I know I have never been a fan of the talk radio zombies but I have to laugh at some of their theories about how voting for Clinton or Obama over McCain is better for their interests. It is strung together over seemingly one issue. I know this is going to come to a surprise but that key issue isn’t gay marriage, abortion or flag burning, it is immigration. Their argument goes as follows:
I have been wrong all along so here is another go at it:
Democrats:
I have this pit in my stomach that Clinton is going to win big. I am going against that pit in saying that it will be a close race, but Clinton pulls ahead with the media and everybody else talking about “comebacks” and all that. The only thing I really can’t see is Obama putting it away convincingly.
Republicans:
The big three candidates left are all going to pull states. I predict Huckabee will pull two to three, Romney will pull six to eight and McCain will pull the balance. When delegates are counted, I think McCain will still be in the lead. If Huckabee drops out, people will split for both candidates fairly evenly defying simplistic media projections. When it becomes a two way race, things are either going to get incredibly civil or incredibly nasty. I can’t see any in between with these two.
Also, I get tired of candidates complaining about negative advertising. I realize it is an easy drum to beat and it rallies your supporters but it changes nothing. It costs much much more for a candidate to portray themselves positively in a compelling, memorable way than it does to paint your opponent negatively in a memorable way. That’s how it goes.
People don’t understand the entertainment value of Ann Coulter. It is not that her attempts to be entertaining and relevant are actually funny (they aren’t), it is that her actual attempts (and colossal failure) is funny.
Which is why this just knocks my socks off.
There is just so much stuff here in such a small space, it is good to see her put to use that big horse mouth of hers for something.
First of all, I would almost advocate Clinton being nominated simply because it would be a hilarious act to follow if Coulter actually followed through (which, I am assuming she would because she is the only one who takes herself serious enough). I’d love to see Clinton’s camp try to react to it too.
As far as the claim Clinton is more conservative than McCain? El Oh El. Even the loosest interpretation of what is conservative pegs Clinton far behind McCain in every major category. The fact that Clinton is a calculating and manipulative twerp with her vote should really seal the deal on top of it. You can guarantee yourself that when Clinton felt it was politically expedient to go right, she would do it. And worst case scenario, if you felt that McCain was the same way, he has gone left in far fewer instances than Clinton.
This is the ridiculous thing about people I am calling “the talk radio right” (so I may distinguish them from others who possibly have principles). Extending yourself out to hyperbole doesn’t work for me. Calling Clinton more conservative is just ridiculous and stupid not to mention a flat out lie when you look at the issues one by one. But most of these buffoons have three hours to fill.
All this talk about RINO’s is seriously getting old. Every candidate left in the race could be called a RINO. That was the charge leveled at Romney during his stint as governor and he certainly has the same problems with the evangelical far right due to his religion. Paul certainly has been consistent and probably most conservative of the bunch but he has drawn the ire of the Republican party (and anybody who wants to connect conservatism to Republicanism in any way other than a loose, informal affiliation should have had a wake up call a while ago). Huckabee probably has the least problems because of his pandering (genuine or not) to evangelicals gives him a free pass for his major economic issues (worse than McCain in my opinion).
So “Wah wah wah” about RINO’s all you like. It is time to look past the party affiliation, past the who-is-more-loyal-to-the-party sort of mentality, past what the radio, TV or your internets sites say and actually, you know, research the flipping candidates. Who gives a crap if they are loyal to a party? That platform can change every two years. How about loyal to principles that you care about? I don’t know too many people who think the Republican party has grown well in the last eight years so is it bad to have a bunch of “RINO’s” running for office? We need something different than what Congress and the current President has given us. That is what Republicanism is all about right now. I don’t think many people would pick a continuation of the status quo.
In other news, there is no news. I have nothing even remotely personal to post about which is why the last umpteen posts have been about politics. Sorry.
Good for them. I don’t think I could give two shits about the Republican base any more. They’ve seriously screwed themselves out of their majority and if they want, they can screw themselves out of the Presidency too. They deserve it and are lucky that the party across the aisle from them is about as inept at getting their shit together as well because it makes it a close race.
And despite posts like this, I am mostly over debating politics with anyone at any length during this election cycle. So if I don’t respond to your comment, you’ll understand that I am doing it on purpose but not on a personal level. And no, I’m not going to stop posting about politics, just the debating part.
No, not for winning Florida. He lost terribly.
Not for gaining momentum. In fact, if you don’t drop out tomorrow, it will probably just another week.
No, congratulations for having one of the stupidest campaign strategies in history by skipping all of the early contests, losing out on critical free press over the last month, and cornering the market on people who constantly say 9/11 to nearly any challenge they may face.
You will live on in thousands of political science courses by being the candidate who raised the second most money in their party and had less than a handful of delegates to show for it before dropping out.
Bye Rudy.
Sorry, this thing is so stupid.
I don’t mean any ill to those in financial strife. On the contrary, this isn’t going to help them. But to be honest, this isn’t about people pulling themselves out with a helping hand. This is trying to give a shot to the economy in a way that doesn’t help. And really, the problems with the economy aren’t the ones advertised by the media.
It is incredibly irritating to see Congress and the President railroad this through though. It makes me circle into political cynic mode which is never good.
We seem to be so incredibly scared of normal economic cycles and any market disruption that we are willing to sacrifice the very bedrock of our economic system for some short term stability.
So essentially what we are getting is an early tax refund (a couple months after we get our refund for 2007). Whoopee.
So now, we get an early $1,200 to pay off a few more debts. Something that would have been a couple months out anyway.
Is there anybody qualified to run the country? Everyone is incompetent.
I am trying to ask this in a non-snarky way but it probably is going to come out this way:
1. Are the people who are enthusiastically getting behind Hillary Clinton the same people who got behind John Kerry?
I think Kerry was probably one of the dumbest choices for the Democrats and it seemed like nobody thought about it until it was too late and he got the nomination. I feel like the same people are pushing for Hillary right now. Electability is a really crummy way to nominate someone and I think that is what is driving Clinton supporters (even though, I think the jury is still out on whether she would actually do better against any of the potential Republican candidates).
2. Does Romney remind anyone of Bill Clinton in 1992 only a liberal Republican (rather than a conservative Democrat)?
First of all, people will probably consider this an insult (either to Clinton or Romney) but I mean no disrespect. I don’t have a problem with Clinton from 1994-2000 really. He was incredibly more conservative than his talking points place him today. I don’t really have a terrible problem with Romney either (I am more apathetic). Somebody probably already said some of these things but I’ll repeat them pretending they are my very unique and special thought:
Anyway, I feel that it is a battle between McCain and Romney now unless Rudy can pull of some fireworks in Florida. I have more faith in Rudy pulling something in Florida than Huckabee and I don’t think Huckabee is going to be competitive if he can’t do something spectacular in Florida.
I am watching the Tonight Show and Bill Maher is on and he is being surprisingly less prickish than usual. The funny thing is that like three people so far have interrupted with some sort of stupid chant from the crowd. I heard something about impeachment. And Maher and Leno were just making fun of them and then it happened right after that and right before commercial break, it happened again.
Couldn’t happen to a better guy. I laughed.
On the Democratic side, I think it is going to be interesting. Here are the scenarios I’d be looking for:
1. Obama 2. Clinton 3. Edwards
or
1. Clinton 2. Obama 2. Edwards
I think Obama has to win outright in order to gain momentum into NH otherwise I see him being a perennial second placer in every race after. That second scenario isn’t a typo either. I think if Clinton wins, it will be very close between Obama and Edwards, enough to essentially call it a tie. My hope is obviously for the first scenario because Clinton is awful.
I think beyond Iowa, you are going to see either Clinton run away with it and see second tier candidates fall behind her or Obama wins a couple early primaries and people start to feel the momentum and get beyond that. Obama has to win Iowa and South Carolina outright and place a strong second in NH. I do not think Edwards has the ability to extend beyond Iowa and South Carolina and I do not think he will be the VP candidate again. I also do not think a VP candidate will be picked from the current crop of candidates.
The most likely scenario is Clinton winning and picking a white male as her running mate from her inner circle (sorry Richardson).
On the Republican side, I think we are going to see something surprising in Iowa:
1. Romney 2. McCain 3. Huckabee
This is a huge stretch since McCain isn’t polling at that level at all. I think McCain is going to at least get third place though and I think it will carry him on to win in New Hampshire (with Romney a close second). From there, it will be a three man race (with Rudy entering the fray after the early primaries) but I think that ultimately Rudy pulls out against all conventional wisdom. No way Thompson can pull out of his current slump, Huckabee doesn’t have enough to win it and I think that Romney and McCain can be worn down by Rudy, president of 9/11.
This would be amazing of course since Rudy likely won’t place better than third in any of the early nominating contests. That won’t matter when he wins big on Super Tuesday though.
My preferred scenario is McCain gaining momentum from a surprise showing in Iowa, a win in New Hampshire and to win out on Super Tuesday and become the nominee. Ultimately, I still don’t agree with McCain on everything but I think he is better than the viable alternatives (sorry Paul). The best part about McCain is that he is right on economic conservative values and that is the most important consideration for me personally. None of the other candidates inspire that confidence.
This is not to mention the fact that I would feel very comfortable voting for McCain over Clinton and I think a lot of people would agree. I have already determined that I will not be voting for Rudy and that Mitt doesn’t inspire anything in me to care if he gets elected over Clinton or not. Let’s double that apathy if Democrats nominate someone other than Clinton. In fact, if Rudy is the nominee and someone other than Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I can see myself going blue this election (under the right circumstances of course). And if it is Rudy and Clinton, I am going to be looking at a third party.
It is kind of sick but I am excited. I didn’t think I would be (and I might not be after February 5th) but it is exciting to think of the different possibilities.
Dems are frustrated about war vote.
If you’re frustrated, just imagine what the people who voted for you are feeling like.
Most factually incorrect quote of the day comes from Rep. Obey:
Democrats “have tried every way known to man to bring this war to a conclusion.”
Except, of course, refusing to fund the war. Oh, I guess that is a big one. It is the only thing you have absolute control over dummies so you obviously haven’t tried it. You could simply let the Pentagon run out of money. The war is unpopular enough where it is kind of a no-brainer. In an unpopular war, the opposition congress has the war president’s policy in their hands to crush at their delight.
What am I missing here folks? I’d love to know. This is what separation of powers is all about. Yet, the only reasons I can figure out why Democrats backed off this game of chicken is political cowardice. They believed that Republicans could somehow spin them forcing the issue (i.e. what they essentially ran on and won in 06) as a negative so they backed off when it came to make a brave, meaningful decision. Of course, the Democrats are going to try to spin this to their base as a reason to get more of a majority and the Presidency secured.
Doesn’t that seem like a consolation prize at this point for Democrats? Honest question. Wouldn’t a partial government shut down with a weak-in-the-polls Bush administration excite the base and fire them up more than giving into Bush and admitting they can’t get hardly anything done in Congress without a filibuster proof majority (something that is very difficult to attain) or a President playing for your team?
These are honest questions. I almost feel bad talking to people on the left who are as cynical as me because they went from very high hopes to utter and complete disappointment in less than a year. And let’s not even talk about it if Hillary Clinton is nominated. I am sure the emo will be plastered across the internets from people on that side of the party.
I said I wanted a strong opposition party to any President (Democratic or Republican) and I am glad to see that there was enough congestion in Congress to pass very few really stupid bills this year. If that’s the only benefit, I consider it a success. However, I am not a Democrat and I am happy just to maintain the status quo. And however much I disagree with many Democratic views, I believe they should fight for what they think is right. That’s what got them elected, that’s why they are there. And when you’re an opposition Congress, you have to bring it and be prepared for messes knowing that re-election rate is high in the House and that you have little to lose in the Senate (about half as many Democratic Senators are up for re-election as Republicans).
And I’ve been in the position where I’ve been pissed about it. And while many of the people who are pissed about this on the Democratic side aren’t going to be voting Republican anytime soon, they might decide not to show up for that critical day in November.
I just can’t understand how or why Democrats in congress are playing themselves so weak on this. Can anybody else seriously explain it to me?