I look at those words now, and "cat stranglers" seems excessive to me."
-- Garrison Keillor
Showing posts with label gop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gop. Show all posts
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Quote Of The Day
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Quote Of The Day - We Were Warned Edition
 |
| Image via |
Frankly, these people frighten me.
Politics and governing demand compromise.
But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
-- Sen. Barry Goldwater reading the Tea leaves quite some time ago.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Signs Of Our Decline, cont...
April 23rd, 2012
Over at Forbes, Steven Salzberg notes a troubling development:
This is the current culture in microcosm. Investments with vast yet non-immediate returns are abandoned in favor of the quick buck.
If we truly find ourselves in a losing economic position opposite China or the EU a generation from now, we will need to look back no further than decisions like this one for explanation.
Over at Forbes, Steven Salzberg notes a troubling development:
"The University of Florida announced this past week that it was dropping its computer science department, which will allow it to save about $1.7 million. The school is eliminating all funding for teaching assistants in computer science, cutting the graduate and research programs entirely, and moving the tattered remnants into other departments.
Let’s get this straight: in the midst of a technology revolution, with a shortage of engineers and computer scientists, UF decides to cut computer science completely?"The short-sightedness of this decision would be bad enough on its own merits. But, as Salzberg notes, it gets worse:
"Meanwhile, the athletic budget for the current year is $99 million, an increase of more than $2 million from last year. The increase alone would more than offset the savings supposedly gained by cutting computer science."If you're asking yourself how this could possibly make sense, you need look no further than the big media contracts such as this one between FU and such corporations as Fox Sports.
This is the current culture in microcosm. Investments with vast yet non-immediate returns are abandoned in favor of the quick buck.
If we truly find ourselves in a losing economic position opposite China or the EU a generation from now, we will need to look back no further than decisions like this one for explanation.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
On Rubio Mania
March 22nd, 2012
Larison wonders why so many GOP insiders are obsessed with Rubio for Vice President:
"I don’t deny that he has political talent, and he seems to inspire quite a lot of enthusiasm among movement conservatives, but I just don’t see why he is so often promoted to the top of these lists. I can’t recall any new Senator receiving so much admiration and praise as a presidential or VP prospect so early in his career, and that includes Obama."
Rubio has no major accomplishments in his freshman term as U.S. Senator. He has sponsored little, rarely makes waves and almost painfully hews to the background. Could it be that this lack of a substantive record coupled with his reliable lip service to general conservative notions is precisely what inspires the establishment?
In a campaign season where each of the GOP presidential contenders is flailing on specifics, it would be wise for the party to remember that a candidate Rubio would have to actually address them.
Larison wonders why so many GOP insiders are obsessed with Rubio for Vice President:
"I don’t deny that he has political talent, and he seems to inspire quite a lot of enthusiasm among movement conservatives, but I just don’t see why he is so often promoted to the top of these lists. I can’t recall any new Senator receiving so much admiration and praise as a presidential or VP prospect so early in his career, and that includes Obama."
Rubio has no major accomplishments in his freshman term as U.S. Senator. He has sponsored little, rarely makes waves and almost painfully hews to the background. Could it be that this lack of a substantive record coupled with his reliable lip service to general conservative notions is precisely what inspires the establishment?
In a campaign season where each of the GOP presidential contenders is flailing on specifics, it would be wise for the party to remember that a candidate Rubio would have to actually address them.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Why No GOP Budget Proposal Can Be Taken Seriously
March 21st, 2012
Ezra Klein lays it out flat and explains why they are all so mercenary:
"The Republican Party has settled on four overlapping fiscal commitments that leave them with few other choices.
The Republican plans we've seen share a few basic premises. First, taxes are too high, and must be cut. Second, defense spending is too low, and should be raised. Third, major changes to entitlement programs should be passed now, but they shouldn't affect the current generation of retirees. That would all be fine, except for the fourth premise, which is that short-term deficits are a serious threat to the country and they need to be swiftly cut.
The first three budget premises means that taxes and defense will contribute more to the deficit, and Medicare and Social Security aren't available for quick savings. That leaves programs for the poor as the only major programs available to bear cuts. But now cuts to those programs have to pay for the deficit reduction, the increased defense spending, and the tax cuts. That means the cuts to those programs have to be really, really, really deep. The authors have no other choice."
That's it, in a nutshell.
"Taxes are too high" in spite of being at a 60 year low.
"Defense spending is too low" in spite of being at its highest level since World War II and consuming nearly 54 cents of every weapons dollar spent globally per year.
Gutting Medicare and Social Security won't provide rapid savings so the poorest Americans will just have to pay for pretty much everything.
Lastly, the deficit has to be slashed immediately by implementing all of the above... which will guarantee higher deficits.
That we are in a position where we have to address these proposals with any seriousness whatsoever boggles.
Ezra Klein lays it out flat and explains why they are all so mercenary:
"The Republican Party has settled on four overlapping fiscal commitments that leave them with few other choices.
The Republican plans we've seen share a few basic premises. First, taxes are too high, and must be cut. Second, defense spending is too low, and should be raised. Third, major changes to entitlement programs should be passed now, but they shouldn't affect the current generation of retirees. That would all be fine, except for the fourth premise, which is that short-term deficits are a serious threat to the country and they need to be swiftly cut.
The first three budget premises means that taxes and defense will contribute more to the deficit, and Medicare and Social Security aren't available for quick savings. That leaves programs for the poor as the only major programs available to bear cuts. But now cuts to those programs have to pay for the deficit reduction, the increased defense spending, and the tax cuts. That means the cuts to those programs have to be really, really, really deep. The authors have no other choice."
That's it, in a nutshell.
"Taxes are too high" in spite of being at a 60 year low.
"Defense spending is too low" in spite of being at its highest level since World War II and consuming nearly 54 cents of every weapons dollar spent globally per year.
Gutting Medicare and Social Security won't provide rapid savings so the poorest Americans will just have to pay for pretty much everything.
Lastly, the deficit has to be slashed immediately by implementing all of the above... which will guarantee higher deficits.
That we are in a position where we have to address these proposals with any seriousness whatsoever boggles.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Santorum's Foreign Policy
Feb 9th, 2012
Daniel Larison let's him have it:
"Even though Santorum is far closer in his views to how Obama actually conducts foreign policy than Paul could ever be, he states those views with adversarial partisan contempt, which can be emotionally satisfying for voters opposed to Obama. That said, Santorum uses the usual talking points about Iran, for example, but then runs with them so far that no one outside of a limited circle of hawkish pundits and activists can listen to him without wincing. As Alex Massie said earlier, “he makes George W Bush’s record seem mild and benign,” which is what I’ve been saying for a while now. According to Santorum, Bush’s record was mostly all right, except that he thinks it wasn’t aggressive or bold enough. According to Santorum, Bush had a foreign policy that was too humble, and he aims to correct that." EMPHASIS HIS
The sudden Santorum Surge presents new and terrible risks for the establishment choice on these points. If Romney winds up at the convention without the necessary 1,144 delegates, as Philip Klein discussed yesterday, there is a distinct possibility that Mitt will have to adopt a number of Santorum's politically suicidal positions to appease the base. If the Super Delegates simply hand him the nomination, it will be ugly.
Daniel Larison let's him have it:
"Even though Santorum is far closer in his views to how Obama actually conducts foreign policy than Paul could ever be, he states those views with adversarial partisan contempt, which can be emotionally satisfying for voters opposed to Obama. That said, Santorum uses the usual talking points about Iran, for example, but then runs with them so far that no one outside of a limited circle of hawkish pundits and activists can listen to him without wincing. As Alex Massie said earlier, “he makes George W Bush’s record seem mild and benign,” which is what I’ve been saying for a while now. According to Santorum, Bush’s record was mostly all right, except that he thinks it wasn’t aggressive or bold enough. According to Santorum, Bush had a foreign policy that was too humble, and he aims to correct that." EMPHASIS HIS
The sudden Santorum Surge presents new and terrible risks for the establishment choice on these points. If Romney winds up at the convention without the necessary 1,144 delegates, as Philip Klein discussed yesterday, there is a distinct possibility that Mitt will have to adopt a number of Santorum's politically suicidal positions to appease the base. If the Super Delegates simply hand him the nomination, it will be ugly.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Newt Watch - The End Of The GOP "Establishment"?
Jan 23rd, 2012
Collective insanity is not hard to cultivate given enough time, resources and insulation from rational opposing forces. The GOP built the base which now has them terrified.
Timothy P. Carney writes:
"There may no longer be a Republican establishment powerful enough to move Republican voters en masse. Whatever institutional support the establishment can provide may be outweighed among the conservative base by the Scarlet E stamped on the candidate."
He's right. There has been an imposition of so many narrow and fringe litmus tests that we are seeing the party finally begin to devour itself. The hyper-radicalized base the GOP "establishment" thought they could exploit endlessly has at last arrived at a place where the concept of traditional American politics and its inherent requirement of compromise is deemed traitorous.
Collective insanity is not hard to cultivate given enough time, resources and insulation from rational opposing forces. The GOP built the base which now has them terrified.
Timothy P. Carney writes:
"There may no longer be a Republican establishment powerful enough to move Republican voters en masse. Whatever institutional support the establishment can provide may be outweighed among the conservative base by the Scarlet E stamped on the candidate."
He's right. There has been an imposition of so many narrow and fringe litmus tests that we are seeing the party finally begin to devour itself. The hyper-radicalized base the GOP "establishment" thought they could exploit endlessly has at last arrived at a place where the concept of traditional American politics and its inherent requirement of compromise is deemed traitorous.
Newt Watch - The Establishment Panics
Jan 23rd, 2012
Jennifer Rubin literally begs for someone, anyone, to intervene and stop Newt's rise. In an "open letter" to the GOP leadership, she whines:
"It is time to make the case for winning conservatism — a conservatism attractive to centrist voters that can be translated into a reform agenda. If conservatism becomes a movement of anti-media bashing and hyperbolic rhetoric, it will cease to be a force in American politics. And if it is led by an egomaniac whose personal advancement takes precedence over any principle, the GOP will be (correctly) mocked."
As used to Rubin's consistently obtuse pronouncements as I am, this is still quite rich. If "conservatism becomes" a hollow charade? The mantle of "conservatism" was hijacked long ago and the GOP has been wholly reduced to unprincipled and egomaniacal absurdity for some time.
Jennifer Rubin literally begs for someone, anyone, to intervene and stop Newt's rise. In an "open letter" to the GOP leadership, she whines:
"It is time to make the case for winning conservatism — a conservatism attractive to centrist voters that can be translated into a reform agenda. If conservatism becomes a movement of anti-media bashing and hyperbolic rhetoric, it will cease to be a force in American politics. And if it is led by an egomaniac whose personal advancement takes precedence over any principle, the GOP will be (correctly) mocked."
As used to Rubin's consistently obtuse pronouncements as I am, this is still quite rich. If "conservatism becomes" a hollow charade? The mantle of "conservatism" was hijacked long ago and the GOP has been wholly reduced to unprincipled and egomaniacal absurdity for some time.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Newt's Bloodlust
Jan 7th, 2012
by F. Grey Parker
In the early morning hours (seriously) following the final vote tally from the Iowa Caucus Circus, I wrote that Mitt Romney should be ready for the worst enemy he will face this year... Newt Gingrich. I found his declaration of war concession speech downright frightening.
Shortly after the speech, Business Insider's Glynnis MacNicol wrote, "Watch out Mitt Romney. Seriously, watch out."
Even Rush Limbaugh seems to agree that this is remarkable stuff. "Newt came out there... and he is mad. He is ticked off. He is livid." He goes on, "Newt's not getting out. He's in this to destroy Romney now." EMPHASIS OURS
Any GOP operative who truly believes in their party should be having a nervous breakdown.
David Corn seems to have had the same idea:
"Newt Gingrich has finally reached his destiny: destroyer of the GOP.
In a bitter and spiteful concession speech last night in Iowa—Kanye West could do no worse—the former House speaker, who finished fourth, signaled a shift in his mission. He would no longer be running to obtain the Republican presidential nomination; he would be campaigning to obliterate Mitt Romney. He would be Sherman; the former Massachusetts governor would be Georgia."
Exactly. Newt is a very vengeful man. Everyone inside the beltway knows this. With two New Hampshire debates this weekend, the rest of the country is about to find out just how vengeful he can be.
Peter J. Boyer reports on Newt's first brutal salvo:
"The effort to derail Mitt Romney’s presidential quest heightened dramatically on Friday when a super PAC associated with Newt Gingrich outbid all comers for the rights to a scathing 30-minute attack video depicting Romney as a greedy, job-killing corporate raider “more ruthless than Wall Street.”
In a season filled with negative ads and rhetorical crossfire, the striking feature of the film, aside from its mini-documentary length, is its authorship. The film was made by Jason Killian Meath, a former associate of Romney’s top strategists, Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer. Meath had worked for the Romney campaign in 2008, creating much of the ad content for that failed effort. He left Stevens and Schriefer’s firm, SSG, in 2010. Meath declined to comment on his project, referring inquiries to the pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future."
Now, I have said for months that Romney's record at Bain would be the heartiest red meat Obama could feed to the masses in the general election. But, until this week, I never suspected it would be a GOP rival that would make it fair game.
Think about it. Newt is the "not-Romney" whose contribution to the debate over the Occupy Movement was to tell everyone involved to "take a bath." Then, of course, came his racially-coded suggestions that we make janitors out of our "urban" children. This is a man who has arguably leveled more viciously convoluted and borderline lunatic charges against the sitting President than any other major GOP contender.
What this means is that Newt has effectively neutered the potential for the GOP to spin future attacks on Romney's business record by Democrats as "class warfare." He's making them now which means that all President Obama has to do later is to quote them.
What's more, Newt is just getting started.
It's nearly ten months until the election. We may be witnessing the beginnings of the GOP's death-rattle before it fractures into several parties.
In the near to short term, one of two things is going to happen:
A. Romney is going to wrap up the nomination so battered that he will have a less plausible chance for victory than Bob Dole had in '96 (that means slightly less than none).
B. Rick Santorum is going to somehow actually become a major Presidential nominee in the 21st Century and not the 19th.
I would caution the GOP that either option is just fine with every Democratic operative in the United States.
The second option, however, is preferred.
by F. Grey Parker
Shortly after the speech, Business Insider's Glynnis MacNicol wrote, "Watch out Mitt Romney. Seriously, watch out."
Even Rush Limbaugh seems to agree that this is remarkable stuff. "Newt came out there... and he is mad. He is ticked off. He is livid." He goes on, "Newt's not getting out. He's in this to destroy Romney now." EMPHASIS OURS
Any GOP operative who truly believes in their party should be having a nervous breakdown.
David Corn seems to have had the same idea:
"Newt Gingrich has finally reached his destiny: destroyer of the GOP.
In a bitter and spiteful concession speech last night in Iowa—Kanye West could do no worse—the former House speaker, who finished fourth, signaled a shift in his mission. He would no longer be running to obtain the Republican presidential nomination; he would be campaigning to obliterate Mitt Romney. He would be Sherman; the former Massachusetts governor would be Georgia."
Exactly. Newt is a very vengeful man. Everyone inside the beltway knows this. With two New Hampshire debates this weekend, the rest of the country is about to find out just how vengeful he can be.
Peter J. Boyer reports on Newt's first brutal salvo:
"The effort to derail Mitt Romney’s presidential quest heightened dramatically on Friday when a super PAC associated with Newt Gingrich outbid all comers for the rights to a scathing 30-minute attack video depicting Romney as a greedy, job-killing corporate raider “more ruthless than Wall Street.”
In a season filled with negative ads and rhetorical crossfire, the striking feature of the film, aside from its mini-documentary length, is its authorship. The film was made by Jason Killian Meath, a former associate of Romney’s top strategists, Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer. Meath had worked for the Romney campaign in 2008, creating much of the ad content for that failed effort. He left Stevens and Schriefer’s firm, SSG, in 2010. Meath declined to comment on his project, referring inquiries to the pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future."
Now, I have said for months that Romney's record at Bain would be the heartiest red meat Obama could feed to the masses in the general election. But, until this week, I never suspected it would be a GOP rival that would make it fair game.
Think about it. Newt is the "not-Romney" whose contribution to the debate over the Occupy Movement was to tell everyone involved to "take a bath." Then, of course, came his racially-coded suggestions that we make janitors out of our "urban" children. This is a man who has arguably leveled more viciously convoluted and borderline lunatic charges against the sitting President than any other major GOP contender.
What this means is that Newt has effectively neutered the potential for the GOP to spin future attacks on Romney's business record by Democrats as "class warfare." He's making them now which means that all President Obama has to do later is to quote them.
What's more, Newt is just getting started.
It's nearly ten months until the election. We may be witnessing the beginnings of the GOP's death-rattle before it fractures into several parties.
In the near to short term, one of two things is going to happen:
A. Romney is going to wrap up the nomination so battered that he will have a less plausible chance for victory than Bob Dole had in '96 (that means slightly less than none).
B. Rick Santorum is going to somehow actually become a major Presidential nominee in the 21st Century and not the 19th.
I would caution the GOP that either option is just fine with every Democratic operative in the United States.
The second option, however, is preferred.
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Iowa Circus, cont...
Dec 30th, 2011
Yesterday, I wrote that I thought Rep. Bachmann's handling of the news that her Iowa campaign Chairman, Kent Soreson, had defected to the Ron Paul camp was "crazy and conspiratorial." I resisted the urge to declare that I believed it to be an outright lie. However, Mike Enos, Bachmann's political director in Iowa, issued a denial that nearly seemed to do just that:
"I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated," Enos said in his statement. "While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a 'sell-out.'"
Despite his stated intention of remaining with her campaign team, he later resigned. This seems to indicate that he was purged from the campaign for insisting on rational truth.
Rep. Bachmann is, unsurprisingly, doubling down:
"No one else knows about that conversation other than Kent Sorenson and myself."
It's extremely implausible that Bachmann would not have revealed this conversation to her team immediately to begin planning damage control. The reaction of Enos and his subsequent break from her team expose not only Bachmann's executive inability but, also her apparent mental instability.
The Ron Paul camp insists her claim is fiction. Paul himself is quoted by KCAU:
"He called up and asked if he could join us and I said 'That's a great idea!' He's somebody I've known for a long time and we've helped him in the past."
Sorenson appeared on CNN to declare that the alleged conversation "never happened."
I am no fan of Ron Paul. I find him absurd. But, Bachmann is coming out of this looking both desperate and delusional.
With four days to go before the Iowa Circus, I expect this all to get even more entertaining.
Yesterday, I wrote that I thought Rep. Bachmann's handling of the news that her Iowa campaign Chairman, Kent Soreson, had defected to the Ron Paul camp was "crazy and conspiratorial." I resisted the urge to declare that I believed it to be an outright lie. However, Mike Enos, Bachmann's political director in Iowa, issued a denial that nearly seemed to do just that:
"I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated," Enos said in his statement. "While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a 'sell-out.'"
Despite his stated intention of remaining with her campaign team, he later resigned. This seems to indicate that he was purged from the campaign for insisting on rational truth.
Rep. Bachmann is, unsurprisingly, doubling down:
"No one else knows about that conversation other than Kent Sorenson and myself."
It's extremely implausible that Bachmann would not have revealed this conversation to her team immediately to begin planning damage control. The reaction of Enos and his subsequent break from her team expose not only Bachmann's executive inability but, also her apparent mental instability.
The Ron Paul camp insists her claim is fiction. Paul himself is quoted by KCAU:
"He called up and asked if he could join us and I said 'That's a great idea!' He's somebody I've known for a long time and we've helped him in the past."
Sorenson appeared on CNN to declare that the alleged conversation "never happened."
I am no fan of Ron Paul. I find him absurd. But, Bachmann is coming out of this looking both desperate and delusional.
With four days to go before the Iowa Circus, I expect this all to get even more entertaining.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
GOP Debate Live Blog
Dec 15th, 2011
10:00pm CST - The takeaway - It seems clear that, should the GOP win the White House next year, we will be going to war in Iran. There was no substantial discussion (or even any apparent understanding) of the Russia/China implications in either that equation or the deteriorating civil war in Syria. Egypt was not mentioned once. Israel is still treated by the candidates as more worthy of reverence than our own country. And, Pakistan is not even on their minds.
As I noted throughout, there was one statement only from any of the candidates that suggested they have a grasp of what it actually feels like to be an average American in this economy (Romney.) This seems not merely detached, but inhumane. I learned that Bachmann is crazier than Santorum. Huntsman is done, Paul is going to take a brand new smear any second from the AIPAC crowd and Perry may be the stupidest human being on the face of the Earth.
Grand plans? Destroy the judiciary. Economy? "Free market, blah, blah, blah." Foreign policy? "Israel first."
Regardless of the Iowa vote, the GOP is now faced with two choices;
1. Newt Gingrich, a man who believes in one great, shining ideal... the Newt Gingrich myth of Newt Gingrich.
2. Mitt Romney, a man who really doesn't seem to believe in anything at all.
10:00pm CST - The takeaway - It seems clear that, should the GOP win the White House next year, we will be going to war in Iran. There was no substantial discussion (or even any apparent understanding) of the Russia/China implications in either that equation or the deteriorating civil war in Syria. Egypt was not mentioned once. Israel is still treated by the candidates as more worthy of reverence than our own country. And, Pakistan is not even on their minds.
As I noted throughout, there was one statement only from any of the candidates that suggested they have a grasp of what it actually feels like to be an average American in this economy (Romney.) This seems not merely detached, but inhumane. I learned that Bachmann is crazier than Santorum. Huntsman is done, Paul is going to take a brand new smear any second from the AIPAC crowd and Perry may be the stupidest human being on the face of the Earth.
Grand plans? Destroy the judiciary. Economy? "Free market, blah, blah, blah." Foreign policy? "Israel first."
Regardless of the Iowa vote, the GOP is now faced with two choices;
1. Newt Gingrich, a man who believes in one great, shining ideal... the Newt Gingrich myth of Newt Gingrich.
2. Mitt Romney, a man who really doesn't seem to believe in anything at all.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The View From Abroad - GOP Field Edition
Dec 3rd, 2011
Wow. And we thought it looked bad up close. Mark Pitzke writes for Der Spiegel:
"Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed -- well, they shouldn't make such a big deal about it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.
As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.
It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States."
That these folks are not just damaging their party's brand but the country's is an ominous sign. It would serve the GOP voters well to remember that the President's primary obligation is to lead internationally as our Commander in Chief.
Wow. And we thought it looked bad up close. Mark Pitzke writes for Der Spiegel:
"Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed -- well, they shouldn't make such a big deal about it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.
As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.
It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States."
That these folks are not just damaging their party's brand but the country's is an ominous sign. It would serve the GOP voters well to remember that the President's primary obligation is to lead internationally as our Commander in Chief.
Wacky GOP Frontrunner Madness
Dec 3rd, 2011
So, Cain is out as of a few hours ago and I suspect this will give Gingrich a tremendous bump... at least through the next several hours. The wild and wacky ups and downs of this primary season are unlike anything we've ever seen.
Peter Suderman of Reason reflects on what is driving the phenomena while commenting on a remarkable interactive graph over at TPM tracking the ups and downs of the candidates in Iowa polling (screen-capped below):
"Fear the boom and bust, indeed.
The national polling is similarly contorted, and it suggests that the Republican party is in a bit of a pickle: They think they can win against Obama in 2012. But they don’t have a candidate they think they can win with.
Try talking to Republicans about Mitt Romney, and you’ll find two things: First, a lot of them don’t want to talk, and when they decline they frequently stress the need for maintaining a good working relationship should Romney become the nominee. Those who do talk tend to say a few cautiously nice things about him. He’s a decent guy. He’s a good manager. He’s intelligent. He knows business. But it’s hard to find party insiders or activists who are genuinely enthusiastic about his candidacy. The people who like him best—self-styled moderates and business folks who shy away from the rougher edges of the party’s activist base—are merely comfortable with him, because they see, or think they see, a familiar type of individual."
"Fear the boom and bust, indeed.
The national polling is similarly contorted, and it suggests that the Republican party is in a bit of a pickle: They think they can win against Obama in 2012. But they don’t have a candidate they think they can win with.
Try talking to Republicans about Mitt Romney, and you’ll find two things: First, a lot of them don’t want to talk, and when they decline they frequently stress the need for maintaining a good working relationship should Romney become the nominee. Those who do talk tend to say a few cautiously nice things about him. He’s a decent guy. He’s a good manager. He’s intelligent. He knows business. But it’s hard to find party insiders or activists who are genuinely enthusiastic about his candidacy. The people who like him best—self-styled moderates and business folks who shy away from the rougher edges of the party’s activist base—are merely comfortable with him, because they see, or think they see, a familiar type of individual."
Friday, December 2, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Quote Of The Day - GOP Debates Edition
Nov 26th, 2011
"It is an ‘Animal House.’ It’s a food fight... Honestly, the Republican debates have become a reality show.
People have to be perceived as being capable of governing this country, of being the leader of the free world."
-- Kenneth Duberstein, a chief of staff for President Ronald Reagan, reflecting on the GOP contenders' dumbfounding debate performances and their apparent embrace of a new anti-intellectualism.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Quote Of The Day - We Were Warned Edition
Nov 5th, 2011
"The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of; it stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself, with no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country. In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, I characterized the Republicans as the greedy, sociopathic party. I stand by that."
-- former Reagan adviser and noted economist Bruce Bartlett telling it like it is in the late Summer of 2009
-- former Reagan adviser and noted economist Bruce Bartlett telling it like it is in the late Summer of 2009
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The GOP War On Reproductive Rights, cont...
Nov 1, 2011
It just never ends. Since the election of the 112th Congress and its corresponding Dominionist ascension, every month has represented another series of attacks on women's freedom. Mother Jones reports:
"The "personhood" amendment on the Mississippi ballot on November 8 doesn't just ban all abortions—an issue that my colleague Tim Murphy has covered quite well. It would also likely outlaw several types of birth control and possibly make all forms of hormonal contraception illegal in the state."
It just never ends. Since the election of the 112th Congress and its corresponding Dominionist ascension, every month has represented another series of attacks on women's freedom. Mother Jones reports:
"The "personhood" amendment on the Mississippi ballot on November 8 doesn't just ban all abortions—an issue that my colleague Tim Murphy has covered quite well. It would also likely outlaw several types of birth control and possibly make all forms of hormonal contraception illegal in the state."
Saturday, October 15, 2011
9-9-9 And The Challenge For Cain's GOP Opponents
Oct 15th, 2011
Dave Weigel explains:
"The Republican voters who love 9-9-9 believe the same things that the old Forbes devotees believed. They believe that other Americans are paying no net income taxes, and they don’t think it’s fair. They know how much time they have to spend figuring out all of their deductions, and so a simple code—Forbes promised a tax form that could fit on a postcard—would solve their problem. Cain got a handle on that sentiment early, using it in this ad for his campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia in 2004. “The United States tax code,” he said. “It’s an 8-million-word mess!”
Cain’s rivals have to engage in a little bit of deprogramming. They must convince voters who think that the tax code is stacked against them of the truth: That complicated code is wasting some time while saving a lot of money. After the debate, NBC News’ Domenico Montanaro checked one of Cain’s claims—that a family pulling in $50,000 currently pays $10,000 in taxes. As Cain would say, the problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect. With the grab bag of deductions left in place by Bush and Obama reforms, that family pays $766 in taxes. According to the professional rain-on-parade economist Bruce Bartlett, the first stage of 9-9-9 would do what it sounds like—it would increase the cost of living for poor people by 9 percent. Either Cain is right, and the supercharged economy would bail them out, or Cain is wrong, and they’ll be worse off than ever.
So how has Cain gotten so far on this idea?
"It’s a rejection of redistributionist tax policy," says Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, who is doing his gentle best to point out that 9-9-9’s a bad idea. "No one has done the calculations, so people are reacting viscerally to the idea. A single rate flat tax is a very attractive thing."
It’s attractive because it tells conservative voters what they already believe: Tax the free-loaders, simplify the forms, and the rest of the problems take care of themselves. To take Cain down, Republicans have to blow up the anti-tax arguments of 30 years."
Dave Weigel explains:
"The Republican voters who love 9-9-9 believe the same things that the old Forbes devotees believed. They believe that other Americans are paying no net income taxes, and they don’t think it’s fair. They know how much time they have to spend figuring out all of their deductions, and so a simple code—Forbes promised a tax form that could fit on a postcard—would solve their problem. Cain got a handle on that sentiment early, using it in this ad for his campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia in 2004. “The United States tax code,” he said. “It’s an 8-million-word mess!”
Cain’s rivals have to engage in a little bit of deprogramming. They must convince voters who think that the tax code is stacked against them of the truth: That complicated code is wasting some time while saving a lot of money. After the debate, NBC News’ Domenico Montanaro checked one of Cain’s claims—that a family pulling in $50,000 currently pays $10,000 in taxes. As Cain would say, the problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect. With the grab bag of deductions left in place by Bush and Obama reforms, that family pays $766 in taxes. According to the professional rain-on-parade economist Bruce Bartlett, the first stage of 9-9-9 would do what it sounds like—it would increase the cost of living for poor people by 9 percent. Either Cain is right, and the supercharged economy would bail them out, or Cain is wrong, and they’ll be worse off than ever.
So how has Cain gotten so far on this idea?
"It’s a rejection of redistributionist tax policy," says Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, who is doing his gentle best to point out that 9-9-9’s a bad idea. "No one has done the calculations, so people are reacting viscerally to the idea. A single rate flat tax is a very attractive thing."
It’s attractive because it tells conservative voters what they already believe: Tax the free-loaders, simplify the forms, and the rest of the problems take care of themselves. To take Cain down, Republicans have to blow up the anti-tax arguments of 30 years."
Good luck with that, GOP.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The GOP War On Voting Rights, cont...
Oct 5th, 2011
The GOP's war on voting rights is finally causing casualties. The Chattanooga Times-Free Press reports:
"Dorothy Cooper
is 96 but she can remember only one election when
she's been eligible
to vote
but
hasn't.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center."
"I don't know what difference it makes," Cooper said."
Neither do we, Ms. Cooper. Neither do we.
Read more HERE.
The GOP's war on voting rights is finally causing casualties. The Chattanooga Times-Free Press reports:
 |
| Image via Progress NC |
is 96 but she can remember only one election when
she's been eligible
to vote
but
hasn't.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center."
"I don't know what difference it makes," Cooper said."
Neither do we, Ms. Cooper. Neither do we.
Read more HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
