetime. He's a very smart guy and, as I've mentioned here before, one of the most charismatic people I've ever met (probably the most) but he's got the morals of an alley cat. Everybody starts with one strike, his lack of character was two, and his immigration position was three.

[SackAttack]

If President Obama carries South Carolina, the map is going to look an awful lot like Reagan '84, possibly with Texas playing the role of "Minnesota."

That said, he isn't going to carry South Carolina. But it's amusing to think about.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It's funny that Romney gets the third degree while Tebow gets lauded over the same religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Did you mean Perry? Tebow is not a Mormon.

And I'd disagree anyways, because Tebow's religious beliefs have been ridiculed as much as they've been praised.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

ack, that's my misunderstanding then.

He's not? That's weird, I thought Tebow was a Mormon, too.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

He's not? That's weird, I thought Tebow was a Mormon, too.

I actually tried to do some research last night and Baptist was the closest thing I found.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I actually tried to do some research last night and Baptist was the closest thing I found.

I looked at Wikipedia, and that said Baptist, too. It's weird that we both thought he was Mormon, though, unless one of us told it to the other somehow.

[ISiddiqui]

I've always heard of Tebow described as an evangelical Christian.

[SFL Cat]

Tebow is a nondenom.

[JediKooter]

I thought Tebow just wins? He should run for president.

[albionmoonlight]

Is Tebow over 35 and a natural born citizen . . . ?

edit--Jedi beat me to it.

Stupid Jedis.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Is Tebow over 35 and a natural born citizen . . . ?

edit--Jedi beat me to it.

Stupid Jedis.

[SirFozzie]

yeah, the gloves are coming off in the Newt-Romney fight.

Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich 2012: Bell rings on GOP slugfest - Jonathan Martin and Juana Summers and Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Newt lost me at his version of amnesty.

He was already on thin ice given that he's probably one of the lowest character people to ever run for President in my lifetime. He's a very smart guy and, as I've mentioned here before, one of the most charismatic people I've ever met (probably the most) but he's got the morals of an alley cat. Everybody starts with one strike, his lack of character was two, and his immigration position was three.

Why are people under the impression Newt is so smart?

[SirFozzie]

even his critics has said he's pretty smart. In fact, I compare him to another smart, skeezy, slick, but yet petty politician. His sometimes praiser, sometimes opponent Bill Clinton.

[Epi_862]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I've always heard of Tebow described as an evangelical Christian.

He's a religious fanatic. Does it really matter what the religion?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Epi_862

He's a religious fanatic. Does it really matter what the religion?

I'd be wary of conflating fervently religious with religious fanaticism.

The former wears one's faith on one's sleeve, evangelizes, and so forth.

The latter flies planes into buildings, bombs abortion clinics, and generally has a very real axe to grind with anybody who doesn't believe exactly the way they do.

The former may be quite public in his or her beliefs on touchy social issues, but probably isn't going to kill somebody for believing otherwise.

The latter has no such compunctions, and might even be willing to give up his or her own life in the process, as long as s/he can take the unbeliever along with.

It's a subtle distinction (he said, tongue in cheek) but an important one.

[JPhillips]

I saw this somewhere:

Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Epi_862

He's a religious fanatic. Does it really matter what the religion?

Fanatic?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

even his critics has said he's pretty smart. In fact, I compare him to another smart, skeezy, slick, but yet petty politician. His sometimes praiser, sometimes opponent Bill Clinton.

That's just not true.

I've seen Republican strategists say (essentially, not word-for-word b/c i forget the quote) that if Newt Gingrich is the smartest person in the room then there aren't any truly smart people in the room.

[JPhillips]

Scarborough said that if Newt is the smartest person in the room you should leave immediately.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Scarborough said that if Newt is the smartest person in the room you should leave immediately.

Okay there we go. Thanks JPhil.

[JediKooter]

What I want to know is...how did Newt get away with marring an ostrich?

[molson]

Talk-show host offers Newt Gingrich $1 million to drop out - Yahoo! News

The only problem with this is I bet the Obama people have already offered 2 million for Gingrich to stay in.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Talk-show host offers Newt Gingrich $1 million to drop out - Yahoo! News

The only problem with this is I bet the Obama people have already offered 2 million for Gingrich to stay in.

Hey, I contributed greatly to that cause!

But seriously, I wonder what would happen if Gingrich did drop out. I suppose there is an end of the line where the conservatives will give up and just feel that Romney is inevitable. Is Gingrich the last in line? Does Santorum get a shot? Maybe Bachmann gets a 2nd shot? Does Palin get off her ass?

[albionmoonlight]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....omination.html

The Dish goes through the process of endorsing candidates in a primary season, not because I'm under any illusions that my endorsement counts. It probably hurts an insignificant amount, if anything. I try to make a decision - because it's easy to pontificate, debate, counter and riff off the various eddies in the campaign, but in the end, it comes to a choice for all voters in the booth. Why should a blogger avoid that responsibility? And I should be clear. This endorsement is mine and mine alone.

For a long time, I thought Huntsman would be my ideal candidate. And indeed, his tax reform proposals - modeled on Bowles-Simpson - are dead-on. Removing every single deduction in one heave would do more to empower market-based decisions in the economy and to throw lobbyists out of work than any other single measure. It's the most important, simple, productive move we can make right now and Obama has been a coward and a fool for not embracing it. Alas, the rates Huntsman favors are, to my mind, far too low, given the desperate need for revenues, if we are to tackle the debt seriously. But we are not electing a dictator. We are electing one branch of three that govern us. Huntsman is not the kind of Republican who couldn't compromise with Democrats. The Grand Bargain may become possible again.

On foreign policy, Huntsman also favors a more realist correction to neocon excess, and would build on Obama's remarkable successes, without invoking some of Obama's more worrying bleeding heart tendencies. His longstanding ties to America's most important global partner, China, make him uniquely qualified to take that relationship to a new level. Unlike Romney, he is not for starting a trade war. And his sanity on climate change - certainty that it is man-made but real skepticism about how to tackle it - is, in my view, the conservative position. And, almost alone among the Republicans, he acknowledges that gay people exist and that our committed relationships merit recognition in the law.

So why not Huntsman? The sad truth is: he simply hasn't connected with the voters, generates little enthusiasm, and has run a mediocre campaign. He started timidly, and failed from the get-go to make a clear distinction between him and Romney. He isn't even campaigning in Iowa; and remains behind in New Hampshire. Nationally, he is at a sad 3.2 percent, a number that has barely budged since the summer. For all intents and purposes, he is a one-state candidate. I welcome his participation but view it as a marker for 2016, if the GOP crashes and burns next year, as they well might with Newt Romney. With such a defeat (and one would hope it is decisive), there will be an opportunity to rebuild a reality-based conservatism. And Huntsman may well be the man to lead it. I sure hope so.

Which brings me to Ron Paul. Let me immediately say I do not support many of his nuttier policy proposals. I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Paul's campaign for greater oversight of the Fed is great, but abolition of it is utopian and dangerous. A veto of anything but an immediately balanced budget would tip the US and the world into a serious downturn (a process to get there in one or two terms makes much more sense). Cutting taxes as he wants to is also fiscally irresponsible without spending cuts first. He adds deductions to the tax code rather than abolish them. His energy policy would intensify our reliance on carbon, not decrease it. He has no policy for the uninsured. There are times when he is rightly described as a crank. He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly.

But all this is why a conservative like me is for Obama. What we are talking about here is who to support in a primary dominated by extremes, resentment, absence of ideas and Obama-hatred.

And I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.

And on some core issues, he is right. He is right that spending - especially on entitlements and defense - is way out of control. Unlike his peers, he had the balls to say so when Bush and Cheney were wrecking the country's finances, and rendering us close to helpless when the Great Recession came bearing down. Alas, he lacks the kind of skills at compromise, moderation and restraint that once defined conservatism and now seems entirely reserved for liberals. But who else in this field would? Romney would have to prove his base cred for his entire presidency. Gingrich is a radical utopian and supremely nasty fantasist.

I don't believe Romney or Gingrich would cut entitlements as drastically as Paul. But most important, I don't believe that any of the other candidates, except perhaps Huntsman, would cut the military-industrial complex as deeply as it needs to be cut. What Paul understands - and it's why he has so much young support - is that the world has changed. Seeking global hegemony in a world of growing regional powers among developing nations is a fool's game, destined to provoke as much backlash as lash, and financially disastrous as every failed empire in history has shown.

We do not need tens of thousands of troops in Europe. We do not need to prevent China's rise, but to accommodate it as prudently as possible. We do need to get out of the Middle East to the maximum extent and return our relationship with Israel to one between individual nations, with different interests and common ideals, not some divine compact between two Zions. We do need a lighter, more focused, more lethal war against Jihadism - but this cannot ever again mean occupying countries we do not understand and cannot control. I suspect every other Republican would launch a war against Iran. Paul wouldn't. That alone makes a vote for him worthwhile.

Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy. Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America is incompatible with Christianism and the ugly anti-illegal immigrant fervor among the Republican base. But it is perfectly compatible with a modest, humble libertarianism that allows a society to find its own way, without constant meddling and intervention in people's lives. Just as vitally, no other Republican (or Democrat) would end the war on drugs, one of the most counter-productive, authoritarian campaigns against individual liberty this country has known since Prohibition.

He could also begin to unwind the imperial presidency. We would no longer go to war without a full Congressional vote and approval. Torture would not return under Paul, making it more likely that we can contain that virus to the criminal regime of Cheney and Bush. Politics would be marked more by what wasn't done, rather than what was - a truly conservative move and in stark contrast with the man who really would have made a good Marxist, Newt Gingrich.

The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has "zero chance" of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie. Nationally, Paul is third in the polls at 9.7 percent. In Iowa, he may win. In New Hampshire, it is Paul, not Gingrich, who is rising this week as Romney drifts down. He's at 19 percent, compared with Gingrich's 24. He is the third option for the GOP. And I believe an Obama-Paul campaign would do us all a service. We would have a principled advocate for a radically reduced role for government, and a principled advocate for a more activist role. If Republicans want a real debate about government and its role, they have no better spokesman. He is the intellectual of the field, not Gingrich.

I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. I'm a Tory who has come to see universal healthcare as a moral necessity that requires some minimal government support, who wants government support for a flailing reovery now, but serious austerity once we recover. I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy, because I am a conservative who does not believe our materialism trumps the need for conseraving our divine inheritance. I back marriage equality and marijuana legalization as Burkean adjustments to a changing society. I see a role for government where Paul doesn't.

But Paul's libertarianism may be the next best thing available in the GOP. It would ensure real pressure to make real cuts in entitlements and defense; it would extricate America from the religious wars of the Middle East, where we do not belong. It would challenge the statist, liberal and progressive delusion that for every problem there is a solution, let alone a solution devised by government. As part of offering the world a decent, tolerant conservatism, these instincts are welcome. As an antidote - and a very strong one - to the fiscal recklessness and lawless belligerence of Bush-Cheney, it is hard to beat. The Tea Party, for all their flaws, are right about spending and the crony capitalism it foments. So is Paul.

I regard this primary campaign as the beginning of a process to save conservatism from itself. In this difficult endeavor, Paul has kept his cool, his good will, his charm, his honesty and his passion. His scorn is for ideas, not people, but he knows how to play legitimate political hardball. Look at his ads - the best of the season so far. His worldview is too extreme for my tastes, but it is more honestly achieved than most of his competitors, and joined to a temperament that has worn well as time has gone by.

I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. Of you are a Republica concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.

Oh, and fuck you, Roger Ailes.

Not saying that I agree; but I do think that it is worth the read.

[Crapshoot]

Not that anyone needed proof that the GOP establishment detests Gingrich - see the official NR endorsing editorial here: Winnowing the Field - The Editors - National Review Online

In a nutshell, they endorse the "NOT GINGRICH" candidate. Wow.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Hey, I contributed greatly to that cause!

But seriously, I wonder what would happen if Gingrich did drop out. I suppose there is an end of the line where the conservatives will give up and just feel that Romney is inevitable. Is Gingrich the last in line? Does Santorum get a shot? Maybe Bachmann gets a 2nd shot? Does Palin get off her ass?

You should get bonus points for "ass", "shot" and "Santorum" in consecutive sentences.

[JPhillips]

I don't know what happened, but Fox is going all out to kill Romney.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Saw where Rasmussen now has Romney ahead of Newt 23-20, with Paul at 18.

What I liked considerably more was a wiseass crack from the peanut gallery commenting on the story

Feels like grocery shopping in a dumpster

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saw where Rasmussen now has Romney ahead of Newt 23-20, with Paul at 18.

What I liked considerably more was a wiseass crack from the peanut gallery commenting on the story

Feels like grocery shopping in a dumpster

If the GOP is shopping in a dumpster for its Presidential candidate would conservatives such as yourself be more amicable to a third party conservative that more closely matches your views?

My untrained political eye sees 2012 as being ripe for certain factions not happy about the Republican candidate running their own. Whether its libertarians or strong conservatives.

Either way, it's hard not to like Obama's chances at this point despite his vulnerability. I get a kick out of reading some conservative forums where they believe that Assad from Syria could be on the Republican ticket and still beat Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

If the GOP is shopping in a dumpster for its Presidential candidate would conservatives such as yourself be more amicable to a third party conservative that more closely matches your views?

I'd be fine with it. My loyalties to, or even interest in, the GOP extends only so far as it meets my needs/wants/objectives. I was a (D) before I was an (R) and I wouldn't be bothered in the least by being an (X) if that was a better match.

I get a kick out of reading some conservative forums where they believe that Assad from Syria could be on the Republican ticket and still beat Obama.

Those are idiots whistling past the graveyard.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd be fine with it. My loyalties to, or even interest in, the GOP extends only so far as it meets my needs/wants/objectives. I was a (D) before I was an (R) and I wouldn't be bothered in the least by being an (X) if that was a better match.

Kind of what I figured. Are there any rumblings of something like that emerging or would that be something that would pick up more if Ron Paul started to emerge more. I can see plenty of conservative (R)s still plugging their nose and voting for Gingrich or Romney (while a significant portion like yourself wouldn't). But if Ron Paul were the nominee I think it'd be much easier for traditional conservative wing to setup their own candidate.

I dunno, it's just an interesting dynamic to follow even though I feel they are all complete rubbish

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by lungs

If the GOP is shopping in a dumpster for its Presidential candidate would conservatives such as yourself be more amicable to a third party conservative that more closely matches your views?

My untrained political eye sees 2012 as being ripe for certain factions not happy about the Republican candidate running their own. Whether its libertarians or strong conservatives.

Isn't the issue, though, that there are such divergent views/priorities within the party right now that a 3rd party wouldn't be able to gain much traction with a significant number of Republicans, much less the general public?

I've voted libertarian the last 2 elections simply because I don't like the direction of the GOP. But Im also willing to give a legit GOP candidate a shot if it serves the broader purpose. And then I see a video like that from Romney, pandering to social conservates on issues I don't give a shit about (in terms of governmental policy issues), and I am immediately turned off. Those issues are not priorities to me in the least. I don't care if you believe in them as a candidate, just don't make them an issue in the election, because all you can do is hurt yourself (with me) by raising them. And down goes Romney.