Election 2012: Overview Points

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, July 15. 2011

Election 2012: Overview Points

I admit I got busy and didn't read through many of the comments in my election post last week, but I presume you all came to the logical conclusion that I was right about everything.

Today, I'd like to toss out some thoughts on a small variety of subjects.

Point In Time

According to the site stats, no one's fired up a site using my new Speakup! 2012 site yet. Unsurprisingly, of course. It's early. The election's still a million miles away.

Or, is it? Here's something to ponder:

Couldn't it be argued that we didn't lose the last election during the general election — we lost it in the primary?

While it might be true that we didn't have a chance in hell last time no matter who we threw up there, this time around things are different. While Obama still has the media in his pocket, many other factions are starting to crumble around the edges (the black vote, youth vote, Jewish vote, hipness vote, etc) and this time we've got a real chance.

Except that the media is going to do everything in its power to promote this kind of behavior:

Pawlenty Blasts Bachmann's 'Nonexistent' Record

This infighting is going to cost us dearly down the road.

Burning Scott Brown's Playbook

Do you remember Scott Brown's Massachusetts senatorial win a few years ago after Senator Ted Kennedy passed away? It stunned everybody. It was, I believe, the first time in 232 years that a Republican had won that seat.

And just how did he beat his opponent, ol' whats-her-name?

He ignored her.

Instead, he used ol' whats-her-name as a proxy for Obama's failures, with a "Here's how I'll do better" approach.

That's what the media will be desperately trying to stave off. They want that sordid chapter of American history to die a quiet and natural death. The media wants it to be a knock-down, drag-out playoff between contenders, whereas the candidates should be emulating Scott Brown and telling the people Here's how I'll do better straight through the primary and all the way to the White House.

The Positions

I suggest you not give a rat's ass about some candidate's 'position' on this or that issue at this point in time. It's all going to change when the primary officially begins, it's going to change again during the general, and what eventually happens after they take office may not have any relation to their previous positions. You know all those campaign promises that Obama has broken? Rest assured, he didn't want to break them.

And then there's the bullshit of 'past indiscretions'. So what if Romney signed some AGW 'pact' three hundred years ago? One of the biggest tropes of both the left- and right-wing propaganda machines is focusing on something the opposition did a zillion years ago (Bill Ayers, please pick up the white courtesy telephone) while conveniently dismissing their own candidate's checkered past.

What makes the whole thing pathetically hypocritical is that the same site that soundly castigates someone for something he or she said years and years ago will then make a post on some 18th century philosopher praising man's ability to think in the here-and-now and instantly being able to change his entire course with one new scrap of critical information. Kind of a strange juxtaposition, isn't it?

It isn't just sentience that makes us special.

Furthermore, I-

"Excuse me, Doc?"

"Yes, boss!"

"Mary said some nice things about you at the meeting yesterday. Hope you enjoyed your dinner. By the way, you got anything fresh on that Perry guy?"

"Comin' right up!"

Taking a Look at the Flip-Flopping Governor Perry, Back When He Was a Democrat

"Outstanding! Keep up the good work!"

"You bet, boss!"

Well, I'd like to talk more but, as you can see, duty calls!

Posted by Dr. Mercury in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 10:30 | Comments (62) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: onthenorthriver.com
Tracked: Jul 15, 11:29

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Couldn't it be argued that we didn't lose the last election during the general election — we lost it in the primary?

Hell yes! I've been saying that since the conservatives let the media decide who wasn't going to heard or seen by the public back in 2008.
With all the obvious weaknesses in Candidate Obama, the complete absurd idea of a half term Senator who had done nothing in his life thinking he deserved to be President, no one hammered any of those points. The Media let this guy touch Bill Ayers without picking up his stink.
Before the Primaries the slate of Republican choices were strong, any of them would have been an acceptable President, a couple of them could have been great. Instead we got served up as the Republican choice a man who would have been the best Democratic candidate to run in decades.

The left still own the regular media, nothing has changed. We can resolve to challenge each piece of biased reporting this time. Acorn is still there, more entrenched and just as crooked. James O'Keefe did a hell of lot but did you notice how the media let that story die?
I'll stop before I go into full rant mode.
I've put your 2012 Speak Up! icon on a sidebar on my blog, but frankly something bigger and brighter is needed. Work on it.

#1 John (Link) on 2011-07-15 11:19 (Reply)

John - Excellent rant (assuming that's not an oxymoron). I mentioned last week that I was a confirmed Frederalist at the time, but Giuliani might have been my second choice, and, as you said, he was just one of a bunch that might have made a fine Prez. Do we end up with "doddering" versus "young and hopeful". The only reason he got as many votes as he did was because of Palin.

"but frankly something bigger and brighter is needed. Work on it."

"Right away, boss!"

I'll give it some thought and raise the issue next week.

#1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 11:30 (Reply)

I don't understand the accusation that the media or Republican establishment picked McCain. McCain won the primaries which are supposed to be dominated by more conservative voters. The Republican voters put McCain in the race. I voted for Romney and most of my reasonably conservative Republican acquaintances also voted for Romney. Blame this loss on Republican primary voters.

#1.2 phil g on 2011-07-15 21:25 (Reply)

Phil -

Well, there's no one group one can point the finger of blame at. If the liberal media decides McCain has the least likely chance of winning, they're going to push him to the Republican voters, who, sheep that they are, are going to follow along, but there's nothing overt you can point at. To the Republican establishment, McCain probably seemed like the best choice because he was moderately placed and straddled both sides of the aisle. I presume the higher-ups had a heart attack when he introduced Palin.

But I never blame the voters. That's like blaming moths for flying toward an open flame.

#1.2.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 21:38 (Reply)

It's one thing to bring up the past indiscretions from a zillion years ago of Mr. Ayers. It's another thing to understand that to this day Ayers has no regret for his violent criminal past, despises America, and that as a candidate for president, any proven association with him honestly displayed to voters would have sunk any primary candidate in 2008.

Obama was introduced to his Hyde Park Chicago community as the replacement for Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer, herself an attendee of the Twenty-seventh Congress of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow on February 25, 1986, in Ayers living room in 1995.

Obama escaped his Titanic on the backs of a liberal press corps dying for an opportunity to prove it's victory over America's racial past.

Congratulations on exposing the bullshit of past indiscretions.

#2 Mike Scully on 2011-07-15 11:44 (Reply)

It's "What's HER name" and it was Martha Coakley of Fells Acres child abuse fame for wrongfully prosecuting innocent people.

With all due respect, Scott Brown's victory was a function of Coakley's persistent belief that she was the anointed successor to Senator Kennedy thus not campaigning and making some major errors in terms of not knowing her own record (seriously), other issues ("illegal aliens aren't illegal"), her refusal to admit she made a major error in the Fells Acres case, her refusal to "meet and greet" at Fenway Park and other major events in addition to some major gaffes like not knowing that Tim Wakefield wasn't a Yankee (also seriously).

In short, she took a sure thing and blew it because she was arrogant and out of touch with her own electorate. She still managed to get a fair share of the overall vote even with all that happening to her. Brown was just a little bit smarter, a little bit more approachable and his own good nature and hail fellow well met attitude which was at complete odds with Coakley's elitist attitude put him over the top.

Might also mention that Edward Brooke was a Republican who held a Senate seat from Massachuetts for a few years so in a sense, Brown could be considered as Brooke's successor. In a way. Sort of. Kinda. :>)

#3 Tom Francis on 2011-07-15 11:45 (Reply)

"It's 'What's HER name'"

Actually, that's pretty funny. Brown did such a superb job of misdirection that I'd forgotten his opponent was a 'her'. The post has been corrected, and thankee kindly.

#3.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 11:55 (Reply)

Edward Brook was a decent man who in 1978 was getting smeared so viciously I registered as a republican for the first time to support him in the primary.
Yes, I live in Massachusetts. And I still vote in every election (though now as a independent) just to vote against candidates that really, really need to be voted against. They get elected anyway, but I vote against them.
I lost track of the number of times I voted against Ted Kennedy, didn't bother Ted at all.
I think that Scott Brown was the first one I voted for who won. It's scary to think that there might be a representative in Congress that actually thinks the way I do, sometimes.

#3.2 John (Link) on 2011-07-15 12:14 (Reply)

Here's a question. Let's say the media was petrified at his win ("How dare he run against Obama in a state race!") and would just as soon the entire sordid story be buried forever.

Since a few weeks after his election, how many times have you seen his name in the news?

Ever?

#3.2.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 12:19 (Reply)

I've seen Brown mentioned a few times (maybe because I don't follow the MSM much), but your point is taken.

Of course this just devolves to the discussion about how the media has been taken over by a bunch of lefties (even though Dianne Sawyer, or was it Andrea Mitchell?, claimed that their opinions had been surgically removed). It's an old tired argument. The best that we can do is not support them and point out their bias.

BTW - I see that Hugo Chavez who was treated for cancer in Cuba (where their medical system is superior to ours - according the the MSM) is going to Brazil for further treatment. Why? He just left medical heaven on earth and now he's going somewhere else???

#3.2.1.1 mudbug on 2011-07-15 12:29 (Reply)

James Taranto in his Best of the Web Today column has been referring to them as "the former mainstream media" for a while. A nice little meme, that.

I had a different take on Hugo and Brazil, though. My thought was, "His doctors know where they should take him -- the one place they can't mention." Bite it, Hugo.

#3.2.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 12:32 (Reply)

That was my thought, too. Hugo would bite off the head of any doctor who told him to go to Johns Hopkins!

#3.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2011-07-15 13:57 (Reply)

It depends on where you live. Boston/Worcester media pay attention to him and he gets his fair share of mentions by the Globe and Herald. Plus he's a kinda-sort of constant the morning Dennis and Callahan Show on WEEI - maybe a couple times a month.

He's a semi-RINO like most New England Republicans.

#3.2.1.2 Tom Francis on 2011-07-15 16:20 (Reply)

If a semi-RINO is the best we can get out of the traditionally liberal NE, I'll take it. Unlike some of the absolutists amongst us, I put a higher value on winning then purity.

#3.2.1.2.1 phil g on 2011-07-15 21:31 (Reply)

I live on the South Shore, south of South Boston, near South Weymouth (sounds like I should run up the Stars and Bars and sip mint juleps) I am in the Metropolitan Boston media zone.
Yes I do hear and see Scott Brown on the broadcast news and radio, more than I hear or see the senior Senator John Kerry. I believe thats because Brown is more active, intelligent and well spoken. Even when Kennedy was the Senior Senator from Massachusetts you rarely heard from Kerry, common belief is thats because he's lazy.
Brown is the best electable Republican Senator we could possibly get in this state. I don't agree 100% with his stands but I can live with them. Is it better to vote for a senator that you will disagree with 70% of the time, or vote against a man that you will disagree with 100% of the time.

#3.2.1.3 John (Link) on 2011-07-15 18:45 (Reply)

"and sip mint juleps"

You're on the South Shore, just next to South Weymouth, just south of South Boston??

I'm surprised you're not flying the Confederate flag.

Myself, I know all about Boston because I've read all of Robert B. Parker's 'Spencer' (with a 'c') books. He never talked about South Boston, though -- much less what was below it.

Anyway, you have our condolences for living in such a funny-shaped state. Connecticut must laugh at you daily.

#3.2.1.3.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 19:02 (Reply)

I'm surprised you're not flying the Confederate flag.

Um.. the "Stars and Bars" is Battle Flag of the Confederacy.
I don't fly it, I have a bandanna I wear in the garden or biking.

Flashback. My favorite Three Stooges film had the boys (Union Spies) dressed as Confederate soldiers. Asked where their plantation was located they answered, "Oh its way down South! Curley Yeah, Boston! Moe South Boston, that is!!

#3.2.1.3.1.1 John (Link) on 2011-07-15 20:37 (Reply)

You're right, I missed the part about the flag. I got sidetracked trying to decide if mint juleps were Southern or Appalachian. Kentucky Derby, and all that.

So, ever read any Robert B. Parker?

#3.2.1.3.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 20:45 (Reply)

Oddly enough, No.

I didn't hear about the character until the TV series went on and that I didn't like. Stupid reason really, I worked in Boston almost every day at that time and that meant I drove into Boston, parked in Boston, and dealt with the infamous Boston traffic and meter maids. So Spencer gets a phone call, "Come RIGHT over!!". He jumps into his (was it a mustang?) car, roars through the empty city streets, PARKS RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS DESTINATION, jumps out and runs in.
I know, I know, all cop and detective shows do the same thing. But this wasn't just Boston, this was the F... Back Bay! I once spent 90 minutes driving four blocks across the Back Bay at rush hour. I worked for a dispatch center located in Texas at the time, they looked at a online map and saw the distance between the two points and immediately called my boss to complain.
My wife liked it, she watched it when I wasn't home.

#3.2.1.3.1.1.1.1 John (Link) on 2011-07-15 23:07 (Reply)

Merc,

"Anyway, you have our condolences for living in such a funny-shaped state. Connecticut must laugh at you daily."

CAREFUL ! The WASSH was born in Mass. and I am quite familiar with the area. I believe John probably took a look at Florida (with the map turned 90 degrees counterclockwise) and, being the gentleman he is (having had to negotiate the "Back Bay Rodeo" on a daily basis) chose not to point this out to you. But, after viewing Florida, you could still proffer a belated apology. It does have a funnier shape, IMO.

Actually, she's down at the "Armpit of the Cape" as we 'speak', in Wareham enjoying fresh scallops and an occasional Sea Breeze, I'm sure.

The Canuck

#3.2.1.3.1.2 Garry on 2011-07-17 09:42 (Reply)

My sister, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, lives on the North Shore and even SHE voted for Scott Brown. You could have knocked me over with a quahog.

#3.2.1.3.2 Agent Cooper on 2011-07-15 23:18 (Reply)

You could have knocked me over with a quahog.

four inch hard shell quahog? Propelled with a overhand delivery, It's doable.

#3.2.1.3.2.1 John (Link) on 2011-07-17 13:28 (Reply)

nothing is different from last time, as the GoP leadership (thus, those deciding who will be the candidate) are still the same and still intent on loosing by pushing people like McCain.

As long as that doesn't change (and it would have to have changed long ago, the election campaign for Obama started the day he got elected in '08) you'll never win against him.
The only reason in fact Bush won in '00 and '04 was because the Dems at the time were so convinced they'd win against a featherweight they never really campaigned, and tried to steal the elections through the courts after they lost (and even with that, the GoP in both cases won on only a paperthin minority).

#4 J.T. Wenting on 2011-07-15 12:55 (Reply)

This post was, so far, my favorite of all your 2012 posts.

The Republicans will lose the national election in the primaries as long as they allow the MSM to define their candidates, and as long as those candidates undermine each other.

I don't like Palin now, as opposed to the election when I DID like her, for one reason - she allowed the MSM to fully define her to the public, and she willingly went along. She felt there was an advantage (and on a personal level, for her, there was) to let them make her a media sensation. But it has made her politically non-feasible at this point.

I can see the same thing happening to other Republican candidates. It's already starting with Herman Cain. While he was an outsider to begin with, recent stories have only made him more so. I think he's an excellent candidate - a very realistic one. But once The Daily Show and Colbert sink their teeth into you and you don't push back effectively, you're toast. Because for some WEIRD reason, those two shows are now legitimate news shows. I blame the education system.

Republicans can win this election very easily. Focus on jobs, focus on taxes. When people say "the focus on taxes needs to be switched - Republicans need to focus on jobs" (which I heard this morning), the reply should be "TAXES ARE JOBS. TAXES LIMIT JOB OPPORTUNITIES. TAXES LIMIT CONSUMER SPENDING. TAXES LIMIT INVESTMENT. ALL THIS IS JOB LIMITATION."

End of discussion. Obama's desire to tax us to death is suddenly exposed as the job-killer it is.

#5 Rick on 2011-07-15 13:15 (Reply)

All nicely put. The candidates should be saying, "Here's how Obama did it, and just look at the results around you. Here's how I'd do it." This backstabbing and 'unmasking' your opponent's experience is seriously wrong, but we can't just claim "media bias" when the words are coming out of the candidates' mouths.

As for Cain, I've probably been paying attention to him longer than most, as he's Neal Boortz's fill-in (or was) and Neal's been pushing him for the Prez slot almost since the last election. But I just can't see him making it this time. Under the heading "any publicity is good publicity", at least Bachmann's got her name up there, whereas Cain gets mentioned about as often as Scott Brown. I believe the actual media category they're filed under is "Rarely, If Ever".

#5.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 13:32 (Reply)

I've been following Cain due to Boortz, too. I like him. He's not my favorite, but not altogether awful like some of the others.

I still don't get the Bachmann thing. She worries me because I've seen analysis of her speeches and her ability to stick to facts is, well....not exactly good. 1 of 23 was the last analysis I'd seen (NOT MSM driven, mind you).
On a strictly economic basis, the ONLY thing I think she's wrong on is the removal of Inheritance and Capital Gains Taxes and implementation of a Consumption Tax. The elimination of these would be counterproductive and would penalize large groups of people who (while I feel everyone needs a stake in the game) don't deserve it.
Where she REALLY scares me is her view of social reform. It's one thing to say she'll repeal the last 4 years of Obama/Pelosi. But that implies EVERYTHING they did was wrong, and it wasn't. ALOT was. But not just a broad strokes thing...that bothers me.
Her opposition to abortion rights bothers me ALOT (but I'm not single issue, so let's move on because this isn't a deal breaker)
Her denial of gay rights is alarming. I'm not in support of the ridiculousness that is "let the gays marry" BS....but I do believe people have a right to live as they choose. Her choice of restrictions on their lifestyle is outlandish (she opposes anti-gay hate crimes...although I do admit all crime is a hate crime, it's worthwhile to delineate certain behavioral crimes that tend to go unenforced due to their nature)
She opposes stockholders rights to vote on executive compensation. As an owner of a company, that is shocking to me. I don't think the "buddies" in the board room are well suited to provide this without stockholder oversight.
She supports the "criminalization" of OPEC. OK...that's just weird. I don't like cartels, but you can hardly criminalize this.
She opposes parental leave. WHAT??? I consider parental leave to be one thing (one of the very FEW things) that the government DID RIGHT.
She opposes protections for whistleblowers. I find this to be problematic. Whistleblowers are sometimes called "sneaks" and "tattletales", but as someone who faced recrimination for being one, I can tell you that it's a bad idea to not protect them.
She opposes immigration reform. I can tell you now, that if she gets the other economic reforms she wants, immigration will reform itself. The ONLY reason we have a problem with illegals is because we give them stuff for free.
She has proposed "Recognition of Christian Values". Well, that one would run afoul of her "must pass Constitutional approval" law. I'm all for Christian Values, being one myself. But it's problematic to start integrating this stuff into the government.

She's just plain nutty, in my view. Not nutty in the sense that she's stupid nutty. She's damn intelligent. I like her economics. But the other stuff....well, she's just too weird.

#5.1.1 Rick on 2011-07-15 14:03 (Reply)

You... (cough!) cut & pasted into one of my posts?

So it's come to this. :(

And if you liked today's post so much, and one of the points it made was to not pay much attention to their specific positions right now, why did you (cringe) cut & paste a big block on her positions into my heretofore unsullied thread?

"well, she's just too weird."

You called her "insane" last time. Here, I have it on my list:

"Obama is an idiot" - Bruce
"Greenpeace indoctrinates people" - Bird Dog
"Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill" - News Junkie
"Bachmann is insane." - Rick

I thought you fit in perfectly. Let's not go all soft now. I'd suggest also start using the word "mad", and slip the word "sanitarium" in there now and then. Kind of plant a mental image in people's minds.

Me, I'm not giving her much thought. I don't think she has a snowball's chance in hell. I spend all my extra hours praying to the political gods that Palin won't run. I'll start thinking about "favorite candidate" after the gate opens.

#5.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 14:22 (Reply)

Oh, and Bird Dog is right. I joined Greenpeace for less than a year in the 80's. I think I was trying to meet girls in New York.....can't remember the reason. But once I saw what they were doing, I quickly dropped out. They spent alot of time reinforcing wacky ideas that I just didn't have the time or wherewithal to accept in my pursuit of the gentler of the species.

Not to mention, most of them didn't shave. Their legs, their armpits or their upper lips. I'm not fond of hirsute women. Call me a traditionalist.

#5.1.1.1.1 Rick on 2011-07-15 15:01 (Reply)

Great, I'll happily add your name to the list. And congratulations on your role here at Maggie's Farm.

BTW, did you happen to see the 'indoctrinating' video a few months ago? You know what they spent the first half of the video doing?

Learning basic mountaineering skills so they could hang up a banner.

A banner!

"Oh, the horror!", cried Bird Dog and Rick.

And the second half?

They picked up oil clumps off the shore from the Gulf spill.

Oil clumps!

"Oh, the horror!", cried Bird Dog and Rick.

"Those kinda people outta be taken out and shot!", cried Bird Dog and Rick.

"Those kinda people outta be taken out and shot!", cried Joseph Goebbels.

Or did I miss the general gist of your reasoning?

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 15:13 (Reply)

I agree it's too early to look at details of candidates positions. It's probably ALWAYS too early, actually.

If I belonged to any political party it would be the Libertarian. That said, what is the rationale for voting at all? I'm serious. What's the payoff for getting into the game. Amusement? A mistaken sense of worthiness? It's all bread and circuses, folks. Always has been.

#5.1.2 Captain Dave (Link) on 2011-07-15 16:43 (Reply)

I didn't cut and paste anything. I read her platform, and have a list of candidate speeches, and responded to these. Which part did you think I cut and pasted? Not one...

I do believe she is insane. Insane in the sense that many very intelligent people have that borderline personality (which was exactly the way I put it originally). Insane people are often quite weird (I've worked with several...unfortunately none were of the intelligent type, just psychopathic).

I brought her up because you seem to drop her name alot, and I was worried she was actually picking up steam with some of the more stable folks in the world.

I did enjoy today's post, and I agree that paying attention to MOST of the candidates' positions (at this point) isn't worthwhile. I consider Bachmann a "special case" because she just flat out scares me to death.
The others - some are electable, others less so. All would be (at worst) UP TO THE JOB. Not Michelle. Not in the least. Well, let me rephrase - perhaps she would be up to the job....but what job would she be performing???? And on who?

No, she just scares me in far too many ways. Plus, she ain't easy on the eyes. Not that this is a REQUIREMENT. It's possible I could be a bit more forgiving if she was, though. LOL

#6 Rick on 2011-07-15 14:58 (Reply)

Didn't you see the way the whole block was formatted? That doesn't happen if one merely types.

"I brought her up because you seem to drop her name alot"

I believe the first thing I ever said about her was "No way!", which pretty much nullfies everything that follows. And it's "Michele", one 'l'. I made the same mistake in the first post.

#6.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 15:03 (Reply)

If there is one thing I've learned over the past couple of years, it is this.

1 - Never discuss politics or politicians with a Paulbot.

2 - Never discuss politics or politicians with a Palinista.

Now it's becoming "Never discuss politics or politicians with a Bachmannite".

OY!!!

#6.1.1 Tom Francis on 2011-07-15 16:43 (Reply)

"Now it's becoming 'Never discuss politics or politicians with a Bachmannite'".

That's a terrible thing to say about Rick. Lord knows, he's tried to defend her God-given right to be insane, but that doesn't make him some kind of fanboy.

As far as dealing with Paulbots goes, it's simply a matter of using a big enough bib to catch the flying drool and spittle. As long as you keep out of reach of the wild, gestulating arms, you should be okay. They have one in a cage at the local zoo and, lemme tell ya, we've all learned our lesson the hard way.

#6.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 16:53 (Reply)

Being serious for a second, I'm somewhat disturbed by this mysognystic streak in National politics. Palin is a dumbass, Bachmann doen't have a record, Hillary is a carpetbagger, Ferraro's husband was "connected" - I mean come on.

#6.1.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2011-07-15 17:08 (Reply)

"Being serious for a second,"

Thanks, I needed that. I was kind of depressed and needed something really uplifting, like finding out the world is square instead of round, or that Sarah Palin is smart. Then this drifted in and I immediately fell on the floor with laughter.

What a friend you are. :)

"this mysognystic streak in National politics"

Pardon me? I haven't heard one disparaging word said about Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein, national figures, all. Of course, I lead a somewhat sheltered life.

As far as Shrillary goes, is "carpetbagger" the best they could do? Sheesh, that's almost as lame as pulling Bill Ayers out of the hat. These people need a better puppetmaster behind the scenes. Would it be in bad taste to nominate myself?

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 17:45 (Reply)

Pawlenty is accurate; Bachmann doesn't have a record except for raising ankle-biters.

She needs to stay home like a good girl and let's get on with righting this ship, lads.

#7 Leag on 2011-07-15 16:53 (Reply)

Rick,

Regarding 5.1.1 above:

Why is removing the Capital Gains and Inheritance taxes counterproductive?

What did Obama/Pelosi do right in the last four years?

Uhhh... opposition to "abortion rights" is pretty much every conservative's and Christian's viewpoint. Are you surprised at her stand?

No libertarian-leaning conservative I know opposes "gay rights," but all of us oppose the ridiculous "hate crimes" laws. Are you sure you're one of us?

I could go on and on, but one last one:

Parental leave?! Are you kidding me?? I run a business too, and I'll be d--ned if the government should have any right to tell me whom to employ, how much to pay them, and what benefits I give them. It's a privately owned company (mine), and I am free to privately negotiate whatever contract we mutually agree upon.

Now you're really getting me started, so I'll stop this rant here.

#8 Big___Al on 2011-07-15 17:26 (Reply)

"so I'll stop this rant here."

Thanks for thinking about the rest of us. :)

#8.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 17:28 (Reply)

If I was really thinking about the rest of you, I'd bless you by expounding upon my massive knowledge! (Do I have to say "sarc" here?)

But I thought my points were serious enough, and was looking for some feedback.

#8.1.1 Big___Al on 2011-07-15 17:48 (Reply)

"and was looking for some feedback."

Given that one of the major POINTS of this post is to not get involved in 'positions' just yet, you and Rick suddenly arguing about positions seems kind of (fill in blank). Aren't there, like, ten billion other threads and forums and blogs and newsgroups where you can do that?

And do you honestly think you'll convince anybody of anything? Seriously? In my long experience, except for things that involve hard numbers, most people can't be 'convinced' of anything. All you can do is plant the seeds and let them convince themselves. And arguing over positions is not the way to plant seeds.

#8.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 17:58 (Reply)

Weren't you just doing the same thing a few posts above?

But OK, I know when I'm being told to shut up.

#8.1.1.1.1 Big___Al on 2011-07-15 18:15 (Reply)

And, because I forgot to include it in my mini-rant above: I am not a Bachmann fan. We can do much better.

My questions were general political ones, applicable to anyone.

#9 Big___Al on 2011-07-15 17:55 (Reply)

"to shut up."

Thank you for thinking of the rest of us. :)

No, please don't shut up. Let's just not talk about goddamn abortion and capital punishment and all the rest right now. There'll be plenty of time for me and Rick to convince you that the Paul/Palin ticket is the way to go. We'll take of all that pesky 'position' stuff then.

#9.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 18:29 (Reply)

Paul/Palin ticket?

Yuck, Doc.

Nevertheless, look forward to yall trying to float that sinker.

Double yuck.

Oh yeah, yall are one of those Libertines sporting about as conservative.

But lookin' forward to yall's spin, Doc.

#9.1.1 Leag on 2011-07-15 18:50 (Reply)

"Paul/Palin ticket?"

"Yuck, Doc."

The day you take seriously anything I say in the comments is the day you need to up your medicine. Think "playground" and you'll see what I mean.

#9.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 18:54 (Reply)

The only interesting aspect of a Paul/Palin ticket would be who kills who first.

#9.1.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2011-07-15 21:05 (Reply)

My money is on Palin. She's a pretty good shot with a hunting rifle. Paul would be staring at the wonderful rack and would never see the bullet coming.

#9.1.1.1.1.1 phil g on 2011-07-15 21:47 (Reply)

Don't take any meds, Doc but yall ain't exceptionally psychic.

I assume yall suggesting Ron Paul and the yucks stand.

#10 Leag on 2011-07-15 18:58 (Reply)

As I said to Rick earlier, Libertarians don't win presidential elections. Just look at the history books. He's just in it for the comic relief.

#10.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 19:04 (Reply)

For me, most disheartening thing about the selection process is the primary lineup. We start in blue states and non-repubs are allowed to vote. The process is skewed towards the RINO right from the start.

Nobody in the GOP seems to want to rectify the situation either.

IMO, this is a huge structural impediment to getting a conservative nominated.

It is very frustrating.

#11 feeblemind on 2011-07-15 19:09 (Reply)

For me, most disheartening thing about the selection process is the primary lineup. We start in blue states and non-repubs are allowed to vote. The process is skewed towards the RINO right from the start.

Devil's advocate here,
The rationale (if I can remember anything from my Political Science major) is that there is a advantage from having independents and soft democrats getting invested in a Republican candidate. Idea is, if you hump to the polls to cast a vote for a candidate then you are more inclined to support that candidate later.

Of course, if those Dems march in lockstep to the polls at the orders of their commissar... not so much.

#11.1 John (Link) on 2011-07-15 20:48 (Reply)

I've ranted on this before, but will have another go. We don't necessarily need a 'conservative' as POTUS. We need a sufficiently sized conservative caucus in the house and senate. That's where the real biz gets done. I'm happy with a POTUS that respects, hell even acknowledges, federalism, selects fed judges that respect the constitution as foundational law, rejects the Wilsonian/Neo Conservative international adventures to make the world safe for 'democracy' and actually tries to real in the ever growing fed bureaucracy.

If that's conservative then great, but I think it is good old American common sense. The POTUS has to govern the nation and try to get things done with both parties. It's better if he's not an ideological purist or leaner, just pragmatic and prudent.

Romney, Pawlenty, Perry all seem to reasonably fit that description.

#11.2 phil g on 2011-07-15 21:56 (Reply)

You're right, and I suppose the only shining light is that a lot of redistricting went on after the mid-term, supposedly to our great advantage. But, yeah, giving the first votes to some podunk states has always seemed weird. Maybe they won't be so blue this time around?

#12 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-15 19:13 (Reply)

That's another thing - who the hell decided that Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire get to pick who the candidates are?

#12.1 Tom Francis on 2011-07-15 19:55 (Reply)

South Carolina is reliably sane and conservative and New Hampshire used to be and isn't too far gone yet. Iowa is quirky as hell.

#12.1.1 phil g on 2011-07-15 22:11 (Reply)

Don't bet the farm on the redistricting thing.
Did you hear about George Soros's project to capture the office of Sec. of State in every state where that would do the Dems any good? Sec. of State in many states controls the elections, appoints the commissions and presides on redistricting.

#12.2 John (Link) on 2011-07-15 23:16 (Reply)

John,

You are astute to be keeping an eye on soros, et al. As the other balls roll always keep your eye on the cue ball. That controls the game. And there isn't just one cue ball rolling on this table. Who are the others?

As a good neighbour (from "nor' o' the 49th") I am very concerned about your great country. The Obaminator has got to go, IMO. Not just for your sake and Canada's but for the sake of the whole free world. The man and his troop are scary.

There is/will be an attempt to split the vote and if this happens...well, I don't want to think of how the 2012 election pans out.

Respectfully,

The Canuck

#12.2.1 Garry on 2011-07-17 11:53 (Reply)

I found this quote on a British Web page, from a Czech blog, I was so struck by its truth I put it on the sidebar of my blog. Obama is a little man, nothing much by himself. But that is what makes him scary, we did this, we the people. Maybe we would have correctly identified a American Hitler or Stalin and rejected them, but this non-entity this enigma could well end up doing much more damage in the end.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the Prince of the Fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

#12.2.1.1 John (Link) on 2011-07-17 14:24 (Reply)

The next time some moonbat liberal makes cracks about "Christian evangelists", ask him/her to define it. Is he/she talking about gospel shouters or, you know, regular church-goers like Protestants or Catholics? Gov. Perry is a regular churchgoer but not, as far as I know, an adherent of one of the more radical Christian sects.

Marianne

#13 Marianne Matthews on 2011-07-16 14:41 (Reply)

Couldn't it be argued that we didn't lose the last election during the general election — we lost it in the primary?

What you mean we, paleface?

I have no interest in seeing a Republican win if that Republican is one who will continue to expand the federal government, even if it's more slowly.

The government is already much larger than is either constitutional or sustainable, and no change in "flavor" will alter that fact. If we can't prevent it from continuing to grow, then I'd just as soon the Democrats remain in power, so that they can take the blame for overspending and for taking away more and more of our freedom.

So it's Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, or nobody. Nominate anyone else -- even Pawlenty -- and I'll vote for a minor party and let the country continue to crumble.

#14 John David Galt on 2011-07-16 15:50 (Reply)

I watched a 5-minute speech in Congress the other day by Paul. When you compare what he says versus the rest of the pack, the guy's pretty amazing. The right wing doesn't seem to see him that way, though. The poll at Hot Air the other day had a real spike in Paul's 'Highly Disapprove' column.

I'll give Johnson a look-see. Don't know much about him.

#14.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-21 06:49 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, July 15. 2011

Election 2012: Overview Points