May 11, 2011
— Ace Byron York takes note of the huge elephant in the room -- the lack of a huge elephant in the room.
Talk to enough people around [South Carolina] and you'll learn two lessons, over and over again. One is that there is absolutely, positively no unity among Republicans about any presidential candidate or potential candidate; there's no such thing as a frontrunner. The other is that in the back of their minds, many Republicans are hoping that somewhere, somehow, a superhero candidate will swoop down out of the sky and rescue them from their current lackluster presidential field. They know it's a fantasy, but they still hope.It's not just dissatisfaction with the field.... Seeing each candidate as flawed, they focus on the unattainables -- Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio -- who they believe might bring a fresh face and new hope to the GOP.
[O]f course, if any of the unattainables actually ran, the dissatisfied might quickly develop doubts about him, too. But at least they'd be new doubts, rather than the old, lingering ones about some of the current candidates.
All this has led to intense frustration among Republicans in South Carolina -- and around the country, too. They believe Barack Obama is eminently beatable, even after the recent triumph of killing Osama bin Laden. When his bin Laden bounce settles down, it's likely that Obama will return to the mid-40s job approval range. And yet Republicans are fighting the idea, heard not just in the press but among some of their own colleagues, that a president in the mid-40s can't be defeated. It doesn't make sense to them. So they hope for some new way out of the problem.
True, true. Some emailers still express hope that Christie or Rubio might run; comes up in the comments, too.
I know the feeling. But one of the reasons I have been annoyed about Palin's hold on the Republican imagination is that I just don't think she's running (or could win, if she did), and therefore thinking of Palin as nominee represents not thinking about one of the people actually running.
Similarly, dreaming of Christie, or Rubio, or -- I'll cop to it -- Ryan keeps us from thinking about the actual candidates.
Christie says, 100%, he's not running, and doesn't seem to be. Rubio says he's not running (although he has been weak on the question of whether he'd serve as Vice President; but that's not top of ticket). Ryan, despite the attempts by Weekly Standard to will him into running, seems satisfied with his old answer of "My kids are too small and my ego's not big enough."
I think Donald Trump was a beneficiary of this a month ago. A lot of people are looking for some candidate to capture their imagination. Even cynics are disguised, disappointed romantics, and everyone wants to fall in love. Trump, I think, was a flash infatuation. Rich, talks tough, has the cache of celebrity -- okay, this guy then!
But there's not going to be any surprise Prince Charming.
Jay Cost addresses this, and notes that Republicans, with the singular example of Barry Goldwater, have since 1948 always run either last year's runner up (comfort level, familiarity, "his turn"), or some dominant figure (Eisenhower), or, of course, actually an incumbent already running for president, and suggests we might be getting a little wigged out since we're not used to having wide-open primaries.
He says we shouldn't sweat it:
[T]he party does not need to fall in love with its nominee. Sitting in the background here is my (admittedly heterodox) opinion that "enthusiasm" doesn't matter all that much for presidential elections. The most loyal partisans usually are the ones who make a regular habit of voting in presidential elections, regardless of their enthusiasm. Additionally, to the extent that enthusiasm does matter, it's important to remember that a close election will drive up interest, and therefore turnout, while a Republican blowout will make all this irrelevant. Enthusiasm could indeed be a problem in an Obama blowout, as that might open up scores of new House and Senate pickup opportunities for the Democrats. Finally, the Obama administration has thoroughly alienated the conservative base, meaning that we can expect it to turn out, at the least, to vote against the president if not for the GOP nominee (recall how the Democratic base turned out in droves for the thoroughly lackluster John Kerry).
And plus: We don't know a lot of these guys yet. The guys we know aren't running for president (mostly); the guys who are running we don't know.
But being unknown is only a problem in the beginning of a campaign. Whoever the nominee turns out to be, they're going to have near 100% name recognition by the end of the process, one way or the other.
And who knows. Some candidates grow in office. Some also grow over the course of a campaign.
And you know, I wanted to link Rescue Me by Aretha Franklin, but it's not on the internet (no, seriously, you find it). So I'll risk ridicule and link this other song featuring Aretha Franklin that lyrically echoes the post.
Posted by: Ace at
02:57 PM
| Comments (349)
Post contains 881 words, total size 6 kb.
I don't wanna grow up!
I'm a Libs 'R' Us kid!!!
Posted by: Infante Barack Obama at May 11, 2011 03:01 PM (BP6Z1)
Well in that case let's run Newt and Mittens.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:01 PM (QAJGa)
"When his bin Laden bounce settles down, it's likely that Obama will return to the mid-40s job approval range"
Ace forgets that the likking of Bin Laden caused 25% of the voters to convert to Democrats. The AP will tell ya.
Posted by: california red at May 11, 2011 03:01 PM (7uWb8)
Posted by: joeindc44 at May 11, 2011 03:02 PM (QxSug)
Speaking of which, there's a link at NRO Corner to a 1984 confrontation on the floor between Newt and then-speaker Tip O'Neill. I watched a few minutes and saw some old faces I'd forgotten (and wish I hadn't remembered).
I defy anyone to watch that vid and not be for term limits.
Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at May 11, 2011 03:03 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: not the droid you seek at May 11, 2011 03:03 PM (6MNtp)
Posted by: El Kilo at May 11, 2011 03:03 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: John McCain at May 11, 2011 03:04 PM (N2yhW)
That shit heel Santorum should be in the photos along with Huntsman too.
Posted by: Beto at May 11, 2011 03:05 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 11, 2011 03:05 PM (qIHlG)
Or, we could always run Juan McCain again.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:06 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:06 PM (7utQ2)
Just got snubbed by McConnell for some committee post. I read somewhere. Will try to find the link.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:06 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 11, 2011 03:07 PM (qIHlG)
Bob Dole says that Bob Dole deserves another shot at it, and this time Bob Dole will last longer than 4 hours.
Posted by: Bob Dole at May 11, 2011 03:08 PM (QAJGa)
Yeah, what was with that holly roller? I assume you guys dispatched him after cutting off his nads and playing a round of golf with them.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:08 PM (pW2o8)
No to Christie, he is a RINO. Yes to Ryan and DeMint. Rubio has only been in the senate this year, it is too soon.
Is Beck running?
Posted by: Carol at May 11, 2011 03:08 PM (bdB1C)
Posted by: alexthedude is mobile at May 11, 2011 03:08 PM (qY79c)
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 07:08 PM (pW2o
--Towards the end it was patting itself on the back for hijacking the thread.
Yeah, hijacking the overnight thread.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:09 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at May 11, 2011 03:09 PM (5QW3T)
Posted by: Dale Cooper at May 11, 2011 03:09 PM (u6ptI)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 11, 2011 03:10 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 11, 2011 07:07 PM (qIHlG)
--Yep, not George Bush or Green Bay or even Gorilla Biscuits, but Glenn Beck.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:10 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Racefan at May 11, 2011 03:11 PM (dHx/4)
--Towards the end it was patting itself on the back for hijacking the thread.
We have something in common!
Posted by: Cute Kittehs at May 11, 2011 03:11 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at May 11, 2011 07:09 PM (5QW3T)
He's only been gov for 1.5 yrs....
Posted by: Cute Kittehs at May 11, 2011 03:12 PM (QAJGa)
That's mathematically unpossible.
One cannot hijack the ocean by swimming in it.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:13 PM (7utQ2)
You Cannot Trust Grungy Bohemians!!!!!!!
Posted by: GB Is Teh Suck! at May 11, 2011 03:13 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 11, 2011 03:14 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:14 PM (BP6Z1)
*draws a line in the sand*
With me or against me?
I'm holding out for Bolton and Regis to be SecState. And watch heads go 'splody in soooooo many directions and varieties.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:15 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: alexthedude is mobile at May 11, 2011 07:08 PM (qY79c)
I'd rather talk about Palin/O'Donnell 2012
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 11, 2011 03:15 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Allahpundit at May 11, 2011 03:16 PM (u8JAM)
Posted by: Trish at May 11, 2011 03:16 PM (yqhkv)
*draws a line in the sand*
With me or against me?
Posted by: Papa Editor at May 11, 2011 07:13 PM (Zs83Q)
--Me too: with.
After his last interview with Levin a couple weeks ago I think he'll jump in. He may be doing research, or letting the rest bloody each other up a bit first.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:16 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Mayan Apocalypse, 2012 at May 11, 2011 03:16 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: zombie Ross Perot at May 11, 2011 07:16 PM (le5qc)
I'm still alive, asshole.
It's just that simple.
Posted by: H. Ross Perot at May 11, 2011 03:18 PM (BP6Z1)
Love that guy.
wait...what?
Posted by: sifty at May 11, 2011 03:18 PM (2dbd9)
Damn straight! It's about time we dealt with the skaters, surfers and snowboarders! Menaces, the lot of them!
Posted by: Sgt. York at May 11, 2011 03:18 PM (uLilQ)
If you don't think that's a fantasy I would hate to hear your real fantasies.
On second thought...
Posted by: Typical perverted moron at May 11, 2011 03:18 PM (LH6ir)
Christie, Daniels & Romney I don't trust.
Posted by: Iblis at May 11, 2011 07:14 PM (9221z)
Ditto. I'm getting excited about The Hermanator. I like his no bullshit style and my panties are damp thinking about him beating princess barry's ass in a debate.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at May 11, 2011 03:19 PM (UciSl)
Christie, Daniels & Romney I don't trust.
Posted by: Iblis at May 11, 2011 07:14 PM (9221z)
Yeah. I'm really starting to like ole' Hermy.
Posted by: Soona at May 11, 2011 03:19 PM (N63LY)
Posted by: sifty at May 11, 2011 03:19 PM (2dbd9)
If they can't pay the rent, then kick the fuckers out!
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:20 PM (QAJGa)
I seesaw between thinking we could put up an incontinent gerbil named Mr. Nibbles and he'd beat Obama, and worrying that the level of stupid in this country is such that it'll just take a little carefully timed media manipulation to keep dear leader in power. I guess we'll see.
Yes to Ryan and DeMint.
Yes to Ryan. No to Demint, as he's too nakedly partisan. The media would have a field day painting him as a rightwing nutball. Ryan, otoh, has that whole Reagan happy warrior thing going on.
I'd also take Jindal or, if he can explain his coziness with the Jersey Jihad crowd, Christie.
Posted by: TiredWench at May 11, 2011 03:20 PM (oPceJ)
*draws a line in the sand*
With me or against me?
Posted by: Papa Editor at May 11, 2011 07:13 PM (Zs83Q)
With. Never before has a such a badass come in the appearance and eloquence of an unassuming intellectual.
Bolton might be able to make Dick Cheney cry "uncle!"
Posted by: ErikW at May 11, 2011 03:20 PM (GnfSt)
Posted by: joeindc44 at May 11, 2011 03:20 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:20 PM (UzBwz)
Posted by: alexthedude is mobile at May 11, 2011 03:20 PM (qY79c)
*draws a line in the sand*
With me or against me?
He'd be an excellent secretary of state, but I think on domestic policy he's not very conservative.
Depends on how bad the rest of the field is I suppose.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 11, 2011 03:21 PM (uhAkr)
And on the off-chance that he doesn't, with his acumen, he can be brought up to speed fairly quickly.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 11, 2011 03:21 PM (c0A3e)
http://tinyurl.com/6jwzwx
(rescue me)
Posted by: Sgt. York at May 11, 2011 07:05 PM
That is fabulous.
Posted by: huerfano at May 11, 2011 03:21 PM (IN2A4)
Posted by: sifty at May 11, 2011 07:19 PM (2dbd9)
Are you kidding?
Malkin BREITBART
Posted by: Allahpundit at May 11, 2011 03:22 PM (u8JAM)
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:22 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 03:22 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Mr. Nibbles at May 11, 2011 03:23 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: TiredWench at May 11, 2011 03:24 PM (oPceJ)
Giving a speech where he doesn't look come off like a dork would help Jindal a lot.
Posted by: Fartnoise at May 11, 2011 03:24 PM (bCxgV)
Next please.
But, seriously, I am leery of one-dimensional candidates where we have to imagine what their agenda would be in major areas.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:24 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Bugler at May 11, 2011 03:24 PM (VXBR1)
What do you have against shitheels, dude?
Posted by: zombie Ross Perot at May 11, 2011 03:24 PM (le5qc)
All he preaches is hate and that in infantile pentameter.
Is anyone besides me tired of his constant provocations? He and his cronies fatten themselves on the collective teat that is to our great embarrassment, an industry that well rewards its minions. He is an unfortunate by-product of our socio-political system and the exact opposite of egalitarianism and justice. If this were 1863 he would be a slave owner north of the Mason-Dixon and beat his chattel when they displeased him while publishing invectives of those citizens who resided below it and did not own such. It is to our collective misfortune that citizens of his ilk are elevated to a position where they are able to inflict their inexorable vituperation on us all, even those who promote him. That those promoters are too obtuse to recognize the detriment he is to the collective is no excuse for their behavior. His moral compass is defective and he relishes in his pathetic bent. He is one of those who when his family is in a fight will only throw stones from the rear ranks not caring who gets hit.
Posted by: Beto at May 11, 2011 03:25 PM (H+LJc)
Ace
Probably because....
"Rescue Me" is a song written by Fontella Bass, Raynard Miner and Carl Smith. In 1965, it was released as a single by Fontella Bass. It would prove the biggest hit of Bass's career, reaching #1 on the R&B charts for four weeks and placing at #4 on the Billboard Hot 100.
This most popular of versions is often miscredited to Aretha Franklin; in fact, Bass delivered her fiery vocal on "Rescue Me" three years prior to Franklin's revelatory artistic and commercial breakthrough with "I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Love You)."
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 11, 2011 03:25 PM (M8E6y)
http://tinyurl.com/6jwzwx
(rescue me)
Posted by: Sgt. York at May 11, 2011 07:05 PM (uLilQ)
Excellent!
Posted by: robtr at May 11, 2011 03:25 PM (MtwBb)
And against abortion and for circumcision. I'm all cut and no scrape!1!11!!1
Posted by: El Kilo at May 11, 2011 03:26 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: ForesKen at May 11, 2011 03:26 PM (1fanL)
*draws a line in the sand*
With me or against me?
Hey. That's my line...Bolton/West or West/Bolton 2012
Posted by: momma at May 11, 2011 03:27 PM (penCf)
Yup. There will never be a short, bald, president named "Mitch."
Posted by: Fartnoise at May 11, 2011 03:27 PM (bCxgV)
Palin/wonkish old moderate 2012 (Like Reagan did with bush only the VP will be too old to run for president in the future. If it gets the establishment warmed up, eh, it'll help.
Breitbart for Press secretary.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 11, 2011 03:27 PM (u8JAM)
I'm glad you posted this, Ace.
Because I made this argument earlier today at HotAir:
Ace has written quite a bit about this, but it’s utter BS that the current crop of GOP contenders, either officially announced or expected to jump in, are not good enough, or are “boring”, or not qualified, etc. That’s a narrative that so many conservatives are pushing, and the media is only to happy to help you out. And the problem is that you all seem to keep demanding the next Reagan, and since he hasn’t magically appeared yet, you cast aside everyone else from consideration.
Now, I love Reagan, he’s probably my favorite president of the last 100 years or so, but politicians like Reagan come along every few DECADES. You demand one appear every presidential election cycle. And it just kills your chances. So much lamenting on this site: “God, how did we wind up with McCain as the nominee?!”. Because you pulled this same crap in 2008. You kept waiting for the next Reagan (some of you expected it to be Thompson, before he disappointed everyone), and couldn’t decide who you considered that to be, and meanwhile McCain quietly plugged along until he had enough delegates to secure the nomination.
You actually DO have a good field of candidates. There are several of them who are likely skilled and qualified enough to beat Obama. But because they aren’t “exciting” enough for you, you toss them aside.
Also, quit throwing everyone under the bus because if one mistake (or perceived mistake). Allen West, for example, makes one remark about obamacare, and suddenly you’re hammering him with the “RINO” label. But then again, you know the old cliche, when all you have is a hammer…..and some of you looooooove your RINO hammer.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 03:27 PM (UhJNC)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 11, 2011 03:27 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:28 PM (Sngfn)
Posted by: "Snake" Santorum at May 11, 2011 03:29 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 11, 2011 07:27 PM (u8JAM)
you've publicly said on this blog that if Palin is not the nom, you won't go out and vote against Obama, sorry your opinion means nothing as long as you keep that stance
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:29 PM (UzBwz)
Bolton: lawyer and diplomat
Next please.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 07:24 PM (pW2o
Okay but don't forget, Pelosi's first act as Speaker was to remove him as Ambassador to the U.N.
That's a huge resume enhancer as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: ErikW at May 11, 2011 03:29 PM (GnfSt)
Posted by: Trish at May 11, 2011 03:29 PM (yqhkv)
Yup. There will never be a short, bald, president named "Mitch."
Posted by: Fartnoise at May 11, 2011 07:27 PM (bCxgV)
Yeah, an unattractive guy will never be President.
Posted by: The Rail Splitter at May 11, 2011 03:29 PM (1fanL)
Then I suggest it's time you grant amnesty to the recordings and set them free. And provide a link. But only if they're hawt.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:30 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:30 PM (UzBwz)
Bolton: lawyer and diplomat
Next please.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 07:24 PM (pW2o
Okay but don't forget, Pelosi's first act as Speaker was to remove him as Ambassador to the U.N.
That's a huge resume enhancer as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: ErikW at May 11, 2011 07:29 PM (GnfSt)
Yes, but...lawyer.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 03:30 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Trish at May 11, 2011 07:29 PM (yqhkv)
Sorry, hon, but he doesn't play for your team.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 03:31 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: astonerii at May 11, 2011 03:31 PM (rSa7F)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 07:22 PM (1fanL)
and if you don't like him, you want our currency to be the Amero
Posted by: Paultard at May 11, 2011 03:31 PM (Ig1Wo)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:31 PM (Sngfn)
But I'm a hamster, I don't have pants...
Posted by: Mr. Nibbles at May 11, 2011 03:31 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: Soona at May 11, 2011 03:32 PM (N63LY)
Okay but don't forget, Pelosi's first act as Speaker was to remove him as Ambassador to the U.N.
That's a huge resume enhancer--
Oh, I agree that he's hated by the right people. And I really shouldn't have been so flip. But I see people getting excited by candidates about whom we know so little, either in terms of their policy positions in major areas or how they'd govern. I'd put both Bolton and Cain in that category.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:32 PM (pW2o8)
Bolton added that the SEALSÂ’ killing of bin Laden took a long time in planning with information collected under President George W. Bush to eventually locate bin Laden at his hideout in Pakistan.
“This information came from people who were captured, taken to Guantanamo, and some were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques,” Bolton said, in reference to water boarding. “This is a real vindication to President Bush’s war on terrorism.”
Bolton later said Obama does not list national security at the top of his agenda. “He deals with it when he has to,” Bolton said.
Bolton told the Republican group the military budget should be a top priority and that domestic spending should be cut to pay for a strong military defense. “It’s a powerful deterrent to other nations,” Bolton said. “When it comes to military capabilities, I don’t want the U.S. to be in a fair fight.”
Negotiations will not work when the U.S. deals with countries pursuing nuclear weapons, Bolton said. “What are we going to negotiate, that Iran gets small nuclear weapons?” Bolton asked.
Posted by: momma at May 11, 2011 03:32 PM (penCf)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at May 11, 2011 03:32 PM (VidfH)
Yes, but...lawyer.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 07:30 PM (73tyQ)
Yeah, it'd be stupid to put a lawyer in as head of the Executive Branch, huh? Don't want anybody to have any familiarity with the laws, huh?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 03:32 PM (1fanL)
1. For the sheer joy and pleasure of watching her debate Obama. Three times
2. For the added pleasure of listening to Ace bleat "But she doesn't know the territory!" during the entire primary season.
3. For the win.
Posted by: mrp at May 11, 2011 03:32 PM (HjPtV)
She stuck around and double-down. Some of us are ignoring her; others don't seem to mind her.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:33 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: newrouter at May 11, 2011 03:33 PM (6BXlQ)
Posted by: Herr Blücher at May 11, 2011 03:33 PM (ty/tC)
(I would still prefer someone solidly against what I deem the Triangle of Death: Socialized health care, massive immigration, and anti-fossil fuels energy policies.)
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:33 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:34 PM (Sngfn)
Yeah, it'd be stupid to put a
lawyer in as head of the Executive Branch, huh? Don't want anybody to
have any familiarity with the laws, huh?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 07:32 PM (1fanL)
It'd be like putting Willie Sutton in charge of bank security.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 03:34 PM (73tyQ)
Well, there's "unattractive," and there's "boring, stiff, non-telegenic, bald, short, middle-aged, white guy."
Posted by: Fartnoise at May 11, 2011 03:34 PM (bCxgV)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:35 PM (Sngfn)
Sarah Palin cannot win. I like her a great deal, but down that road lies disaster. We can easily make this a referendum about Obama--we cannot afford to allow it to be reframed otherwise and she represents "otherwise."
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:35 PM (7utQ2)
And this is why Allah can be a pain in the dick.
When a congressman screws up, you are fully within your rights to let him know what an idiot he is.
These people are not your friends. They are politicians. They will only do what you want if you pressure them to, especially if what you want them to do is hard.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 11, 2011 03:35 PM (uhAkr)
The fact that the linked article was written is evidence that the Democrat media's strategy to marginalize any challenger to Obama has been largely successful
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
Posted by: Jones at May 11, 2011 03:35 PM (cUNcx)
Aww, Amish Dude just hates lawyers. But mostly I think its schtick.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 11, 2011 07:33 PM (OWjjx)
Well, just me and William Shakespeare and Jesus.
But otherwise, I'm out on a limb by myself on that one.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 03:35 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 07:33 PM (BP6Z1)
commenters on here have said if they don't get their nom, they ain't voting
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:36 PM (UzBwz)
I agree. I like 'Stache but only for the entertainment value. Herman Cain - meh I'm reserving judgment until I know more about him.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:36 PM (QAJGa)
Rubio needs to quietly get some hair plugs. It worked for Biden and Schumer. Hair plugs work for politicians cause you only have to look good from a straight-on camera angle.
Ok, yeah, that's less true for Repubs since the media will work to get the best angles to make your hair plugs look bad -- whereas they let Schumer and Biden face the camera. Still, a good hairline is important for a politician.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 03:36 PM (QcFbt)
Posted by: Spiro Agnew at May 11, 2011 03:36 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Christine O'Donnell 2012 at May 11, 2011 03:36 PM (FYCiJ)
We have the 'guy with the biggest dick' wins the Big Seat.
We all know Obambi is walking around with a dazzling vajayjay, so . . .
Posted by: momma at May 11, 2011 03:36 PM (penCf)
---
Yeah, I actually should add that I was merely nakedly pandering to AmishDude by pointing out he's a lawyer. I don't see that as a disqualification. (I'd vote for Christie and think his experience and achievements as DA are really helpful.)
I'm actually more worried about the diplomatic background. I was never a fan of George HW Bush and guys like Huntsman remind me of how it seems that getting those posts has more to do with your ability to be a weasel than anything else.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:37 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: H. Ross Perot at May 11, 2011 07:18 PM (BP6Z1)
_____________
Perot/Vigoda 2012!!!
Posted by: Anachronda at May 11, 2011 03:37 PM (FzhYM)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:37 PM (Sngfn)
It didn't help McCain and it isn't going to help Trump, should he decide to pursue the nomination further.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 11, 2011 03:37 PM (c0A3e)
Unclear on the concept.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:37 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Tough US Immigration Policies at May 11, 2011 03:38 PM (x/4B/)
commenters on here have said if they don't get their nom, they ain't voting
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 07:36 PM (UzBwz)
--Isn't that how we got Teh One? 
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:38 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Optimizer at May 11, 2011 03:38 PM (F56VB)
Posted by: The Dude at May 11, 2011 03:38 PM (Ig1Wo)
Yes to Ryan. No to Demint, as he's too nakedly partisan. The media would have a field day painting him as a rightwing nutball.
It would be one of the rare occasions where they would be right.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 03:38 PM (UhJNC)
Rubio needs to quietly get some hair plugs.
Clubber, you're confused. Rubio has thick, dark hair. He's pretty hawt and his wife is even hawter.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:39 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 11, 2011 07:37 PM (c0A3e)
Hell, passing out free nudie mags wouldn't have helped Obama is my love master McCain.
Posted by: momma at May 11, 2011 03:40 PM (penCf)
You said it much better than I.
And made me nose-spew on my monitor.
Posted by: Fartnoise at May 11, 2011 03:40 PM (bCxgV)
Daniels has the comb-over thing going on.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 03:40 PM (QcFbt)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:40 PM (Sngfn)
Still a painful memory. I also don't know if he has a sufficiently wide mean streak.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:41 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 11, 2011 07:35 PM (uhAkr)
Allah didn't write that. I did.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 03:41 PM (UhJNC)
Thank you!
OK, the truth is there is a lot of schtick there although, as with all schtick, there's some truth that makes it work.
The notion of the "lawyer-government complex" is well and alive and if I had time like Newt does, I could write a book. But what really frosted my buns was that in 2008, Obama's credentials as an intellectual were based on only one thing -- he went to Harvard Law School.
As a Ph.D. mathematician, I will concede to no one that any law school is a sieve of intellect.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 03:42 PM (73tyQ)
It'd be like putting Willie Sutton in charge of bank security.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 07:34 PM (73tyQ)
Or Lincoln in charge of the Executive branch. Or Adams, or Jefferson. Or Madison or Monroe. Or Q. Adams. I agree, not the way to go. How about a peanut farmer?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 03:42 PM (1fanL)
Rubio needs to quietly get some hair plugs.
Clubber, you're confused. Rubio has thick, dark hair. He's pretty hawt and his wife is even hawter.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 07:39 PM (pW2o
--I have no idea who he's talking about.
As for Christie, he gets Fs on two sides of the Deadly Triangle: Cap 'n' Trade and immigration.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:42 PM (BP6Z1)
Who could ever forget the Men's Health cover featuring William Howard Taft. That dude was a world class cocksman.
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 11, 2011 03:42 PM (+lsX1)
You can thank the fuckstick Voinobitch crying like a little baby that prevented Bolton from being confirmed. Thank God he's gone.
Posted by: buzzion at May 11, 2011 07:38 PM (oVQFe)
Yep. He was an embarrassment to Ohio. Buckeyes don't cry, we are so tough we wear our nuts around our necks!
Posted by: momma at May 11, 2011 03:42 PM (penCf)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 11, 2011 03:42 PM (KTG+3)
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 07:38 PM (BP6Z1)
pretty much, I mean we still got hit bad on all fronts - indys, minorities, women, and such; but the Rep turnout in 08 was horrible and it cost us some states like VA, IN, NC, & such. I doubt it will be that bad in 2012 but we need all hands on deck and certain people like the commenter I called out earlier on this thread say my nominee or I ain't voting.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:42 PM (UzBwz)
Posted by: The Dude at May 11, 2011 07:38 PM (Ig1Wo)
You know what would really kill him? A bad convention speech.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at May 11, 2011 03:43 PM (73tyQ)
And his taking-his-psycho-whore-wife-back story makes him doubly unfuckable someone women won't vote for. They won't say that's the problem they have with him, but...it's the problem. Even if that were his only flaw—no shot.
83 Allahpundit desock
I was about to congratulate him on making his first joke since 2006. 
Posted by: oblig. at May 11, 2011 03:43 PM (xvZW9)
Yes, it would be. Instead of everything being a referendum on Obama (including congressional races) things are turned on their head and it becomes about her. That's not a promising circumstance for someone with her pre-existing stack of negatives.
It's like giving the Dems a get out of ass-kicking free card.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:44 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Jaimo at May 11, 2011 03:44 PM (w738x)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 11, 2011 07:42 PM (KTG+3)
wow you have called me a liar. I take that personally, on previous threads you made it clear- specifically in conversations with John-Recent EX Democrat that if Palin wasn't the nom you won't go out and vote in 2012. if you've changed your mind somewhat then your in the right path then, but I am no liar I remember many commenters begging you to vote if Palin wasn't the nom.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:44 PM (UzBwz)
________
Born in the states, but his parents weren't citizens at the time. It'd be fun to nominate him just to watch birther heads explode.
Posted by: Anachronda at May 11, 2011 03:44 PM (xGZ+b)
THIS is the danger of the rescue fantasy. Still, do not despair yet, as the Repubs may take a stand and force the Dems to look like the socialist twits that they are.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 11, 2011 03:45 PM (ENKCw)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 07:42 PM (73tyQ)
Ah. Inferiority complex. It's not that lawyers are smarter. It's that their area of expertise is more relevant than, say, a Ph.D. mathematician. Surely you'd agree with that.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 03:45 PM (1fanL)
Uh, no. Bolton was a recess appointment. Once the new Congress convened, then the appointment expired.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 11, 2011 07:35 PM (OWjjx)
Ah, I've been misinformed and stand corrected.
But is there much of a difference?
Posted by: ErikW at May 11, 2011 03:45 PM (GnfSt)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 11, 2011 03:46 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:46 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 07:44 PM (7utQ2)
THIS, I love Palin and I DO think she has a slight chance to win as before I thought she was unelectable 100%, but her being in the race will make it all about her and not Obama - look at 1964 election.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:46 PM (UzBwz)
182 only way Jindal is attractive on a national level is to go back in time and stop his Republican rebuttal from happening
I see people bring this up in reference to Jindal. And to this I say.....really? Do you HONESTLY think that the American public at large will even REMEMBER him giving that speech?
This is what I was talking about in my earlier post, the whole "Whine whine no one's good enough" attitude some of you have. You're disqualifying a competent, apparently quite successful politician like Jindal from consideration, because he gave a lackluster speech a couple of YEARS ago, that no one but a fraction of conservative partisans even remember.
Trust me, if he ever runs, independents aren't going to be persuaded to vote for or against him based on one speech, that they won't even realize he gave.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 03:46 PM (UhJNC)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:46 PM (Sngfn)
We take Mittens' hair genes and money, Palin's good look genes, Stache's stache genes, Cain's melatonin genes, Daniels' wonky genes, Huckster's cornpoke genes, Newt's...umm, nothing from Newt... and coerce Kratos into creating for us the perfect candidate. We shall call him... Palmitstachadanabee.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:46 PM (QAJGa)
Allah didn't write that. I did.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 07:41 PM (UhJNC)
Oh, sorry about that.
It's a fair point that the RINO moniker has lost a lot of its bite since being applied to...well, everyone, but I still think that there's nothing to gain by not raising hell when these guys go off the reservation and start behaving stupidly.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 11, 2011 03:46 PM (uhAkr)
Or Lincoln in charge of the
Executive branch. Or Adams, or Jefferson. Or Madison or Monroe. Or Q.
Adams. I agree, not the way to go. How about a peanut farmer?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 07:42 PM (1fanL)
None of them went to the corrupt dens of iniquity we today euphemistically call "law schools".
And, given his support for the Alien and Sedition acts, I would argue that John Adams' law career recommended him particularly.
1/2 of the Senate are part of the corrupt lawyer cabal, 1/3 of the House. Barack Obama is a lawyer, Michelle Obama, Van Jones, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton...
Now if they would simply work as lawyers, closing mortgages and such, we wouldn't have a problem, but when they start making the laws that enrich them...
The legal profession is the KY jelly by which one enters the halls of corruption.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at May 11, 2011 03:47 PM (73tyQ)
Rubio?
But speaking of hair, do you notice bald guys under say 50 just keep their hair buzzed tight? Looks a hell of a lot better then Daniel's combover.
Posted by: lowandslow at May 11, 2011 03:47 PM (GZitp)
the MSM will repeat that speech about 500 times a day, so by times November 2012 rolls around - the answer is yes
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 03:47 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 07:42 PM (UzBwz)
--I take it you mean flapjackmama? I just read her correction, but it still sucks. I'd get drunk and vote for Mitt (don't know who "schmuck" is supposed to be --Fuckabee?) easily to get rid of the O-tard. (I say that about Fuckabee because I'm confident the dumbass won't get the nomination.)
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:47 PM (BP6Z1)
Hopefully he's already getting hair plugs and it just takes some time to grow in. Biden's used to look hideous, but over time they look better.
I like Rubio. He used to have thick, dark hair. But so did most bald guys.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 03:48 PM (QcFbt)
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 11, 2011 03:49 PM (xy9wk)
Liberals need a savior, someone to worship.
Conservatives need a chief executive, someone who can run the country while we all get on with our lives. Stop whining because we have to make our case for why a chief executive is better than a savior.
Posted by: AMartel at May 11, 2011 03:50 PM (1Bqk7)
---
I'd vote for Huck, but he would lose.
The only one I would not vote for is Ron Paul.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:50 PM (pW2o8)
Ah. Inferiority complex. It's
not that lawyers are smarter. It's that their area of expertise is more
relevant than, say, a Ph.D. mathematician. Surely you'd agree with
that.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 11, 2011 07:45 PM (1fanL)
Inferiority? I went to high school with a HLS grad. I. Am not. Impressed.
They are stupider. No international competition, no dissertation, no mathematics, no difficult concepts at all. Anybody who can tie his own shoes is overqualified for law school.
Tell ya what? Let's copyright all of mathematics. If we had one of those RIAA scams going, we'd be as rich as John Edwards.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 03:51 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 07:46 PM (pW2o
after Trump entered the scene she stopped being tied in the top w/ Huck and Mitt but now that Trump has been hit post-Birth Certificate (AKA: something Obama might go and regret), she's back up. Rasmussen which is about 99% of the time right and scary right which has Palin go from down 11 to Obama to down...10. so i'd say she's right where she's been. she has been VERY silent lately, I think she may be getting a team together.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:51 PM (UzBwz)
--Who is this?
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:51 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: I have a huge selection of used boots for sale. Or, I will... at May 11, 2011 03:51 PM (FcR7P)
you're all forgetting something
in 2008, the media's mission was to elect the first sort-of black president
in 2012, the narrative must be completed with Fuckstick's re-election
so it doesn't matter who gets the Rep nom. Obama will be re-elected
you can say you read it here first and that you knew me back when
Posted by: Jones at May 11, 2011 03:51 PM (cUNcx)
That's me. Of course, he stands as much chance of being the nominee as I do of being the next Pope.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:52 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 07:35 PM (7utQ2)
True. By the time the press got through savaging her, and with her gaffes and unforced errors, she'd lose 45 states.
Posted by: Ombudsman at May 11, 2011 03:52 PM (6U4X6)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 03:53 PM (QcFbt)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 07:52 PM (7utQ2)
Your eminence.
Posted by: The editors of Reason at May 11, 2011 03:53 PM (73tyQ)
Just wanted to point out that painting Christie as a supposed C&T-boosting guy is a flat-out vicious lie. What has he done on that front? Seriously? The people who spread scurrilous bullshit like that are either 1.) completely ignorant and just passing along info that's 'too good to check', or 2.) intentionally lying because Christie is still a threat to [insert Sainted Perfect Candidate Who Would Lose Miserably here].
Ace wrote a massively long post about this precise subject several months ago. You had to have read it. And yet you still persist in this? Why?
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 03:53 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Spiro Agnew at May 11, 2011 03:53 PM (VXBR1)
The GOP doesn't want her, it would be the end of business as usual.
Palin/Cain.
Posted by: Cheep red wine at May 11, 2011 03:53 PM (1mneR)
I like Rubio. He used to have thick, dark hair. But so did most bald guys.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 07:48 PM (QcFbt)
No wonder we have Toonces with voters like you making choices based on hair.
Posted by: Soona at May 11, 2011 03:54 PM (N63LY)
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 07:47 PM (BP6Z1)
the only nominee I wouldn't vote for so far is Ron Paul and then I'd still go out and write in someone over voting Obama. But Paul has no chance in Hell of being the nominee.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:54 PM (UzBwz)
I'm not sure if a poll vs Obama is the best measure of whether or not she's broadened her support.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 03:54 PM (pW2o8)
Yeah I did look, you're right. Not the typical male pattern baldness but his hair is thinning.
Posted by: lowandslow at May 11, 2011 03:55 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: Deety at May 11, 2011 03:56 PM (mMv0h)
You are partially correct. It would be the end of business, period because President Incoherence would win between 40 and 45 states.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 03:56 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 03:56 PM (Sngfn)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 03:56 PM (QcFbt)
Posted by: mas at May 11, 2011 03:57 PM (AkFx3)
Ah, I've been misinformed and stand corrected.
But is there much of a difference?
Posted by: ErikW at May 11, 2011 07:45 PM (GnfSt)
Okay, even that confused me.
What I meant was, isn't letting a recess appointment expire the same as removing someone? I'm talking spirit, not law.
Posted by: ErikW at May 11, 2011 03:57 PM (GnfSt)
Posted by: Cheep red wine at May 11, 2011 07:53 PM (1mneR)
yes let's get two people who are getting their ass kicked by Dear Leader in the polls, that's the ticket!!!! if Palin is the nom she'll need a major moderate power player as VP
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:57 PM (UzBwz)
Your eminence.
Posted by: The editors of Reason at May 11, 2011 07:53 PM (73tyQ)
That's "Your Holiness". Heathen.
Posted by: "Deutschland" Joey Ratz at May 11, 2011 03:57 PM (6U4X6)
Yes to Ryan. No to Demint, as he's too nakedly partisan. The media would have a field day painting him as a rightwing nutball...
That's the whole problem, there in a nutshell. The fucking media would make George Motherfucking Washington look like a rightwing nutball if he was running against their Anointed Won. And while twisting and distorting any Republican candidate's record they will protect Obama's image to the death. Like they did in '08. Obama was the most radical leftist in the United States fucking Senate. And you didn't even need Google to find this out. His voting record was to the left of Bernie Sanders, who is an out and out Socialist fer' crissakes. But all the crack reporters, entire fucking battalions of them, were up in Alaska digging through Sarah Palin's garbage. And they will do the same in the run-up to '12. All the better for the Republican candidate to stay in defilade and minimize the incoming fire for the time being. Bottom line is - it's the fucking, treasonous, traitorous, un-objective, biased, Pravda loving, motherfucking, sons and daughters of whores who comprise the American Media Establishment, also known as the Democrat Media Complex who are the enemy of this country. Until they are taken down and destroyed, we have no hope of a fair election.
Posted by: LGoPs at May 11, 2011 03:57 PM (+Uv5V)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 07:53 PM (NjYDy)
--I might not have.
So, to be generous:
Carbon: Incomplete
Repealing Healthcare: B+
Immigration: F
Still can't walk.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 03:58 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 07:54 PM (pW2o
never said it was, just pointing out she still loses big in the most important election
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 03:58 PM (UzBwz)
The Dems are ignoring Palin now, touting Daniels, Huck etc. Every Hot Air poll shows her in first.
Yes, because Internet polls are highly reliable and relevant, clearly evidenced by Ron Paul's landslide victory in the 2008 primaries.
Idiot.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 11, 2011 03:58 PM (WRW1S)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 03:59 PM (NjYDy)
Really dude? Really? Their area of expertise is to explain why words written on a piece of paper clearly don't actually mean what they say. And to make everything so convoluted and full of shit that you need them to do a basic task because again, those words on the piece of paper don't actually mean what they say when a "simpleton" like you reads them.
Posted by: buzzion at May 11, 2011 07:55 PM (oVQFe)
I put it this way: My job is to take ridiculously complicated concepts and find a way to explain them in a way so that they can be understood.
In law (and the humanities and social sciences) their job is to take simple (and often dumb) ideas and dress them up so that they don't sound as trivial or as stupid as they really are.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 03:59 PM (73tyQ)
No. Recess appointments expire with the term of the Congress under which it was issued. Neither Senate nor House has an active role in the removal. As a matter of fact--no one plays an active role.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 04:00 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Jean at May 11, 2011 04:00 PM (7P7Ij)
http://t1ny.us/iqo05
Posted by: Deety at May 11, 2011 07:56 PM (mMv0h)
--I think I'm getting a Boltonboner.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 04:00 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 07:56 PM (QcFbt)
Sorry. I'm having a bad hair day.
Posted by: Soona at May 11, 2011 04:00 PM (N63LY)
Posted by: Levi Johnston at May 11, 2011 04:01 PM (QAJGa)
THIS, I keep seeing her DOMINATING HA polls and such but then again Stosell had a 1 hour show begging people to vote for Ron Paul talking about how he got cheers at CPAC and won that poll, cause it's not like internet and straw polls have a History of being nothing but a poll on passion over actual results right? right?/sarc
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 04:01 PM (UzBwz)
Posted by: Spiro Agnew at May 11, 2011 04:01 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 04:02 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 11, 2011 04:03 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:03 PM (Sngfn)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:04 PM (Sngfn)
Huckabee, on the other hand, is kind of sloppy fat. And slow. Probably due to being older if nothing else. Voters respond to virility. That's just reality.
Bolton has the ultra-masculine stache to combat any hair and neck fat issues.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 04:04 PM (QcFbt)
We need a big ass Cuisinart, too.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 04:04 PM (7utQ2)
Y'all don't get all weepy yet. Someone will step up, just wait and see. Never, ever give up (that's what they want us to do, says JEF).
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at May 11, 2011 04:05 PM (FnRYN)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:05 PM (Sngfn)
Are we allowed to include the opinions of any dead Syrians?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 04:06 PM (7utQ2)
@170: "only way Jindal is attractive on a national level is to go back in time and stop his Republican rebuttal from happening"
And stop his discussion about attending an exorcism. Another unforced error
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 11, 2011 04:06 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: krakatoa at May 11, 2011 04:06 PM (LMlkH)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 08:00 PM (7utQ2)
Okay, I get it now, I think. Is a special vote held towards the end of the term to put the recess appointee in place for good?
Posted by: ErikW at May 11, 2011 04:06 PM (GnfSt)
Posted by: Spiro Agnew at May 11, 2011 04:07 PM (VXBR1)
Yeah, but if any bread crumbs fall out of that thing during a debate it's all over for us.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 11, 2011 04:07 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:08 PM (Sngfn)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 11, 2011 04:08 PM (QcFbt)
In law (and the humanities and social sciences) their job is to take simple (and often dumb) ideas and dress them up so that they don't sound as trivial or as stupid as they really are.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 07:59 PM (73tyQ)
I recently had jury duty. All the TV lawyer shows, with their trained actors and polished scripts, give the public a false impression of lawyers. I would classify four of the five lawyers at my trial were inarticulate, bumbling and frankly, stupid.
Posted by: Ombudsman at May 11, 2011 04:08 PM (6U4X6)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:09 PM (Sngfn)
Recess appointments are made when the President can't muster enough support in the Senate for the nominee. I do not remember an instance recently where the nomination was resubmitted.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 04:09 PM (7utQ2)
Yeah, but if any bread crumbs fall out of that thing during a debate it's all over for us.
However, if it leaped off his face and beat the shit out of George Stephanopolous--HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 11, 2011 04:11 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Major Graham at May 11, 2011 04:12 PM (XEPIv)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:13 PM (Sngfn)
I'm sorry, YRM. I must've gotten even more confused than usual. I thought I was responding to a post someone made stating that Palin has been gaining ground in polls against Lightworker.
I don't study polls as intensely as some, but my gut tells me Palin's support has intensified owing to the leadership vacuum in the GOP, but not broadened. And, given that I would have put myself in the "leans towards supporting her for POTUS" category right after the 2008 election and have since become less and less impressed by her, I guess I wonder if others in the GOP feel the same way.
Is there any evidence that folks who tuned into the Alaska show were motivated to get to know her as a candidate and have since become her political supporters?
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 04:14 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Major Graham at May 11, 2011 08:12 PM (XEPIv)
Reagan was down to Carter by 30 is a talking point by big Palin fans but the fact is that's from a Dem skewed TIME poll, most reputable polls had him tied or barely losing/beating Carter and when he was the nom he exploded in the polls. He fell down as the campaign progressed and was almost tied w/ Carter when the infamous debate bump happen that lead to the landslide.
I agree Palin can win, but it's a longshot unless polls say otherwise. she loses to Obama by 10 in Rasmussen, the almost always correct polling firm.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 04:14 PM (UzBwz)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:15 PM (Sngfn)
Sounds more like lefties b4 each election (08 excluded)
Thats because lefty "thoughts" are so extreme, delusional, and self contradictory to say nothing of "reality challenged" they are like women looking for the "perfect man" based on a bunch of ridiculous fantasy movie cliches.
Republicans are more like the nice kid who just cant seem to find a decent Dad because of his idiot mother. All the good Dads want nothing to do with her and all her baggage and her propensity for mistreating those most loyal to her.
Posted by: Shiggz at May 11, 2011 04:16 PM (mLAWK)
I agree with you (about the disinformation), but I've given up on that front. He's not running, anyway.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 04:16 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 08:14 PM (pW2o
from what I saw the Alaska show neither helped or hurt. I do believe she'll poll better if the nominee because suddenly people have to pick. but she doesn't start from ahead FOR NOW that's for sure.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 04:16 PM (UzBwz)
And where do you get THIS from? What is an "F" to you? Why do I get this feeling that everybody who doesn't get an "A" from you gets an "F"? (Which, if true, renders your grading system meaningless.)
You are pretty much the exact sort of person Ace had in mind when criticizing "conservative" voters who demand either psychosexual Chris Matthews "thrill up the leg" excitement from their candidates (in which case imperfections on policy or record are 'forgiven,' excused, and waved away) or completely destructive hate-casting from the right (i.e. it's not enough to be correct on all the issues like, say, Mitch Daniels, you also have to rip The Enemy's face off at every opportunity, regardless of how revolting Americans will find it, and regardless of how it would harm a person's eventual candidacy). Freud would have a field day analyzing this sort of shit, it's practically the Conservative Death Instinct.
Me? I want to win. I want a guy who can babble soothing agreeably non-threatening sounding bullshit to pacify moderates and swing voters (which is EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA DID ALL THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN despite how much we on the right shrieked about his thinly veiled Leftism), use that to get elected to office, and then go to work getting conservative goals accomplished.
And incidentally, since we don't yet live in an empire but have to deal with the separation of powers inherent in our wonderful republic, that means we'll ideally need a guy who can work with the opposing side to get shit done, and not, I dunno, just shit down their throats on national television night after night (which is, I suspect, what some around here secretly want). That's a democratic republic for you.
The equation is, in all honesty, simple: CONSERVATISM + COMPETENCE + NON-THREATENING TO THE CENTER = THE NEXT REAGAN. Because that's how he did it. Anyone who thinks he was a "fire-breathing conservative" is either a poseur who wasn't around back then, or someone who (ironically enough) has bought into the caricature that a desperate left-wing/MSM tried to stick him with back at the time. That wasn't what the people who voted for him thought about Reagan, however.
This is the point that I think so many around here who talk about a need for a 'Reaganesque' figure never seem to understand. America didn't believe it was voting for a hardcore conservative ideologue when it voted Reagan in 1980 and 1984. No, they thought they were voting for a successful two-term governor of America's most important state who mixed conservatism with "appealing" pragmatism (e.g. signing California's abortion laws into effect, which Reagan ran strong on in the NE and West coast), and more importantly came off as incredibly warm & avuncular, which helped defuse the "nuclear war" scaremongering of the Left. He wasn't running like Herman Cain or Sarah Palin, for fuck's sake.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 04:17 PM (NjYDy)
@218: "No international competition"
Good Christ, you're a fucking retard. You do realize that other nations have different legal systems, right? Some are similar in that they are also based on English Common Law, but many are not. Oddly enough, most students tend to want to study the system that they'll actually be using, as opposed to some alien system that has absolutely no bearing on their nation.
The foreign students that come here either: (1) intend to work here; or (2) intend to work in a field closely connected to US law.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 11, 2011 04:18 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: ThePaganTemple at May 11, 2011 04:19 PM (as9LP)
Posted by: ThePaganTemple at May 11, 2011 08:19 PM (as9LP)
not w/ Palin as the nom, maybe Rubio is an exception but not West, the radical image she unfairly has will need a moderate to offset that
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 04:21 PM (UzBwz)
Posted by: zombie Ross Perot at May 11, 2011 07:16 PM (le5qc)
I'm still alive, asshole.
It's just that simple.
Posted by: H. Ross Perot at May 11, 2011 07:18 PM (BP6Z1)
And since he sold Perot Systems to Dell, he's got plenty of time of his hands.
Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at May 11, 2011 04:21 PM (0f5+I)
According to gallup, she is getting higher in favorables for repubs and repub leaning indies. It's a good step and she has been quiet instead of campaigning. She could be putting a team togetherPosted by: Flapjackmaka at May 11, 2011 04:22 PM (KTG+3)
Posted by: Major Graham at May 11, 2011 04:23 PM (XEPIv)
--Hey, I gave him a B+
You're as fanatically creamy and apologetic for Christie as you accuse Palinistas of being for their lady.
I know New Jersey has sanctuary cities. What is he doing about them?
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 04:25 PM (BP6Z1)
Palin has the highest favorables of all potential Republican candidates at 71%, if anyone gives a shit about polls right now. This is per Gallup taken April 25 - May 3 of 1164 Republican and Republican leaning independents.
Palin: 71%
Huckabee: 65%
Romney: 60%
Gingrich: 57%
Trump: 53%
Paul: 49%
Bachmann: 43%
Pawlenty: 35%
Don't jump my shit. Just answering questions from other commenters.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 04:25 PM (AkdC5)
Posted by: Major Graham at May 11, 2011 08:23 PM (XEPIv)
never said she was unelectable, again I just said she's a long-shot who MIGHT win. I also think if she were the nom the election would be about her not O. again she can win, she's not unelectable like I used to think, but I still think she's a longshot is all. I'll admit, things can change.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 04:26 PM (UzBwz)
So you don't think Palin could win if she picked a running mate like Rubio, or maybe Allen West? Think of Allen West especially pursuing the traditional role of VP candidate as attack dog, and tell me they don't have a chance.
Running mates don't have much effect. The candidate will usually gain a temporary bump in the polls after naming a VP running mate, but a strong running mate won't significantly improve the chances of a weak candidate.
Palin is still relatively young. If she wants to be President, her best shot is to win elective office, build up a record, and run in a later contest. She may have screwed herself out of accomplishing that before 2020.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 11, 2011 04:27 PM (WRW1S)
Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at May 11, 2011 04:27 PM (0f5+I)
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 08:25 PM (AkdC5)
Bush had a 70% approval w/ Reps when he left office, Obama still won the election and he still left w/ a 34% approval. the poll you posted is a plus primary wise, meaningless general.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 04:27 PM (UzBwz)
That would explain her favorables going up. Unfortunately she'd have to start campaigning if she were to run.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 11, 2011 04:28 PM (FYCiJ)
I want a guy who will forge a compromise with the left which includes our guy shitting down their throats. 'Stache/Breitbart 2012!
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 04:29 PM (QAJGa)
And yet he turned out to be one of the greatest conservative Presidents (I still think that Calvin Coolidge was better).
My point, once again, is that the folks who talk 'Internet Tough Guy' in the comments here and at Hot Air about the need for conservative purity, the ones who sport in verbally face-raping any candidate who is even so much as rumored to deviate from the Catechism (the part about "rumor" is crucial, too -- look at how maliciously fabricated 100% fake charges against guys like Daniels and Christie on global warming or pro-life issues are now being tossed around by these assholes as Known Facts)...there is no way Reagan would have EVER passed muster with these guys. And yet they keep drooling about how he's the standard all need to be measured against.
I read Hot Air's comments these days ("Mitch Daniels is a pro-choice RINO cuckold! And he's short, which means I can't support him!" "Chris Christie wants to tax our carbon credits and send illegal immigrants to confiscate our guns! And he's fat, which means I can't support him!") and I can see it transforming into a literal singularity of stupid, from which no intelligent thought can ever escape.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 04:29 PM (NjYDy)
So what is the basis of a "favorable" rating? Is it "Thinking about conservative principles for a moment, do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of PERSON X as a conservative" or is it "Thinking about the upcoming GOP primary for POTUS, do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of PERSON X"? Something else altogether (likability?)?
I seem to read a lot of folks who say they'd like Palin at the RNC or that they want her on the campaign trail for others, etc, but that doesn't not translate into wanting her as the nominee.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 04:30 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 04:32 PM (Sngfn)
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 08:30 PM (pW2o
also favorable is diff from actual votes. Clinton had horrendous favorables but got high approvals and people are begging for him to come back. Bush is hated and rearing an image for being a fuckup as President but still left w/ positive overall favorables. Just because people like you or hate you as a person doesn't mean they want you or don't want you in charge.
Posted by: YRM at May 11, 2011 04:34 PM (UzBwz)
The only way a Sarah Palin presidential candidacy could lose by an even GREATER margin than it already would (and we're talking 60%-40% or worse here, with Congress flipping back to the Dems) is if it was a Palin/West ticket.
The fact that you don't realize this just tells me that you're either wishcasting (hey, nothing wrong with that, but you should qualify your post by stating as much up front) or you're deep in the cocoon.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 04:34 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 07:47 PM (QAJGa)
Come on now, really. That speech isn't going to make any of the persuadable indies and moderates decide to vote against him. What do you expect, the MSM to dig that up, and all of a sudden huge swaths of the American electorate, supposing a hypothetical Jindal candidacy, would suddenly go, "Wow, that's a rather boring, disappointing speech, clearly we should vote for the Democrat instead."
Hogwash. The speech is a non-issue. I wish some of you would let it go.
If you really want to know what the MSM WOULD harp on, endlessly, in a Jindal candidacy, look no further than that weird exorcism thing he was involved in.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 04:37 PM (UhJNC)
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 04:38 PM (QAJGa)
Posted by: Major Graham at May 11, 2011 04:38 PM (XEPIv)
No, it would go more like this:
"Jindal wants to kill puppies and strangle babies and kick Grandma out on the street. Oh and he's a racist Christianist weirdo. Oh and if that isn't enough for you, he gave a terrible speech."
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 04:39 PM (QAJGa)
Bingo. I'm not all that crazy about Jindal, honestly. It isn't just the terrible SOTU rebuttal (though I have to admit, it did have a genuine -- and unfair, but then politics ain't about 'fair' -- effect on me), it's the rumbling I hear from LA conservatives that despite his impressive demeanor he's a lot of hat and not much cattle, IYKWIM.
By the way, it's good having you around as a commenter here, Vyceroy. You and Hollowpoint are twin oases of sanity in the fever swamps that Hot Air's turned into -- ditch that shit and sign on as a Moron full-time.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 04:40 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: toby928™ at May 11, 2011 04:40 PM (GTbGH)
--Jeff B., the reason I call it the Deadly Triangle is that if any one of those remains unrectified, all other gains are trivial. If we get the same-old, same-old immigration (non-)policies, the financial pressures on the social services system (even without an amnesty) will more than wipe out the financial cuts elsewhere.
Yeah, Reagan oversaw an amnesty, but he did not have the benefit of hindsight, which we have now. (The benefit being that the Democrats will shit down our necks if we have another amnesty.)
BTW, NumbersUSA gave Christie an F too. Inter-grader reliability is approaching .99
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 04:41 PM (BP6Z1)
Don't jump my shit. Just answering questions from other commenters
I looked up what I'm assuming is the same poll. Palin has very few undecideds, so both her approval and disapproval numbers are high. Excluding all the undecideds (click the link) and you get a different story.
Even if those numbers were correct, I'm more concerned with her 33%/60% approve / disapprove rating among the general electorate.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 11, 2011 04:44 PM (WRW1S)
---
The wrong nominee by us would change that in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Y-not at May 11, 2011 04:45 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: steevy at May 11, 2011 08:15 PM (Sngfn)
As an aside, Bristol is really, really hot now, and sexually arousing.
Is that crossing a line? I certainly don't mean that as disrespect. I get it, we're all supposed to laugh at her for getting plastic surgery or something. Don't care. She's hot. MILF-tastic.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 04:46 PM (UhJNC)
On a slightly related note, the last time I checked in at Firedoglake, they are pretty rabidly anti-Obama. From the left. They are now discussing options on how to "take down the oligarchy". So I absolutely agree that our guy/gal, whomever it is, has a great shot at winning because Obama's far-left base is majorly pissed at him.
They turn against anyone who governs to the right of Stalin... right up until they have to make the "lesser of two evils" choice that we do.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 11, 2011 04:47 PM (WRW1S)
Well yeah. We can't sabotage ourselves. But the potential is there.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 11, 2011 04:47 PM (QAJGa)
@298 @314 Posted by: Jeff B.
So good I had to save them for posterity.
We need more soldiers like you to knock some sense into some of the more aggressive commenters here and at HA.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 04:50 PM (UhJNC)
The only way a Sarah Palin presidential candidacy could lose by an even GREATER margin than it already would (and we're talking 60%-40% or worse here, with Congress flipping back to the Dems) is if it was a Palin/West ticket.
The fact that you don't realize this just tells me that you're either wishcasting (hey, nothing wrong with that, but you should qualify your post by stating as much up front) or you're deep in the cocoon.
RINO elitist dummyhead!!! Why do you let the MSM and RINO establishment choose a candidate for you? For how long have you hated women and black people? Stop repeating DKos talking points!
Posted by: Typical Hot Air commenter at May 11, 2011 04:51 PM (WRW1S)
Is that crossing a line? I certainly don't mean that as disrespect. I get it, we're all supposed to laugh at her for getting plastic surgery or something. Don't care. She's hot. MILF-tastic.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 08:46 PM (UhJNC)
--She was still cute before the mutilation, and now she's just another Hollywood freakazoid.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 04:54 PM (BP6Z1)
I think we should all just vote for whoever the hell JeffB, Hollowpoint and Vyceroy tell us to. I mean, they are the smartest, most astute political minds on teh interwebs, right? If you don't believe that, just ask them. They'll be happy to tell you how they are the only ones who's opinions truly matter.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 04:58 PM (AkdC5)
--She was still cute before the mutilation, and now she's just another Hollywood freakazoid.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 08:54 PM (BP6Z1)
She had surgery to realign her jaw. The same surgery I had years ago as recommended by my dentist, and yes it changed the shape of my face.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 05:01 PM (AkdC5)
There's little sense in claiming the major problem facing the Republican party is that the base is too committed to purity. The major problem of the Republican party is that those elected want to weasel out of confrontation.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 11, 2011 05:02 PM (uhAkr)
I think we should all just vote for whoever the hell JeffB, Hollowpoint and Vyceroy tell us to. I mean, they are the smartest, most astute political minds on teh interwebs, right? If you don't believe that, just ask them. They'll be happy to tell you how they are the only ones who's opinions truly matter.
Thanks, glad you finally came around.
We'll let you know who to support in the next couple months, so stay tuned.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 11, 2011 05:02 PM (WRW1S)
Thanks, glad you finally came around.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 11, 2011 09:02 PM (WRW1S)
Sure. It's not like I have't had your number for quite some time.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 05:04 PM (AkdC5)
Posts like these (and you're no special snowflake, Steph, what you've said is a practically a trope by now) are the reflex reaction of someone who feels like they've lost the argument on the merits and now has to retreat to the GOP's version of class warfare (i.e., bullshit about "intellectual elitism") in a desperate attempt to score a hit. All we've been doing is arguing our position by marshalling reams and reams of evidence and data. Meanwhile you're pounding the table and trying to appeal to the crowd. Which approach is more respectable?
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 05:07 PM (NjYDy)
She had surgery to realign her jaw. The same surgery I had years ago as recommended by my dentist, and yes it changed the shape of my face.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 09:01 PM (AkdC5)
--Was that it? No problem with that, but her nose looks different as well.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 05:12 PM (BP6Z1)
Now let's add the people we think will be in the race because they're doing everything they ought to do if they're running: Mitt Romney (former Governor of "blue" state, Massachusetts, and successful businessman); Mitch Daniels (current Governor of Indiana, former head of federal OMB, and successful businessman); Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House and high-profile commentator); and Michelle Bachmann (current Congresswoman from swing state, Minnesota, and, fairly stated, the "Queen" of the Tea Party movement). Again, that's not that bad... you have two more Governors with executive experience (Romney and Daniels), business experience (same), people who are capable of making strong ideological arguments (Gingrich and Bachmann), and, again, some diversity with a woman candidate who is, not to belabor the point, pretty attractive (Bachmann).
Now let's add in the people we don't know about, but who might conceivably run: Rick Perry (current governor of Texas since 2000); Jon Huntsman (former Governor of Utah and ambassador to Singapore and China (and fluent in Mandarin); Donald Trump (billionaire real estate developer and high-profile reality TV star); Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas and Fox News star); and Sarah Palin (former Governor of Alaska, former Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008, and current multimedia star (books, TV, etc.). Again, this is a pretty good group, with four Governors, interesting life experiences (Perry was an Air Force pilot, Huntsman was a Mormon missionary in China, Trump is Trump, Palin is Palin, etc.).
Finally, let's think about the "bench" -- people we don't think are going to run, but who could be persuaded to join a ticket as VP, or who might be in the wings waiting for 2016: Paul Ryan (leading Congressman and budget hawk from a swing state, Wisconsin); Bobby Jindal (Indian-American governor of Louisiana and Rhodes Scholar... like to see him debate Joe Biden, wouldn't you?); Nikki Haley (Indian-American governor of South Carolina and very attractive young female leader); Marco Rubio (Cuban-American senator from a swing state, Florida); and Chris Christie (governor of New Jersey and Youtube sensation with his stare-downs of state employee union members). That's a great list, and, for my money, where the future of the party lies.
Sure, there are some people I'd rather not see in the race, namely, Donald Trump, who I don't believe is a real Republican or conservative and who is, frankly, weird; and Newt Gingrich, whose three marriages kill his candidacy for me. And there are some people who I don't believe can win, although they add some intellectual interest to the debates we're going to have: Cain, Paul, Johnson, Santorum, Bachmann. And, finally, there are some who I don't believe are going to run: Palin and Huckabee, because they can't win, and because they'd be giving up too much money to run. But, if the race comes down to Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Huntsman and maybe Rick Perry (here's hoping), you'd have a field of five successful governors whose real executive experience will contrast well with the incompetence and inexperience of Barack Obama. Couple them with an attractive younger VP candidate (Ryan, Rubio, Jindal), and you'd have a really good ticket.
Finally, let's think about where we were in 2000, the last time we didn't have an obvious candidate (McCain, in retrospect, was just due in 2008, much like Dole was due in 1996). Senators John Ashcroft, Fred Thompson, and Trent Lott all decided early on not to run, as did Governors Tommy Thompson and Jeb Bush. Former Vice President Dan Quayle withdrew before the primaries, as did Governor Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, former Education Secretary and North Carolina Senator Liddy Dole, and TV commentator Pat Buchanan. The candidates in the primary elections were thus down to Gary Bauer (pro-Life activist), businessman Steve Forbes, African-American commentator Alan Keyes, and two relatively old Senators, John McCain and Orrin Hatch, along with a single Governor, George W. Bush of Texas, who had served there for a total of what, five years? Bush, of course, won, and the pool for potential VP candidates was so thin that he ended up naming Dick Cheney, who brought nothing to the table in terms of electoral votes (Wyoming), and hadn't been part of anybody's thinking prior to that.
We're much better off now. Santorum is much better than Bauer; Herman Cain is much better than Alan Keyes; we have governors (Pawlenty, Johnson, Romney, Daniels) instead of old Senators; we have real conservatives rather than RINOs like McCain and Hatch and Liddy Dole; we even potentially have a Texas governor (Perry) with more experience who isn't named Bush. And then there's that bench.
I'm just saying. This may actually be the best field the GOP has had in decades.
Posted by: The Right Curmudgeon at May 11, 2011 05:13 PM (nov+8)
@218: "No international competition"
Good Christ, you're a fucking retard. You do realize that other nations have different legal systems, right? Some are similar in that they are also based on English Common Law, but many are not. Oddly enough, most students tend to want to study the system that they'll actually be using, as opposed to some alien system that has absolutely no bearing on their nation.
The foreign students that come here either: (1) intend to work here; or (2) intend to work in a field closely connected to US law.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 11, 2011 08:18 PM (xy9wk)
Again, the whole idea is that "Lawyers are teh smartest!"
So, when law schools draw from a pool of wussmanities majors from a population of 300mil, they're supposed to be smarter than people who were educated in a far inferior liberal arts system (breadth requirements, spit!) competing against the worlds' best in a pool of 6bil.
Why don't law schools take half international students like other graduate programs and then they can all work here as lawyers?
Using the native language as a barrier to entry pretty much ensures an inferior product.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 11, 2011 05:16 PM (73tyQ)
What data?
When has the GOP's problem been that we nominated a candidate for president who was too pure? You have to go back to Goldwater. Meanwhile, we've had two stinkers and one one-termer who most certainly weren't die-hard conservatives.
Meanwhile, in the time where we have been nominating imperfect candidates, the debt has been skyrocketing and nobody will even touch the issue.
We are fast approaching the point where winning without doing anything but half-measures doesn't matter.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 11, 2011 05:17 PM (uhAkr)
...to the GOP's version of class warfare (i.e., bullshit about "intellectual elitism") in a desperate attempt to score a hit.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 11, 2011 09:07 PM (NjYDy)
The fact that you even try to put that shit on me is hilarious. The comment below doesn't bolster what I said one bit, does it?
@298 @314 Posted by: Jeff B.
We need more soldiers like you to knock some sense into some of the more aggressive commenters here and at HA.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 08:50 PM (UhJNC)
This comment is just so much bullshit it's laughable. Meanwhile you're pounding the table and trying to appeal to the crowd. Which approach is more respectable?
I don't pander to anyone, and am certainly not trying to appeal to a crowd. I'm just not receptive to assholes that try to project their own bullshit on other people.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 05:22 PM (AkdC5)
--Was that it? No problem with that, but her nose looks different as well.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 09:12 PM (BP6Z1)
When you change the shape of your jaw it will make your nose look different. It took a long time for me to get use to the change in my face.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 05:23 PM (AkdC5)
Palin. She will kick Obama's ass, and then turn her sweet attentions to reforming the attitude of the media. I will like it very much.
"I'll take the first question, boys. Important Safety Tip: if it pisses me off, your next gig is the AKC class-C show tour, capice?"
Posted by: sherlock at May 11, 2011 05:28 PM (thr9V)
Posted by: Steph
People think that it's just a cosmetic thing, but if left untreated can lead to bad complications down the road. Usually corrected by yanking all your teeth and the realignment is done with a new set of choppers.
Posted by: lurker at May 11, 2011 05:37 PM (Oqdwi)
I want to quote you again, Jeff B.:
...there is no way Reagan would have EVER passed muster with these guys. And yet they keep drooling about how he's the standard all need to be measured against.
I've made this point before myself. Look, I was a child throughout the entire Reagan presidency, a very young child at that, so I don't have the firsthand knowledge of him as someone who did live through that period, with an active eye on politics. But I have studied the man enough, after the fact, to know that if his time was now, if he were to come along today, the so-called "true conservative" wing of the party would fucking HATE him. At BEST, he'd be lumped in with the Daniels and Pawlenty's as "RINO squishes". He'd get that status alone just for his willingness to work with Democrats to get something done, which has apparently become an Unforgiveable Sin in this new true-conservative religion that's sprouted up.
By the way, it's good having you around as a commenter here, Vyceroy. You and Hollowpoint are twin oases of sanity in the fever swamps that Hot Air's turned into -- ditch that shit and sign on as a Moron full-time.
I do love arguing with some of them over there. Although at this point, some of them are so ridiculous with their schtick (*coughunseencough*) that it's just more fun to poke at them.
I am unlikely to become a full-time Moron, for two reasons: this site sadly doesn't update nearly as often (on a daily basis) as HA does, and the way the comment sections are line up here - with one HUUUUUUGE page of comments, unlike HA's system of breaking up the comments into several pages - is not really conducive for my iPhone, which is how I read / post on these sites most of the time.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 11, 2011 05:38 PM (UhJNC)
(Santorum provides the strongest pro-Life voice in the party and Paul and Johnson provide a libertarian alternative vision)
--To the best of my knowledge, Ron Paul is strongly pro-life. I just wish that in so many ways he was not so cuckoo. I am looking forward to Rand gaining experience and providing a sane alternative.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 05:40 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: lurker at May 11, 2011 09:37 PM (Oqdwi)
Yeah, I was in a real quandry when my dentist recommended I have it done. The last thing I wanted to do was have surgery on my jaw, but he pressed me on it and once I understood the ramifications of what could be down the road I gave in.
Your jawline defines the look of your face, and every feature of your face changes when you have it done.
Posted by: Steph at May 11, 2011 05:44 PM (AkdC5)
Posted by: alwaysfiredup at May 11, 2011 06:23 PM (UKAnE)
Posted by: alwaysfiredup at May 11, 2011 06:25 PM (UKAnE)
Or some milquetoast piece of shit who doesn't frighten leftists too much (because he's one of them). You know, like McCain. Or Pawlenty.
Or whoever Allahpundit's pushing.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at May 11, 2011 06:33 PM (1A9l9)
Posted by: Rob Crawford at May 11, 2011 06:34 PM (1A9l9)
Aretha it's actually Fontella Bass. If one of the 365 has mentioned this, I apologize.
Posted by: soul man at May 11, 2011 07:04 PM (5K4An)
What would it take to change that? Is it an RNC decision or what? Every four years we talk about how insane the primary system is -- but every four years we do it again!
This is an open question to anyone here who knows the answer! Enlighten us, please! And for heaven's sake, let's change it. Now. Ahead of time.
ALSO -- how do we get rid of open primaries?
If I had to pick the two states most responsible for us ending up with John McCain in '08, they were:
1. New Hampshire (too early, too much weight/influence)
2. Texas' (open primary; all those Dem votes)
Posted by: Better dead than burqa'ed at May 11, 2011 07:33 PM (2AfqM)
And speaking of Ryan (yes, let's!), why shouldn't Paul Ryan run? He's smart as a whip, unflappable, and already knows his way around the Executive Branch because of all the budget stuff. And debates? I'd almost feel sorry for Obama. Ryan runs circles around him.
And Ryan is a happy warrior -- he's positive, great sense of humor, quick-witted, sunny disposition. And to whomever said that an unattractive person such as Daniels will never win, I agree completely. Again, RYAN, hands down! (Be still, my heart!)
But back to the original question. Doesn't matter that I support whoever does best in debates; what does Average American Voter think? I do tend to think that even those who don't actually watch the debates may be influenced by them because the media obsesses on them so much.
Posted by: Better dead than burqa'ed at May 11, 2011 08:03 PM (2AfqM)
Posted by: Better dead than burqa'ed at May 11, 2011 08:37 PM (2AfqM)
If, for whatever reason, national security/defense takes front and center, West is a shoo-in.
That's why all this speculation so early is kind of silly. No one can predict what events might occur a year from now, a month from now, hell, tomorrow. Hamas/Fatah's getting ready to make all-out war on Israel, Iran continues developing their nukes, and Hezbollah is all over Mexico and South America -- with dozens of cells already here in the U.S., and more coming all the time. if the shiite hits the fan, all bets are off.
Posted by: Better dead than burqa'ed at May 11, 2011 08:46 PM (2AfqM)
Sort of explains Ace's apparent philosophy: If you humiliate yourself often enough on big stuff, your little mistakes don't seem important.
Posted by: Adjoran at May 11, 2011 09:08 PM (VfmLu)
Posted by: rae4palin at May 11, 2011 10:03 PM (G4RRM)
Posted by: Yaeli at May 11, 2011 11:20 PM (4C/Sg)
Posted by: Mr. Right at May 11, 2011 11:32 PM (vE11g)
You're quite wrong about that, speaking as someone who voted for Reagan.
Posted by: Kerry at May 12, 2011 04:48 AM (a/VXa)
That said, if Palin isn't serious about running, but instead wants to be a kingmaker, she should say so immediately so we can focus on blocking people like Romney from getting the nomination. I would rather see Obama have a much weakened second term than have another empty suit diffusing the Republican brand for four years.
Posted by: Ken Begg at May 12, 2011 05:42 AM (0pNdu)
I love the DIABLO's whining, tossing themselves on the floor and convulsing about the 'purity' mob screwing Amerikkka by demanding the unelectable.
52% of Republicans, 68% of Indies want another/new Party--the GOP is unreformable.
The hope for a uniter is over. Go your way, third placers, we'll go ours.
Posted by: gary gulrud at May 12, 2011 05:48 AM (/g2vP)
I love Sarah Palin, and her speeches are great. But she does not do well in one-on-one situations, whether interviews or debates. I can't visualize her beating Obama in a debate. (She didn't even really beat Biden back in '08. Sure, Biden was lying through his teeth, and those of us who already liked Sarah thought she was great -- but she did not rebut his lies with factual arguments, and kept going back to talking points over and over.)
Give me someone who's just as positive and forward-looking as Sarah, and just as un-intimidated by Obama, BUT who is also the smartest person in any room, can rebut arguments on the facts quickly and effortlessly, can explain really complicated stuff in a way that everyone can understand, can think on his feet, counter any argument, and never get caught in a gaffe.
Posted by: Better dead than burqa'ed at May 12, 2011 06:02 AM (2AfqM)
Posted by: WildWillyC at May 12, 2011 08:50 AM (TjOL+)
Posted by: km at May 19, 2011 08:01 PM (zzXIh)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2332 seconds, 477 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
--Christie = No good.
Posted by: logprof at May 11, 2011 02:59 PM (BP6Z1)