Needless to say, I wouldn't mind at all if Rick Santorum won the Republican nomination — having declared war on women (possibly forgetting that they now are allowed to vote), I honestly don't see how he could win the presidency. Yes, America has moved distressingly far to the right over the past thirty years, but that far?
Listening to Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, and Paul, I'm starting to believe that when Nixon inaugurated his "southern strategy" and Reagan brought the social conservatives into the Republican coalition (bigots, Luddites, and the super-rich, all working together to benefit the super-rich), they unknowingly strapped their party into a suicide vest. The Republican base has moved so far to the right, it risks falling off the edge of its flat earth.
The more states Santorum wins, the harder it will be for the Republican super-delegates to hand Romney the nomination at the convention. Going against the base to that extent would risk splitting the party. If it's a toss-up, though, they still could "draft" somebody who hasn't had a chance to disgrace himself in the endless debates. The last I heard, the real Republican favorite was "none of the above."
But who could it be? Jeb Bush seems to want to wait for 2016; Chris Christie, despite having such a Christlike name, still might be too fat and too northeastern; Tim Pawlenty comes over as a total wimp; even John McCain is not so senile that he doesn't realize he's too senile to run again; Eric Cantor wants John Boehner's job, not Obama's, and anyway he's still kind of Jewish for the traditionalist Catholics and Evangelicals.
Paul Ryan? He's presentable and articulate, and it might be possible, with enough money spent, to conceal the fact that he's a really mean son-of-a-bitch. At the moment, though, I think he's looking for Cantor's job when Cantor pushes out Boehner. As far as the presidency goes, he's still young enough to wait for 2020 or 2024.
Well, as you know, I don't make predictions anymore — but I'm guessing that Obama will get his second term. If he does, I only can hope he might turn out to be less of a "New Democrat" and more of a liberal.
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Alinsky Connection
Well, my brain keeps up, more or less, but, really, it's just too zany. Suddenly, Obama is a kind-of-liberal again, playing the populist card (financed by Wall Street) to counter Mitt and Newt.
("Mitt" and "Newt" are not especially human names. Where is humanity?)
Newt dropped Saul Alinsky's name again in tonight's debates. So, ignoring the so-called State of the Union, let's look at the "Saul Alinsky" references. Obama, Newt tells us, is a "Saul Alinsky radical."
Me, I hadn't even thought about Saul Alinsky for roughly forty years — well, maybe thirty — but, all of a sudden, Newt is saying Obama is a "Saul Alinsky radical." Frankly, I actually never read Alinsky back in the 60s or the 70s. I downloaded "Rules for Radicals" for my Kindle some months ago, having read about how it was a favorite of Tea Party radicals. Well, it was, fer sure...
You know how Amazon suggests other materials based on what you order? Based on my Alinsky purchase, I was referred to books by Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and many lesser known crypto-fascists. Nobody on the left (except me, apparently,) is reading Alinsky. The right-wing crazies who gave South Carolina to Newt, however, know exactly who Saul Alinsky (1906 - 1972) was.
The left should read Alinsky. "Rules for Radicals" is a practical handbook on how to organize, and it seems to have been quite useful to Tea Party organizers. I suspect alleged "history professor" Newt never heard of Alinsky until the Tea Party rediscovered him — but the name, however, had a certain resonance.
Saul Alinsky. Do you reckon he was one of them Jeeeewwwws?
("Mitt" and "Newt" are not especially human names. Where is humanity?)
Newt dropped Saul Alinsky's name again in tonight's debates. So, ignoring the so-called State of the Union, let's look at the "Saul Alinsky" references. Obama, Newt tells us, is a "Saul Alinsky radical."
Me, I hadn't even thought about Saul Alinsky for roughly forty years — well, maybe thirty — but, all of a sudden, Newt is saying Obama is a "Saul Alinsky radical." Frankly, I actually never read Alinsky back in the 60s or the 70s. I downloaded "Rules for Radicals" for my Kindle some months ago, having read about how it was a favorite of Tea Party radicals. Well, it was, fer sure...
You know how Amazon suggests other materials based on what you order? Based on my Alinsky purchase, I was referred to books by Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and many lesser known crypto-fascists. Nobody on the left (except me, apparently,) is reading Alinsky. The right-wing crazies who gave South Carolina to Newt, however, know exactly who Saul Alinsky (1906 - 1972) was.
The left should read Alinsky. "Rules for Radicals" is a practical handbook on how to organize, and it seems to have been quite useful to Tea Party organizers. I suspect alleged "history professor" Newt never heard of Alinsky until the Tea Party rediscovered him — but the name, however, had a certain resonance.
Saul Alinsky. Do you reckon he was one of them Jeeeewwwws?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The Circus Continues
While mourning the death of Etta James — and the non-death of Henry Kissenger, who will be sharing his alleged wisdom with Vladimir Putin in the near future — let me make a few bemused comments on the state of the Republic(ans.)
I have no problem with Willard Romney's activities at Bain Capital. He was, after all, obeying the law. I do not know the extent to which Bain manipulated that law, nor the extent to which Bain participated in buying the lawmakers who gave such firms and their executives such generous tax advantages — albeit, my guess is that Bain was a full participant. What I am sure of is that Romney's proposed tax "reform" would enshrine and extend those advantages.
Newt Gingrich is an unmitigated wack job, which probably explains his increasing appeal to South Carolina Republicans. Are those "man-in-the-street" interviews we see on television genuinely representative of ordinary South Carolinians, or is the "liberal media" going out of its way to cherrypick certified morons? If the NAACP, the SCLC, and/or the Democrats really wanted to screw things up, they could have urged the state's black voters to register Republican and all vote for Ron Paul. Well, maybe next time.
Rick Santorum is basking in the glow of his endorsement by the most vindictive and narrow minded religious leaders of America, and by his "victory" in Iowa. I have clear memories of his days in the Senate, and I don't recall him being any more "moral" than the rest of those over-entitled bozos, despite his very sincere efforts to deprive women of custody over their bodies. Still, if Gingrich somehow manages to grab the lead in South Carolina today, Florida — that other-worldly mix of rednecks, Cubans, and the elderly — could be decisive.
Hopefully, Romney will not have the nomination "sewn up" tonight, because I'm looking forward to more rib-tickling debates. The fact that just three scarcely significant states can "sew up" a nomination for a candidate is, of course, an absurdity of our system — but the mechanism is clear. The leading candidate (and his superpac) get increased contributions from bundlers and wealthy donors, the less successful candidates get less. Money, as always, wins.
..........
11:50 PM
Hoo hah! Batshit wins!
Newt blew it away in SC, and the speech I just heard was extremely well done. He found positive things to say about the other three, but managed subtly to dis them at the same time. For some odd reason, he kept associating Obama with Saul Alinsky, even though everybody who's been paying attention knows that Alinsky has been the theoretical godfather of the Tea Party. (Download Rules for Radicals from Amazon, and see how many right-wing "recommendations" you get.)
Anyway, we get to see it go on to Florida, at least. Who knows? There's a chance Ron Paul could win the Nevada caucuses in February, and everything could become totally crazy. Wouldn't that be fun!
Viva la batshit!
I have no problem with Willard Romney's activities at Bain Capital. He was, after all, obeying the law. I do not know the extent to which Bain manipulated that law, nor the extent to which Bain participated in buying the lawmakers who gave such firms and their executives such generous tax advantages — albeit, my guess is that Bain was a full participant. What I am sure of is that Romney's proposed tax "reform" would enshrine and extend those advantages.
Newt Gingrich is an unmitigated wack job, which probably explains his increasing appeal to South Carolina Republicans. Are those "man-in-the-street" interviews we see on television genuinely representative of ordinary South Carolinians, or is the "liberal media" going out of its way to cherrypick certified morons? If the NAACP, the SCLC, and/or the Democrats really wanted to screw things up, they could have urged the state's black voters to register Republican and all vote for Ron Paul. Well, maybe next time.
Rick Santorum is basking in the glow of his endorsement by the most vindictive and narrow minded religious leaders of America, and by his "victory" in Iowa. I have clear memories of his days in the Senate, and I don't recall him being any more "moral" than the rest of those over-entitled bozos, despite his very sincere efforts to deprive women of custody over their bodies. Still, if Gingrich somehow manages to grab the lead in South Carolina today, Florida — that other-worldly mix of rednecks, Cubans, and the elderly — could be decisive.
Hopefully, Romney will not have the nomination "sewn up" tonight, because I'm looking forward to more rib-tickling debates. The fact that just three scarcely significant states can "sew up" a nomination for a candidate is, of course, an absurdity of our system — but the mechanism is clear. The leading candidate (and his superpac) get increased contributions from bundlers and wealthy donors, the less successful candidates get less. Money, as always, wins.
..........
11:50 PM
Hoo hah! Batshit wins!
Newt blew it away in SC, and the speech I just heard was extremely well done. He found positive things to say about the other three, but managed subtly to dis them at the same time. For some odd reason, he kept associating Obama with Saul Alinsky, even though everybody who's been paying attention knows that Alinsky has been the theoretical godfather of the Tea Party. (Download Rules for Radicals from Amazon, and see how many right-wing "recommendations" you get.)
Anyway, we get to see it go on to Florida, at least. Who knows? There's a chance Ron Paul could win the Nevada caucuses in February, and everything could become totally crazy. Wouldn't that be fun!
Viva la batshit!
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Re: Willard Romney
I was just reading the Wikipedia entry on Willard Mitt Romney, and I'm 99.6% certain it was written (or rewritten) by one of his PR people. Well, what the hell — that's Wikipedia. The last one to get there gets the last word, and I imagine Mitt's people get there several times a day.
One thing Wikipedia does not mention is that Romney is the test case for whether or not a shitload of money can buy an election. The funny thing is that nobody in the Republican base actually seems to like him, but he seems to have locked up the 25% who consider him the candidate most likely to defeat the heartily hated Obama. Well, the Democrats, too, consider him the candidate most likely to defeat Obama. There are two reasons why that probably is the case. First, he has a ton of money behind him and, second, his chameleonlike ability to shift in the political winds should make him especially attractive to so-called "independent" voters.
(Long-time readers will remember that my take on so-called "independents" is that they are those who don't know shit from Shinola, and therefore are most likely to be persuaded by 30 second spots on TV.)
The Romney superpac, "Restore Our Future," outspent the Romney campaign 2 to 1 in Iowa — and did a devastating job on Newt Gingrich. Mind you, pretty much everything they said about Newt was true but, nevertheless, I believe Newt is enough of a son-of-a-bitch to get even. His own presidential hopes may be down the toilet now (albeit his book sales have surged), but it's pretty clear that Newt is pissed. Needless to say, in the light of the Citizens United decision, the "Winning Our Future" superpac that supports Newt will not in any way "coordinate" with Newt's pissedness, but nevertheless will spread some significant negativity on the former Mormon missionary to France. (France?!! Jesus in a manner of speaking Christ!)
While it seems likely that Rick Santorum will turn out to be the Mike Huckabee of 2012, there's no telling how the evangelicals of South Carolina and Florida may vote later in the month. I'd like to see Mitt and his moneyed buds go down in flames, of course, but "Restore" is much better funded than "Winning" — and if Santorum has a superpac, its budget probably is around $12.95.
Oddly enough, I think there still might be a slim chance for John Huntsman, who also has a rich Mormon father but a lot less ideological baggage than Mitt. At the moment, though, my money still is on Obama this year.
One thing Wikipedia does not mention is that Romney is the test case for whether or not a shitload of money can buy an election. The funny thing is that nobody in the Republican base actually seems to like him, but he seems to have locked up the 25% who consider him the candidate most likely to defeat the heartily hated Obama. Well, the Democrats, too, consider him the candidate most likely to defeat Obama. There are two reasons why that probably is the case. First, he has a ton of money behind him and, second, his chameleonlike ability to shift in the political winds should make him especially attractive to so-called "independent" voters.
(Long-time readers will remember that my take on so-called "independents" is that they are those who don't know shit from Shinola, and therefore are most likely to be persuaded by 30 second spots on TV.)
The Romney superpac, "Restore Our Future," outspent the Romney campaign 2 to 1 in Iowa — and did a devastating job on Newt Gingrich. Mind you, pretty much everything they said about Newt was true but, nevertheless, I believe Newt is enough of a son-of-a-bitch to get even. His own presidential hopes may be down the toilet now (albeit his book sales have surged), but it's pretty clear that Newt is pissed. Needless to say, in the light of the Citizens United decision, the "Winning Our Future" superpac that supports Newt will not in any way "coordinate" with Newt's pissedness, but nevertheless will spread some significant negativity on the former Mormon missionary to France. (France?!! Jesus in a manner of speaking Christ!)
While it seems likely that Rick Santorum will turn out to be the Mike Huckabee of 2012, there's no telling how the evangelicals of South Carolina and Florida may vote later in the month. I'd like to see Mitt and his moneyed buds go down in flames, of course, but "Restore" is much better funded than "Winning" — and if Santorum has a superpac, its budget probably is around $12.95.
Oddly enough, I think there still might be a slim chance for John Huntsman, who also has a rich Mormon father but a lot less ideological baggage than Mitt. At the moment, though, my money still is on Obama this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)