Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Saturday, November 19. 2011Election 2012: Des Moines 'family forum' this afternoon
Well, darn. I was all enthused about this afternoon's debate because of its different style and fewer participants until I saw a link this morning to an article on American Thinker, a highly-respected right-wing blog site, and read Prepare Yourself for Obama's Second Term, a thorough and persuasive demolition of the GOP's chances. So I guess we should call this the "Why bother?" debate. Because, let's face it, according to the above article, we're just wasting our time, and it would be a lot better and healthier for the nation as a whole to simply give up now and concede the election. I'm sure this national feeling of peace and harmony was at the forefront of the writer's mind, and possibly those who linked to it. What's four more short years of Obama compared to how an impassioned and contentious election would tear the nation apart? It's nice to see that someone out there is looking at the bigger picture and seeing what we little people don't. Nevertheless, I guess I'll dourly plunder on with this post. Haven't got anything better to write about at the moment. This afternoon's dour waste of everyone's time is brought to you by 'family' groups, such as Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage.
(I edited the above quote a bit to bring it up to modern standards.) I dourly note that neither Romney or Huntsman will be participating. What might make the event interesting, albeit in a dour and meaningless way, is that it's being touted as a 'forum', rather than a 'debate', so that should be fun to see, even if it is a total waste of everyone's time. The good news is that you won't lose any of your valuable TV time as it's only being streamed via the miracle of the World Wide Web. Better yet, it's on at a grossly early 5 pm EST, so hopefully the entire nation will be too busy to watch this inconsequential pile of platitudes leading up to a foregone election. Update: I meaninglessly just spotted that the sponsor site says "64 television stations will carry either live or delayed broadcasts" so check your local listings, although I doubt any station carrying it would bother mentioning it. Again, I think the nation as a whole owes a debt of gratitude to American Thinker and their clear understanding of our hopeless chances (as well as those who linked to their fine piece) and, like the way global warming is finally dead, so, too, is this election, and I'm sure we've all got more important things to do than stare at some stupid computer in the middle of a beautiful Saturday afternoon when we should be out there living life to its fullest and doing important things, like cleaning the garage and washing the car. Or, you could completely disregard the article's defeatist message and approach this afternoon's event with the same zeal and enthusiasm with which you've approached the others in our determined effort to get this horseshit socialist out of the White House. Your call. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Go, Doc! Fight Team, Fight!
#1
Archer2010
on
2011-11-19 10:56
RAH RAH REEE
KICK 'EM IN THE KNEE RA RAH RASS KICK 'EM IN THE OTHER KNEE!!
#1.1
Tom Francis
on
2011-11-19 10:59
LOL! Wow....haven't heard that one since my high school soccer days.
Being we were at a Catholic school, it was the "cheer of choice" amongst the team members. It got a chuckle from the nuns and the priests. As far at the article goes, I'd have to agree with most of it, but I'm not as completely sold as the author. To be fair, the author mentions that he hopes he's wrong, and had been wrong in the past. So I think that counts for something. Overall, however, I'm afraid this country is bored of the Republican candidates so far. I think that will change when the campaign actually starts against Obama mano a mano. Obama voters are not as fired up by their 'man' as their campaign would hope. Many are abandoning him for either not being strong enough and devoted enough, or for being flat out wrong with his views. Anti-Obama voters will remain fired up, particularly as long as unemployment remains high and inflation continues to rise. So, time will tell.
#1.1.2
Bulldog
on
2011-11-19 21:22
Right on! My post Monday is fairly inspirational. While I wildly disagree with some of the things Coulter stands for, she's usually right on the beam when it comes to politics, and not only is she enthusiastic about our chances, but echoes a while shitload of points we've been mentioning here.
I don't know - I was going to make a point about Romney being BOB DOLE! only more animated but I was beaten to the punch.
I'm not entirely convinced that any of the current crop is capable of beating President Obama. They all have a certain amount of baggage, it's only a matter of time before they start up with Newt being a...I don't know what but they will think of something and we'll all be back to square one. What I'm hoping happens is that there is a brokered convention - a revolt of sorts what would place Ryan or Christie (although I would prefer a conservative Ryan over a 50% RINO like Christie) in the top slot with one of the current crop as VP. When you think about it, any one of the candidates, with one notable exception (I'm looking at you Grumpy Old Man) would make great cabinet secretary's or VP choices - except for Bachmann - I don't think the Republican establishment would go for that one. And there is the Grumpy Old Man who is once again making noises like he is going to jump ship and run an independent effort which will siphon votes away from the party candidate and potentially play spoiler. Which would fit his grumpy old man personality - if I can't have it, nobody can have it. Oh well. I'm going to try and stream the debate but I don't have a lot of luck with that here.
#1.2.1
Tom Francis
on
2011-11-19 11:21
Rubio=Latest ABR du jour - another Obi Wan to save us from the evil RINO. Besides, it is way too soon for Rubio to run as anything.
Gotta be Ryan or Christie.
#1.2.1.1.1
Tom Francis
on
2011-11-19 14:42
It was the one thing that surprised me in the video clip I've got for Monday. "Romney/Rubio" was touted, but I thought there was a minimum age for V.P.s, like 30 or something. Rubio looks about 25 compared to the average geezer on the Hill.
"Gotta be Ryan or Christie." Scott Walker?
#1.2.1.1.1.1
Dr. Mercury
(Link)
on
2011-11-19 14:48
Believe it or not, I think it's gonna be Pawlenty. Just a hunch if it goes brokered.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1
Tom Francis
on
2011-11-19 15:14
That's a very interesting thought, and not without merit. It wasn't all that long ago that a brief wave of "Did Pawlenty Quit The Race Too Soon?" articles hit the scene, so there's still an undercurrent out there that backs him. But shit, standing next to Mr. Handsome? Pawlenty's homely enough without additional help. Maybe it's just me, but I've found the closest thing to a U.S. election to be a Paris fashion show.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1
Dr. Mercury
(Link)
on
2011-11-19 15:33
Pawlenty is Romney minus healthcare and minus the superficial smoothness. The Chevy Lumina of Presidential hopefuls.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2
foxmarks
(Link)
on
2011-11-19 22:42
Fatalism is fatal. So would another four years of what we have. I guess I am not a centrist considering my inability to even consider it remotely acceptable or remotely survivable to have another 4 years of the existing liberal government....
#2
Randall
on
2011-11-19 12:35
Let's keep an eye on the number of people renouncing their American citizenship and heading for distant shores, then compare it to what happens if Big O gets reelected. Might be something of a spike.
Either result of the election would induce a spike; just from different ideological positions. If 2 graphs were overlayed showing Conservatives vs liberals "jumping ship", the larger spike would be amongst liberals. That would be beneficial.
#3.1
Randall
on
2011-11-19 13:04
1:45 into it… This is awesome. I am so happy I took the chance at watching it live.
It’s not a policy debate. It is a character forum. Policy has to pass the Congress. Character defines an administration. 8 mins to go at this point. Yes, it's been excellent. Review on Monday.
Pessimists are always pleased with the result, no matter win or lose.
To continue: - Filozof, it appears, only sees part of the situation. In '84 the economy was poor, the market in both stocks and bonds way down. The main reason, I imagine, was Clinton's '93 tax increase. In addition, his floundering - backing off on Congressional expense reforms, pushing homosexuals in the military and whatever else - made the electorate restless. This led to the great GOP victory of '94.
Yet two years later Slick Willy won. Let's give credit where credit is due. A great deal of his '96' success was due to the improving economy - brought about by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress - and to Clinton's apparent strength in thwarting that Congress over the government shutdown and certain other issues, some of them merely symbolic. Making Gingrich complain about sitting in the back of the plane didn't hurt, for instance. Americans want a strong President, and Clinton, whatever his true weaknesses, began to look like one. Ironic but true. The Republican win in '94 led to the Dem win in '96. We're lucky, therefore, that the 2010 win wasn't as complete. The more Washington fails to work in 2012, the more likely the voting populace will blame Obama at the polls. But it would help, of course, if we come up with a stronger candidate than Bob Dole. Did you see the forum last night? I have the feeling a lot of the "we have a weak field" comments are reflections of the constant belittling by the MSM, because when they're seen in person in a setting like yesterday, almost all of them come across as both wise and experienced, and certainly capable of running the country. Especially given how low the bar has been set. A friggin' potted plant would do better than Obama at this point.
It's "Do or Die time", friends!
Gingrich is my preferred candidate. I think he is the "man of the moment", but I will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/15/is-newt-gingrich-americas-chur ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!
#8
Logos
on
2011-11-20 11:11
quoting Merc,
Again, I think the nation as a whole owes a debt of gratitude to American Thinker and their clear understanding of our hopeless chances (as well as those who linked to their fine piece) and, like the way global warming is finally dead, so, too, is this election, and I'm sure we've all got more important things to do than stare at some stupid computer in the middle of a beautiful Saturday afternoon when we should be out there living life to its fullest and doing important things, like cleaning the garage and washing the car. Or, you could completely disregard the article's defeatist message and approach this afternoon's event with the same zeal and enthusiasm with which you've approached the others in our determined effort to get this horseshit socialist out of the White House. Your call. +++ wicked good writing, there, old hoss --
#9
buddy larsen
on
2011-11-21 11:56
Thanks, bud. I always feel it's important to give people a choice.
The author does not allow comments to this entry
|