It Sucks to Have an Unelectable Candidate
Doesn’t it?
I’m speaking, of course, to Democrats . . . about their unelectable candidate, Barack Obama:
It’s understandable that the focus would be on Republican candidates in the midst of a GOP primary. But we shouldn’t forget that the general election — like all incumbent elections — will largely be a referendum on Barack Obama. And, under current conditions, Obama is every bit as unelectable as the Republicans supposedly are.
The piece is worth a read, but it reminds us that Obama’s approval rating is still low, the economy still sucks, Obama’s agenda is still unpopular, and people are tired of his message.
Yes, our candidates suck. We have a guy who passed a healthcare mandate and a guy who supported one. Newt Gingrich is our “anti-establishment” candidate; enough said.
But it’s good to remember we aren’t the people with the crappiest candidate. Democrats are. And no matter whom we choose, that will remain true.
Good luck. A lot of wishful thinking.
tadcf (ead2bd) — 1/31/2012 @ 6:20 amMaybe, maybe not.
What happens when two unelectable candidates oppose each other? One of them gets elected.
My point here is not to argue that Romney or Gingrich are great. They aren’t.
But neither is Obama. We ought not lose sight of that fact.
Patterico (d508e7) — 1/31/2012 @ 6:32 amOf course, one of the advantages the incumbent has is that the Republican candidates spend their primary fights bashing each other. They remind me of the story about the crabs in a tank . As soon as one tries to climb out, the others pull him back. Oh well, I agree with Glen Reynolds: better a syphilitic camel than Obama.
BarSinister (99d480) — 1/31/2012 @ 6:49 amAs bad as Obama is, he isn’t unelectable, he’s already been elected to the office. The question is thus: will he lose enough of those people who voted for him in 2008 that Romney can win in November?
Most of those whose votes are up for grabs are those who don’t pay much attention to the details, don’t have deeply held political philosophies and are more likely to be swayed by popular opinion, polls, TV commercials and sound bites.
It is very likely that Obama can make these people more afraid of Romney than they are unhappy with him. Give me enough TV money and I could make people vote against their own mother. Demonizing Romney will be easier.
I hope that doesn’t happen, but as we saw in 2008, the American people are not incapable of voting for a seriously defective candidate*.
* and of course, the Democrats would say the same thing, having watched Bush win two elections. It is all in the eye of the beholder.
steve (369bc6) — 1/31/2012 @ 6:51 amObama is arguably the single worst president ever elected. Jimmy Carter was at least a God-fearing man, but Obama doesn’t even have that going for him. Thin-skinned… believes his own bullsh*t… spendthrift… highly divisive… afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder… cluless about the machinations of capitalism and free markets… the list goes on and on.
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 6:51 amBetter a man with “magic underwear” than an emperor with no clothes.
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:01 amBetter still a man with a plan:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577192660439187438.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:03 amLincoln won in 1860 against 3 nationally significant opponents with 40% of the popular vote in an electoral landslide.
The least despised candidate this time may not break 40.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:07 amThe left need to stfu with their cheap Jew comments it’s offensive and makes the rest of us jews who aren’t cheap look bad.
Romney and Gingrich are RINOS.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:10 amHas everybody seen the report about Obama telling the lady on his Google chat last night that her unemployed husband should have found a job by now?
In a just world, that would be the biggest news story until Eric Holder takes the hot seat.
MayBee (081489) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:20 amJimPethokoukis: The big hole in Newt’s flat tax plan http://t.co/vwh0jYjY
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:22 amDon’t count your chickens before they hatch. Do you really think that NY, CA, IL, NJ, MA, and several other big states will vote R? I don’t. In addition to several smaller states like Iowa and Minnesota that will also reliably vote D?
Our media darlings like the NYT, NPR, NBC, ABC, etc., have only just begun to fight. Their guy is BO and they will pull out all of the stops to get him relected. Look for MODO colums on how mistreated BO is at the hands of evil R’s, look for weepy “Whites are really racist if they don’t re-elect BO” columns from any number of MSM sources. The press is nothing more than an extension of the D party and they have a job to do and they did it very well in 2008.
My rpediction is that the good guys will keep the house and win the Senate but loose the WH. I hope I am wrong on the latter but I don’t think so.
Ipso Fatso (74cbec) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:24 amPer CBO… $1.1T deficit for 2012.
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:25 amsteve (4),
As bad as Obama is, he isn’t unelectable, he’s already been elected to the office.
Obvsly correct in terms of having to lose voters… but the Trende piece shows he’s lost a lot of them, maybe enough to lose, already. And once you’ve lost someone based on your record, it’s hard to get them back.
As for making people fear Romney? First, most studies show that negative ads don’t change unless you have a big disparity in spending between the candidates. This is how Clinton killed Dole in ’96. Dole had to spend to win the primary, then ended up having months where he really couldn’t spend, waiting on public funding for the general. Post-Citizen United, that’s not gonna happen. That said, Romney should do a lot of early spending to fend off the attempt that will surely come to paint Mitt as a fatcat who would be Wall St’s prez, “returning to the policies that drove us into a ditch.”
Team O will also ape what they think the 2004 campaign was. But absent 9/11 and an improving economy down the stretch, Bush would’ve lost in 2004. Going after Kerry was not all that effective, based on the final data.
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:25 amif I had to bet monies (as opposed to donating it to any of these buttmunches), I’d say Wall Street Romney is our next president
but does anyone really want to see a Wall Street Romney/Boehner/McConnell troika emerge?
If we have to accept a sub-par hyper-entitled whore like Romney then something else on the board is gonna have to give.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:26 amI saw that story, MayBee. Obama just doesn’t understand why that unemployed engineer can’t find a job.
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:27 amSUPPORTED. That’s past tense. He changed his mind or his tune anyway.
I don’t particularly care if it’s a road to Damascus conversion or a better informed position or just bandwagonning for his own interest.
He’s the one that doesn’t support mandates.
DOESN’T SUPPORT. That’s present tense.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:28 am11. Love the grandiosity “My pal Art Laffer”, right Jim, you and Art are peers, sure.
Let’s criticise Neut for not really addressing cuts when our boy has neither a tax plan or a spending plan, just tweak at the margins.
Winning.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:29 amWhen the economy collapses the left will regret it.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:29 amNewt is such a big-thinker, you can rest assured he’s been on every side of any issue at one time or another.
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:30 amBetter a man with “magic underwear” than an emperor with no clothes.
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 1/31/2012 @ 7:01 am
Better an Emperor that changes his clothes to suit conservative outlooks than a guy who intends sincerely to implement ideas that ruin the country.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:31 amSarahw good one.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:32 am12. Salient points. Rush had an Axelrod tape on yesterday, “Indies deserting Romany in droves”.
Why believe Axelrod? Indies detest the GOP for being trained doggies. 80% of Indies never consider voting for Dimmis except as the newspaper with which to beat the pups.
A pox on both your houses. Some no names are going to get significant vote percentages in November.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:34 amNewt in a tux… Emperor Penguin?
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:35 amthan a guy who intends sincerely to implement ideas that ruin the country
this is why it’s so important to find new leadership in Congress
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:37 amThis post is a great point.
I think electability polls are pretty much BS. I also note Romney is less electable, according to them, than Mccain was (mccain was supposedly quite electable against Obama… double digits even).
The candidates that need arguments like ‘vote for me because I’m electable’ are truly weak.
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:40 amThe GOP are just a ship of fools.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:40 amWell we saw this back in 2010, didn’t we Dustin, that was the thing about the Iron Lady, she truly
narciso (87e966) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:43 ambelieved in things, and hence people believed in
her.
15. Nail that to our foreheads and wear it as a phylactery.
All we get with a unified Progressive Executive and Legislative government is a return of the Donks in 2 or 4 or 8.
No spending cuts, no reallocation of resources, gutting of regulation, just hand wringing. ‘We can’t take big risks and lose’.
Worldwide depression, runaway inflation in central bank applied paddles, middle east war, thats your wages of incorrigible suck.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:43 amYeah, because he ran against a very moderate squishy guy who was much better at fighting conservatives than liberals.
If both candidates act like liberalism is OK, but one of them looks like he would LEAD that way, which looks like a better president to the average voter? 2008 was one of a few examples of the answer.
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:45 amhow dare we do away with bothersome regulations…………..get lost gary.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:46 amStock up on beer, I*Heart*Newties, there’ll be a lot of crying tonight.
Colonel Haiku (fe1432) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:53 amStock up on your face because it got beaten with the ugly stick.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:53 amSounds suspiciously like what he said on this thread:
https://patterico.com/2012/01/28/youre-no-ronald-reagan/#comment-906952
I’m just not finding any evidence of that in the real world.
A Time magazine poll, conducted February 1-4, also shows a dead heat between Clinton and McCain. Each was backed by 46 percent of those polled.
Sen. Barack Obama believes he can do better, arguing “I’ve got appeal that goes beyond our party.”
In the CNN poll, Obama leads McCain by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. That’s outside the margin of error, meaning that Obama has the lead.
And in the Time poll, Obama leads McCain by 7 points, 48 percent to 41 percent — a lead also outside of the poll’s margin of error of 3 percentage points.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-08/politics/20008.matchups.schneider_1_mccain-and-obama-clinton-or-obama-cnn-poll?_s=PM:POLITICS
Wed, May 21 10:54 AM EDT
Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2034087120080521?i=1
Gerald A (7d960d) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:56 am#15 – and other similar sentiments
I’m not crazy about that prospect. But it’s preferable to the alternative. And as I’ve tried to point out a number of times, any really big changes have to get through Congress, which is almost impossible with the likely numbers in the Senate next year plus a few RINO’s mixed in.
Gerald A (7d960d) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:59 amMcCain made a career out of stabbing conservatives in the back.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:03 am31. “get lost”
Dust on the head, eating locusts and honey, hair shirt,.., check.
Little help with the flea collar?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:05 amSo the rating didn’t change in three months, perhaps because Hillary kept winning primaries after Iowa, and the Jeremiah Wright revelations.
narciso (87e966) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:15 amNo it didn’t.
The left still voted for their nazi messiah despite Jeremiah Wright.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:18 amWhy would it be suspicious that I have the same opinion in two threads?
And why do 100% of your comments come across as attacks instead of discussion? Oh well. I think it’s a mistake to respond to some folks.
Then you should reevaluate how you get information. I’ve noticed you seem quite hostile to ideas you didn’t already believe. You call them hallucinations or insist they are bad faith.
Mccain indeed did campaign largely on electability, citing numerous polls. we can both pick polls showing whatever we like, since there were a lot of them, but even the ones where Mccain was behind show him doing better than Romney is today.
My point, which I’ve explained to you repeatedly, is that electability polls are largely BS and candidates who run on “the other voters like me” are weak and losers.
btw, here are some polls which show that you don’t know how to use google very well.
Zogby Reuters
Bloomberg LAT
Rasmussen
Fox News
Wall Street Journal
CNN
Hotline
Strange how I can so easily come up with evidence to bolster my claims, when you consider the tone of disbelief you displayed, right? It’s almost as though you’re unreasonable.
I believe this will be the fifth time you’ve acted more like the Romney fanatics than the classier Romney supporters, so I’m going to stop responding to you now.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:22 amAnd just to reiterate for the fourth time, the polls above WERE WRONG. Mccain LOST.
Relying on such polls is unwise.
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:24 amHe says the polls showing McCain would lose were wrong, because McCain lost.
Gerald A (7d960d) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:29 am14. ” ..Obama will not win much more than 7 or 8 percent of Republicans.
As for 1980, Jimmy Carter’s approval among Democrats that year was very tepid; the pre-election Gallup poll had him at just 61 percent among his own partisans. A good portion of those disapproving Democrats held their noses and voted for Carter, anyway. Again, this is not a good comparison to Obama, as it is unlikely that he’ll win anything less than 90 percent of Democratic voters.”
And of the party-switching Indies, 10 percent of the electorate, Romany will be very lucky to split their vote.
Carter got 16% of those disapproving of his performance, on nothing but fear of Reagan.
Not much of an analogy, Red Assault – Malaise.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:32 ambut what does National Soros Radio think?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:40 amIt’s worth noting that there are a lot of classy Romney supporters and generalizing them all based on the worst examples is very unhealthy for the GOP’s prospects in November.
We’ve got Maybee, I think Beldar leans that way, and several other commenters like them who bring a coherent rationale and true facts. I also know several Romney supporters in person, and not a one of them would have screeched about Gardasil, screeched that I’m a liar for no good reason, screeched about the “prawn of arab loins” or how because I’m middle eastern I belong under the boot of a Romney supporter. And that’s just this blog. I’ve seen outright ‘I’ll knock your teeth out’ crap on other blogs.
Some of this has got to be moby BS, some of it are fanboys (as opposed to supporters) who are thin skinned to the truth that Romney’s record in office is liberal. Some of these guys also probably have other issues which are unkind to muse about.
None of the remaining candidates deserves that kind of emotion from Republicans. They are all better than Obama, but none of them are good enough.
And electability is simply not an argument that deserves a high level of respect.
Romney claimed responsibility for creating every job touched by Bain, so good for him (although apparently Romney is not responsible for anything Bain did except for all the jobs). Newt fought a shutdown and led to a balanced budget among other historically significant GOP triumphs like welfare reform. Santorum is, at least, not a flip flopper like the prior two, but and frankly has few accomplishments. But that’s the positive case for these candidates, and it’s shallow in all cases.
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:42 amWho cares what the nazis at NPR thinks.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:48 amIf one can’t be “The Best,” being the “least worst” is a good substitute.
T (400783) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:49 amObama won’t win more than 7-8% of GOPers; ______ won’t win more than 7-8& of Dems. At least, that’s been the pattern. The winner will pick up a marginal lead among switchers.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:56 amhavin’ some fun now, eh, Gerald?
LOL.
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 8:58 amand the Wind cries, Perry!
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:00 am____________________________________________
Sen. Barack Obama believes he can do better, arguing “I’ve got appeal that goes beyond our party.”
No one will ever be able to accuse him of being too modest, humble and introspective. Then again, his swelled head is not without reason. He did manage to totally upturn the observation of the past that when two people are applying for the same job (or running for the president), the person who was an outlier (in terms of his differences, including race, gender or cultural background) had to be not just as good as his competitor, he had to be much better. Obama not only wasn’t better than McCain, he also came with the extra baggage of “goddamn America,” etc.
A good portion of the electorate needs to look in the mirror when determining who deserves the most blame. Of course, that’s assuming they’re not big fans of Banana Republics or societies similar to Argentina, Greece, Mexico, etc.
Mark (411533) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:02 amKarl #47: are you (finally) agreeing with me, that the winner will be the one who wins the votes of the mushy middle?
steve (369bc6) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:03 amhe’s an alligator… he’s a fat mamapapa comin’ for you… he’s a space invader… he’ll be a polka dancin’ b*tch for you…
http://t.co/ElJVmA8Y
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:04 amClass warfare and envy, it’s what’s for breakfast!
“Would Mitt be in the position he’s in today, but for his father? I sincerely doubt it. And I think this is so relevant because it’s simply a fact that Mitt Romney does not have any character. Because he never had any character building experiences.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:05 amComment by Dustin — 9/28/2011 @ 6:17 pm”
It’s a whole new ballgame!
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/good-news-and-bad-news-for-gingrich-in-florida-20120130?mrefid=mostViewed
As Obiewon surges against _____, Rasmussen.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:05 amjimgeraghty: Hey, remember when Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term? http://t.co/tfB9QUox
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:07 am53… and the wind SCREAMS, perry.
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:08 amSo the fallback is relying on a majority of state legislatures to pick the POTUS:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2012/01/30/is-mitt-romney-actually-electable/
No one is electable.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:08 amBuzzFeedBen .@jrubinblogger tags Gingrich “the most loathsome man to run for president since Geoge Wallace” http://t.co/oFroStYZ
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:09 amya better cut back to half a tab, gary.
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:10 amHis argument is that a RINO needs the middle too much, and is thus very vulnerable to Obama.
One of the few things I agree with Obama on.
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:10 amand the wind whispers,
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:11 amMarydustyAfter all the jacks are in their boxes… and the clowns have all gone to bed…
Rick Perry raised less than $3M in 4Q2011. Down from $17M in 3Q. http://t.co/jqwQbulD
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:15 amNewtie says, “Santorum’s to blame if I lose!”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/31/gingrich-santorum-blame/
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:18 amA broom is drearily sweeping
up the broken pieces of yesterday’s life
somewhere a queen is weeping…
TheFix: “Rick Perry spent more than $1,000 a vote in his 2012 presidential bid.” http://t.co/RsZbkY4J
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:47 amSantorum really is playing the spoiler in Florida there’s no way a fringe loony like him will ever be president.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:50 am65. There’s some room for hope that it will be close. Santorum is in MN and MI today rather than finishing strong in FL.
The last polls, PPP, Insider Advantage, and Dixie something had Romany up an average of 4 points.
7% are undecided and another 25% say they could change their mind today in the booth.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 9:59 amThen again FL is not Nebraska:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1213103.ece
So did Romney run to the left or right of Neuter successfully, or both, or neither, or…
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 10:05 amhttp://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-gaffe-refers-ex-soviet-annex-russia/349601
narciso (87e966) — 1/31/2012 @ 10:11 amI see Colonel Fanboi is getting his hate on. Again.
JD (48f69a) — 1/31/2012 @ 10:13 amNewt’s unorthodox attacks…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289740/newt-s-unorthodox-attacks-patrick-brennan
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 10:16 amiowahawkblog Green jobs news: Obama’s Midas touch continues http://t.co/lJKeBBeU
Colonel Haiku (e92540) — 1/31/2012 @ 10:18 amSomething to consider,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2012/01/30/is-mitt-romney-actually-electable/
narciso (87e966) — 1/31/2012 @ 10:31 amNote to Boehner-up your game:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/greece-releases-new-proposal-even-greater-losses-creditors
When the owner rejects your counter you’ve got him.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 11:13 amFor those waiting on Friday job numbers for more signs that the economy is just fabulous:
“The Net Birth/Death (NBD) statistic adjustment – an adjustment the BLS uses to account for job creation or loss with respect to births and deaths of businesses – is always the weakest during January. Over the last five years the NBD for January has averaged -335k. [January 2011: -339k, January 2010: -427k, January2009: -356k, January 2008: -378k, January2007: -175k.]”
Will they spend all of their adjustment lowering the unemployment rate or rebalancing jobs lost?
I mean if the rate drops temporarily to 8% what happens when it rises next month? Doom?
Decisions, decisions.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 11:23 amDamn, the political stuff on this site is never better than when P’ico himself writes it.
Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e) — 1/31/2012 @ 11:38 amToday’s news that the Euro which stood at $1.45 will be worth $1.12 by summer and Europe will average down 4% in GDP for 2012 hurts Ogabe’s comparatively rosy prospects for re-election.
Forget exports Amerikkka, all you’ve got is Mrs. Domestic Consumer. Treat her nice.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:14 pmMeggy speaks, and look no biscuits in hand!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/30/meghan-mccain-on-why-newt-gingrich-should-quit-after-florida-primary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
Beat Hai to the punch.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:20 pmRe: #26
That’s right, Dustin. McCain had a double-digit lead on Obama back when Hillary was still the presumptive nominee and Obama was still an unknown quantity that had enacted no policies whatsoever. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. How do you know that it isn’t Romney — with his slim lead over Obama in national polling — that is in the “Obama position” of four years ago, only he’s already in the lead instead of needing to come from behind?
Answer: you don’t know.
Then again, since Obama is leading Gingrich nationally by the same margin as McCain over Obama four years ago, perhaps Gingrich is this year’s Obama and by the summer will be the nominee with a 5 point lead over his rival. Gee, the possibilities are all so exciting! And endless.
Icy (d5ef49) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:21 pmPoor dear Megmac
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:23 pm77. “The right wing of the party might have fought tooth and nail against Romney, but after a long and arduous primary process, he has now proven that he is in fact the strongest contender we have”
Glad that’s finally over. Can’t wait to see where the Salahis pop up.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:24 pmGary, Meghan Mccain is nothing if not reliable. I could have told you she’d be calling for the leading candidate to drop out early for Romney 2-3 years ago.
She just can’t do subtle. It’s up to RINOs like her, not the entire country?
What’s wrong with all 50 states having a primary? Apparently Meghan Mccain thinks that would be bad?
I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it: Romney can’t afford the kind of campaign he needs to run, blanketing with attacks, if it goes that long. He will slip behind over time or he’ll have to come up with a positive case (which isn’t likely to even be possible).
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:24 pmRubio, no I’d rather be Majority Leader than the most useless person in government and bridesmaid to the destruction of the Revolution and SOL when it is ‘my turn’:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/31/rubio-no-im-really-not-interested-in-being-anyones-running-mate/
Cap’n Ed, ooh I can read his mind, he’s just being coy. Save us sexpot.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:32 pmIt occurs to me that Dustin is the Rodney Dangerfield of posters, on account of he can’t get no respect.
Colonel Haiku (3ea6d9) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:38 pmAt least Rodney was funny
steve (369bc6) — 1/31/2012 @ 12:39 pmRollins, Reagan’s political director and campaign manager gets the last word on anti-Reagan Neuter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjOMMweAJ_s
Romney isn’t a lying crud, he’s a stoopid lying crud.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:00 pmNewt claims he has “no knowledge” of a robocall “paid for by Newt 2012” which is telling voters that “Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher.”
lying douchebag.
Colonel Haiku (3ea6d9) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:03 pmOh, steve, dustin is funny, alright… just not “ha-ha” funny.
Colonel Haiku (3ea6d9) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:05 pmWow, Romney outspent Newt 4:1.
Romney can’t hope to keep that going.
No wonder they keep saying it’s over, despite Newt being the leader in each of the major polls, Gallup, Rasmussen, CBS, and WSJ.
And if Santorum doesn’t persist… it’s going to take even more ads from Romney.
I am surprised to learn few are showing up at the polls, though. That’s alarming.
Dustin (401f3a) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:11 pmAce is sounding slightly bitter at Palin taking his advice about “purity”
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:14 pmI am surprised to learn few are showing up at the polls, though. That’s alarming.
I take it back, Steve. He is funny.
Colonel Haiku (3ea6d9) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:14 pmHAIKU – yeah, not really. It meant jews just couldn’t have any freshly prepared meals. That’s certainly not the same thing
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:15 pm88. Per your earlier argument, Ogabe’s bagmen found $68 Million last Quarter.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:27 pm89. Ace is uncomfortable with wimmin not twentysomethings writhing in his lap and clenching fistfuls of his money.
Buy that fat rube another Manhattan.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:29 pmI’m sure the latter is very pleasant.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:37 pmStill he was making the same case a week ago
Sarahw (b0e533) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:38 pmlying douschebag
at least your admitting your a lying douschebag.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:38 pmSean Penn deserves to die of rectal cancer.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:40 pmMaybe, except that protectionism is wrong. It’s always wrong. What the woman was asking for, that Obama should forcibly keep foreign engineers out of the USA so that her husband could get a job, is everything Republicans are supposed to be against. So I wouldn’t make too much hay out of this incident even though it betrays a certain detachment between Obama and reality.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:46 pmThe only poll that counts is the one conducted on Nov-6!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:53 pmMilhouse: please explain why opposition to the existing guest worker visa program is inconsistent with conservative principles?
Are we not in favor of being allowed to decide who we let into this country and on what terms? If I understand you correctly, conservatism means having to support open borders?
steve (369bc6) — 1/31/2012 @ 1:54 pmYou mean the Swifties had no effect? If true, that’s a sad reflection on the US electorate. They should have had a great impact. On decent people they would have had one.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 1/31/2012 @ 2:00 pmProtectionism is a dead-end street in today’s world.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/31/2012 @ 2:05 pmWhat “existing guest worker program”?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/31/2012 @ 2:09 pmIf we had any kind of effective GWP, would we be talking about illegal immigration to the degree that we are?
Why not? Look at who’s president now!
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 2:17 pmthat’s a good point I suppose but that would be quite the pendulum swing
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/31/2012 @ 2:19 pmPost #91… Here’s some help, sarah…
“Some Jewish community groups opposed the plans to bus in food, and instead requested additional state government funding in 2003 to help the kitchens operate. At the time, Massachusetts was struggling with a budget crisis, and Romney was trying to rein in costs by blocking additional spending. The kosher food bill that he vetoed would have provided an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes. Whether you believe he was right or wrong to veto it, this was clearly a position that made Romney appear insensitive to the elderly and Jewish communities.
In the end, the veto was overridden by the Massachusetts state legislature, and the facilities kept their kosher kitchens after all. But Romney’s decision was not, as Gingrich claims, a choice to “eliminate kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.” First of all, it was a choice made by the nursing homes themselves, not the Massachusetts government. Second, it was never actually going to prevent kosher residents from accessing kosher food. And third, Romney’s decision wouldn’t have cut anything – he simply vetoed additional funds, keeping funding at the status quo during a budget crisis year. Which means Gingrich’s comments have little basis in reality.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/30/romney-kosher-food-nursing-homes/
Colonel Haiku (d18b62) — 1/31/2012 @ 2:48 pmJonahNRO “I’ve been trying to get Newt’s back where I can. But this is disgusting and beneath him.” http://t.co/g7wQ8py8
Colonel Haiku (d18b62) — 1/31/2012 @ 2:59 pmBecause free trade is the most basic of those principles.
As far as legitimate goods and services, and peaceful productive people are concerned, yes, it does mean exactly that. A nation is entitled to keep out dangerous people, criminals, terrorists, invading soldiers, Typhoid Marys, but it has no right to prevent people from trading with each other on mutually agreeable terms, and the fact that a border lies between them doesn’t change that. The right of people to trade with each other, like all the rights with which the founders thought it self-evident that all people are endowed by their Creator, doesn’t just belong to US citizens, after all! So why would you think that an arbitrary line on a map gives a government the right to interfere?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 3:23 pmH1-B visas, or whatever they’re called.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 3:31 pm‘Sen. Barack Obama believes he can do better, arguing “I’ve got appeal that goes beyond our party.”’
Can’t argue with that. He has appeal not only to rank and file Dembots, but also to Communists and Greens.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/31/2012 @ 4:23 pm“A nation is entitled to keep out dangerous people, criminals, terrorists, invading soldiers, Typhoid Marys…”
If that’s true, then you have to ask why is Andrew Sullivan in the United States?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/31/2012 @ 4:26 pmthe right to trade with people doesn’t mean the trade has to take place within the borders of the country.
steve (254463) — 1/31/2012 @ 4:26 pm“Maybe, except that protectionism is wrong. It’s always wrong. What the woman was asking for, that Obama should forcibly keep foreign engineers out of the USA so that her husband could get a job, is everything Republicans are supposed to be against.”
On the contrary, strong protective tariffs, enacted by the 19th century Republicans, are one of the things that made the United States into an economic superpower.
The other factor, btw, was an almost total absence of government interference in domestic economic activities.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/31/2012 @ 4:30 pm“But it’s good to remember we aren’t the people with the crappiest candidate. Democrats are.”
I reckon.
When I look at American history, this is what I see: The worst Republican president (probably Theodore Roosevelt) is vastly superior to the BEST Democrat president (probably Grover Cleveland).
And, I doubt if that’s going to change.
The GOP could run Curly Howard for POTUS and that would be a vast step up from the current Idiot-in-Chief.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/31/2012 @ 4:41 pmThat’s precisely my point. The right applies equally to trade across borders.
You tell me what right a government could possibly have to forcibly prevent a peaceful person from going from point A where he is now, to point B where there is someone willing to house him and someone willing to employ him, just because somebody drew a line on the map between the two points. You tell me where the government could possibly have got such a right. Whose right of self-defense is it exercising? To what aggression is it responding?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 4:54 pmFirst of all, that betrays astounding ignorance of economics. This is about the most basic and universally held law of economics. As Milton Friedman pointed out, there is not a single economist in the world, right- or left-wing, who does not support free trade.
Second of all, whether it’s good or bad economics free trade is the most fundamental issue of the liberal (now known as conservative) movement. It’s what the movement was founded on. The Anti Corn Law League is where it all started. So protectionism has no place within the movement; any tent that big is not worth having. If we are not about free trade we’re not about anything.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:01 pmThe 19th century Republicans were despicable socialist protectionist whores.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:03 pmNo, the complainant was talking about HI-B visas, that’s not a protectionist measure, just a matter of discretion,
narciso (87e966) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:04 pmMartin Van Buren?
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:04 pmDenying them in order to protect jobs for people already here is protectionism. How do you distinguish it from tarriffs?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:05 pmMilhouse,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:06 pmGreat reply. BTW, Some of the original liberals are now known as Libertarians.
Milhouse: the government doesn’t have the ‘right’, the citizens of that country have the right. That’s one of the basic privileges of citizenship… along with getting to elect our leaders, we – as a group – get to decide who gets to join the club. If you don’t think the citizens of this country, acting through our elected government, have the right to decide for ourselves who we let in and under what circumstances, then you’re definitely among a small minority of people.
steve (254463) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:09 pmReally? Where do they get that right? They don’t have the right to forcibly prevent people from going about their lawful business normally, do they? So why do they suddenly get that right just because someone drew a border between point A and B? What “club” is anyone trying to join by traveling from A to B? What right do you claim to “let” people “in” to one side of the border or “out” to the other side? Where did such a right come from, other than the fact that you have a gun and I don’t?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:17 pmAnd if you have such a right to prevent people from crossing the border, then why don’t you have the same right to prevent goods from crossing it?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:18 pm… a small minority of people who are so off the wall that it isn’t worth the time to keep the conversation going.
steve (254463) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:19 pmSeems to me that you’re in the wrong party and on the wrong blog, steve.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:20 pm“First of all, that betrays astounding ignorance of economics.”
On the contrary, that’s what the Republicans did do…and it worked like a charm.
We went from being a well off country, to an economic superpower in just a few decades thanks to the Republican laissez faire at home and strong protective tariffs when dealing with foreigners.
What works is what works, whether it offends your ideological sensibilities or not.
And, anyway free trade with nations that employ, what is for all intents and purposes, slave labor (like the PRC), offends my ideological sensibilities, as well as being counterproductive in economic terms.
Ever since the liberals took over America (in the 1930s) and we reversed that trend (now it’s heavy government interference at home, free trade when dealing with foreigners…with the exception of various embargoes for political reasons) we stopped increasing our lead over other nations, and they started catching up to us.
What a coincidence!
“The 19th century Republicans were despicable socialist protectionist whores.”
That’s totally absurd. Except for a couple of special cases (like fooling around with subsidizing railroads) the 19th century Republicans were hardly what you would call socialists.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/31/2012 @ 5:59 pmSpoken like a true mercantilist. It worked like a charm for the manufacturers, lining their pockets at the expense of consumers and primary producers. How was that a good thing? Oh, and it also caused the Civil War.
It may be immoral but how can it be economically counterproductive? Buying something cheap is always economically better than buying it expensive. In any case, how does that apply to the topic, which is protection of labor, preventing Indian and Chinese engineers from selling their services here? On the contrary, if you’re worried about slavery then you should want more visas to be given to any potential slave who can get out!
OK, mercantilists. Big difference. There’s no room for those in my big tent either.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 6:55 pmI don’t consider visa policy in the same light as tariffs, but the main point was Obama’s callousness
narciso (87e966) — 1/31/2012 @ 6:59 pmand tone deafness, which is a bug not a feature.
When visas are denied for economic reasons, what conceivable distinction can be drawn between them and tariffs?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:00 pm“Spoken like a true mercantilist.”
Sort of, except I’m not in favor of exploiting colonies or subsidizing exports, as mercantilists like the United Kingdom did.
“It worked like a charm for the manufacturers…”
Yup, and labor, which covers pretty much everyone in the USA.
“Oh, and it also caused the Civil War.”
Give me a fucking break. Slavery is what caused the Civil War, although the slaveowning Democrats of the day were, of course, ardent defenders of free trade, on account of they didn’t want retalitory tariffs against their slave produced cotton, which was being sold to nations like France and Britain (and also because they wanted to get cheap luxury items from overseas that they were buying with the money they made off slave labor).
Pardon me, if I have zero sympathy for their positions on both slavery and free trade.
About as much sympathy as I would have for someone who advocated free trade with the Nazis, because goods produced by Polish slave labor means cheap goods for American consumers.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/31/2012 @ 7:23 pmI have to laugh whenever supporters of Barack say they can’t imagine having a president named Newt.
Looney Newt (b120ce) — 2/1/2012 @ 5:29 amIt worked for producers, and against consumers. Except primary producers, that is, a sector that was far bigger than labour at the time. That’s Adam Smith’s point: protectionism is a conspiracy by producers against consumers, which is everybody. Each producer gains a lot from the specific measures that help him; each consumer pays only a little for each measure. But the aggregate impact on the consumer is enormous, and since consumers are the public the conspiracy is against the public.
In any event, 1) protectionism cannot make a nation better off — every economist in the world agrees on that; and 2) protectionism is fundamentally immoral, and opposition to it is the ur-cause of what is now known the conservative (i.e. libertarian, what used to be called liberal) movement. If you want to be a mercantilist, go be one in the Democratic Party where you belong. You do not belong in the Republican Party or the TEA Party movement or anywhere in this tent.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/1/2012 @ 1:07 pmAnd yes, tariffs are what caused the Civil War. Tariffs suck the life out of exporters, because everyone else can pass the cost on to someone else; exporters can’t, because the foreign buyers can simply go elsewhere. This hurt every primary producer, whether he used slaves or not, and whether he mistreated them or not. All their inputs cost them extra, but they had to sell their outputs at free market prices. This is why everyone in the South resented the North, even if they had no slaves.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/1/2012 @ 1:11 pmThe left don’t want to learn Milhouse.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/1/2012 @ 1:15 pm“And yes, tariffs are what caused the Civil War”
Anyone who believes that the American Civil War was fought over the issue of tariffs is so insane, they’re not worth wasting time on.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/1/2012 @ 6:21 pmAnd yes, tariffs are what caused the Civil War.
That is certifiably moronic.
Colonel Haiku (0905b6) — 2/1/2012 @ 6:57 pmI guess you don’t believe the USA revolution was about Britain’s trade restrictions either. And you’d call Adam Smith moronic for writing (as the thing was happening) that it was.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/1/2012 @ 9:57 pmThere’s a book called “The Impending Crisis” that explains how tariffs were a substantial cause of the civil war because of how they impacted states rights and led to nationalist sentiments for both north and south.
However, it’s my belief that many were actually fighting over slavery and human rights. Perhaps this isn’t the root cause or the thing the leaders were attempting to decide, but it hung over the country.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/1/2012 @ 11:12 pmWhy the bloody hell would I want to hook up with the Democrats? They’re the ones who got rid of tariffs as a primary source of federal government income.
From 1870 ’til 1913 (wilson’s first year in office) tariffs provided between 35% and 55% of all federal revenues. By 1920, as the atrocity known as the income tax was born, tariffs were only providing 13%. Then Roosevelt II took over, and that was all she wrote. By 1945 tariffs accounted for only 1% of all federal revenues (which is where we are today).
And, what’s the result of all this? American manufacturing is going the way of the dodo, the United States is being flooded with cheap shoddy goods made under (essentially) slave labor conditions in shitholes like the PRC…and all kinds of people here are out of work. And, to cap it off, we’re paying around four TIMES the taxes we were paying in 1910 (government spending at all levels was about 10% of GDP in 1910…and, now it’s over 40%). And, that’s mostly the fault of liberal Democrats…so, I ain’t likely to hook up with them.
If it was me, we’d get rid of about 90% of all government (and all government spending), the income tax would be shot down like the rabid dog it is, and all necessary government revenues would be raised via tariffs, and if that wasn’t enough, then via excises. And, that’s the only kind of taxes that would be allowed.
But, hey, that’s just me.
And, I don’t think too many libtard Democrats would buy into my master plan.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/1/2012 @ 11:40 pmI didn’t say the Civil War was fought about tariffs, I said tariffs were what caused it. Without the tariffs there would have been substantially less ill-will between North and South, and perhaps the slavery issue could have been resolved peacefully. As for the US revolution, I doubt that if you’d asked the average soldier in George Washington’s camp what the war was about he would have told you British trade policy; but Adam Smith correctly saw that that was what it was really about, despite the high-flying rhetoric on both sides.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/3/2012 @ 1:04 pm