Thursday, February 23, 2012


Political Mayhem Thursday: How's it shakin', Republicans?

Here was my favorite part of the debate last night:

At one point, moderator John King asked each candidate to use one word to describe themselves. Paul chose "consistent," Santorum went with "courage," Romney decided on "resolute" and Newt picked the word that got the most laughs, "cheerful."

So, what's going to happen from here on out?

And what one word would you use to describe one or more of the candidates?

I was kind of pissed about that question, because it didn't actually tell us anything about the candidates, didn't offer any useful information on their position, and didn't move the debate forward at all. The moderators should be ashamed for allowing such fluff into what should be a serious discussion.
Well, someone isn't cheerful!
What's going to happen?

It is not a lock, but it is about 89-90 percent that Mitt Romney will win this nomination. He will pick an astoundingly powerful running mate (think Marco Rubio or Chris Christie), and the general election race will be very close. Despite the wild swings over the last eighteen months, the fall race is pretty much dead even.

The President is super charming, he is super cool and well-liked, and he has a friendly media at his back. But he has not sewn up this thing in the way Clinton and Reagan had at this point.

His odds are still even and his fate hangs on the externals: what happens with the economy or how skillful his opponents exploit his weaknesses. The President has a good chance of winning reelection because he has a whole host of advantages to go along with the above list of good personal qualities--but whoever runs against him also has a better-than-expected chance to oust an incumbent, depending on events.

Right now: pick 'em for fall.

Prohibitive Favorite: Obama versus Romney.

Wildcard: Americans Elect.
Well yesterday a reporter asked Callisa what she was giving up for lent. She said "my opinion". Newt chimed in and said that wouldn't be difficult.

Seriously, I listened to John Huntsman this morning on "Morning Joe". I think Republicans really missed the boat by not affording him more support in the early primaries. As a Democratic leaning Non-Affiliated voter he might have made me think a bit more or brought the debate to a higher level.

I kept looking for the debate last night and everytime I flipped channels it was on commercial.
What is going to happen from here on out? Variations on the same divorce from reality theme.
What one word for each candidate?
Santorum: stud (eight kids!?!...who has eight kids with the state of daycare these days?)
Paul: Ob/Gyn (seriously? a gynecologist as America's president, as if we need the puns)
Romney: weird (no comment)
Newt: Callista (for now)
Marta - thanks for making me laugh this morning.
I think the Republicans will go with Romney. And agree with a Waco Farmer that they will try to pick someone flashy for V.P. That's the only way they can go.The flaws of the other candidates make them objectionable to too many people,and therefore unelectable. Oh Marta...why should I even bother?!! She nailed it. But as a poet I have to try.

Santorum: sanctimonium.

Gingrich: coyote

Romney: hair-sprayedblandperfection

Paul: hay-wirey
morally bankrupt?

sorry, I know that is TWO.
Honestly given the choice of all of them I think the LEAST bad one is Romney or Ron Paul... that SANTORUM guy has to GO. and Newt? Seriously???

Except supposedly Ron Paul is a racist.

I miss Herman Cain.. he was entertaining. Too bad John McCain is out because he is a good guy.. but I am sure he is tired of it all by now.
That woman's hair... her entire... whatever.. she is just....
okay - one word for each:

Newt: Bloated
Mitt: Robotic
Ron: Looney
Rick: Shifty
I only saw the introduction of the candidates last night and all I could think was that I was watching the Mr. America contest.
Christine and Renee, thanks...I find you two's "one word" a lot more inspired (why does this not sound like right English). Anyway what am I saying to the Haiku experts!
Gingrich - pimp
Ron Paul - shrinking
Romney - Democrat
Santorum - Megadeth
Gingrich - untethered
Romney - meandering
Santorum - Catholic
Ron Paul - odd
Paul: Consistent (he has consistently lost presidential primaries)

Santorum: Courage (it take a great deal of courage for an apparently sane, intelligent person to portray himself as crazy and stupid)

Romney: Resolute (he projects the same confidence and resolve as the famous equestrian statue of George Washington in DC's Washington Circle...with which he also shares a personality)

Gingrich: Cheerful ("I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty" -Newt Gingrich)
RRL, you seem to fall in with the "conservative alternative" to Romney crowd. Please explain how you arrive at said conclusion and say Romney is a Democrat as compared to Newt and Santorum? I'm still not seeing how they are conservative alternatives to 2008's conservative alternative.

By the way, this weekly segment has really died since Lane left. Sad.
Kendall - I was mostly kidding (I thought the use of "pimp" and "Megadeth" would've gotten that across). However, I think Newt and Rick are liberals too. The whole lot of them. Big government liberals. They just want their big government to do different things then Obama wants his to do.

And I'm out on Ron Paul because if he continues at his current pace he will literally disappear by September.

So, in the face of all that, I'm going with the guy who was endorsed by the lead singer of Megadeth, because that is just so freaking metal.
I actually agree with RRL. I think any of these guys, like President Obama, would get into office and keep on acting like government-- the federal government-- is the answer to everything.
Ron Paul: Rumplestiltskin
Mitt Romney: Snore
Rick Santorum: Santorum (neologism)
Newt Gingrich: Asshole

Sorry for not keeping it 100% PG, but that pretty much sums it up for me.
I did enjoy the Megadeth juxtaposition with Santorum. But though I'm as cynical about politics as the next guy, it makes no sense to call them liberal either. For me, I prefer the johny-come-lately to the sellouts.
rrl, as soon as i saw your "megadeth" response, i knew you were joking, and i laughed out loud. (let it be known that old megadeth is awesome.)
like rrl and mark, i agree that none of the serious candidates will do anything but grow government. because that's true, i'd almost rather see another 4 years of obama, because at least then there would be less disenfranchisement.

to answer mark's question:
if any of these guys were light on their feet and thinking outside their little private-interest boxes, one of them would have said, "cheap gas."

it's my prediction that if gas prices hover anywhere near $4 anytime near the election, obama will lose, even if the republicans nominate jesse "the body" ventura. or larry holmes.
the general public is ignorant. or stupid. they will vote on what matters most to them, and 99 of 100 can't understand tax laws, 99 of 100 can't relate to foreign police decisions.
and 99 of 100 are worried about how much it's going to cost them to ferry their kids around town.

i could very well be wrong, but i think it will be that simple. plus, if gas prices are high, republicans will be sure to let you know it's obama's fault. all of it.

yes, that means i give people very little credit, but i find you get what you deserve.
Woody: I truly believe that gas prices are being manipulated upwards by those who have a vested (read, financial) interest in keeping them high, and by those who loathe President Obama.

Sometimes, those two are one and the same, as in "the Koch brothers."
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?