Quick Candidates Condition Round Up...(PT 2)

[Lord Jim]

The Fall Of Michelle Bachmann:....

Michelle Bachmann definitely became an "over performer"...

Initially considered "Palin Lite', for a brief moment she became "Palin Lager"....

Bachmann managed to flirt with serious candidacy in part on the strength of a couple of solid debate performances and a first place finish in the Iowa Straw Poll...

But the main reason she was able to brush up against the possibility of being a First Tier Player in the Presidential Sweepstakes, is that she had managed to avoid saying stunningly stupid things....

An ability she had acquired by hiring Ed Rollins and his team...so long as she was listening to them and following their direction, her numbers went up....

I don't think it's a coincidence that within days of firing Rollins, she came out with that bizarre "a mother told me that after getting the HPV vaccine her daughter became mentally retarded"...

That was Michele thinking for herself and not vetting her remarks before she spoke them...(not a good thing)

Her explanation:

"All I was doing is relaying what a woman had said," Bachmann told The Associated Press after touring a manufacturer in Waterloo. "I relayed what she said. I wasn't attesting to her accuracy. I wasn't attesting to anything."

Begs the question:

"If you haven't been in politics long enough to realize that you shouldn't repeat verbatim every single thing somebody who walks up to you and tells you without checking it out, (something any candidate for City Council should know) then maybe you're not ready for politics at the Presidential level..."

That sort of amateurish F-up would never have happened when Rollins was in charge...

[Lord Jim]

The Ghost Ship Candidacy Of The Guy Doing The Best In The Debates...

That would be, surprisingly enough, none other than Newt Gingrich, who has consistently made excellent points and scored well in the debates....

And on the strength of that alone he's crawled back up into the high single digits in the polls....

If the GOP nomination were going to be decided on Collegiate debating points, Newt would be the odds on favorite...

Of course a Presidential campaign is about much more than how well one does on stage with nine other politicos...

For one thing it helps if you actually have a campaign organization, and Newt doesn't have one....

(It also helps if you are in some way or another an appealing person, and Newt, well isn't....he is in fact, on every level, a thoroughly reprehensible and repellant personal figure....a combination of Bill Clinton's lifestyle ethics with Richard Nixon's warmth and charm..... )

Aside from his debate appearances, Newt's campaign is nonexistent....

The only reason he stays in the race is to satisfy his ego by being on that stage, increase his book sales and personal appearance fees, and to qualify for the matching funds that will come his way after the first of the year so he can retire the debt he's run up pretending to run for President....

[Gob]

How can you not love a guy called "newt"?

[Econoline]

I'd be curious as to what you think of Jon Huntsman, Jim. I know he hasn't got the slightest chance of winning the GOP nomination, but he strikes me as the most appealing candidate in the race.

[Liberty1]

Newt is a brilliant guy, in years past I would have voted for him in a second. Unfortunately, Newt has turned more into a camelleon in a couple of cases. The AGW commercial he did with pelosi sitting next to her on the couch is just totally unforgivable.

[Sue U]

I'd be curious as to what you think of Jon Huntsman, Jim. I know he hasn't got the slightest chance of winning the GOP nomination, but he strikes me as the most appealing candidate in the race.

Also Buddy Roemer; why isn't he getting more attention? Executive experience as governor, 4 terms in Congress, articulate, populist. He seems like an ideal candidate for Republicans seeking a sensible alternative.

[Lord Jim]

I'd be curious as to what you think of Jon Huntsman, Jim. I know he hasn't got the slightest chance of winning the GOP nomination, but he strikes me as the most appealing candidate in the race.

Well, if it were up to the mainstream media to pick the GOP nominee, Huntsman would win hands down. In that respect, he reminds me of John McCain, circa 2000....

They've tried to make him into a sort of reincarnation of John Anderson, but Huntsman himself seems hesitant to take on that role....he doesn't seem ready to go "all in" with the "Last Republican Moderate Standing" mantle that the liberal press is eager to assign to him...

Remember, Huntsman was one of those who refused to raise his hand on the stage the night the "would you take $10 in spending cuts in exchange for $1 in tax increases" question was asked....

He's trying to have a foot in both camps....

His performances in the debates have ranged from the lackluster to the sophomoric, (in one debate, when asked what he would bring to the White House he said "my Harley-Davidson and my motocross bike." )

From what I've seen, laying aside any questions of ideology or positions on specific issues, ( personally I don't think that Huntsman is as non-Conservative as a lot of Conservatives think...or as a lot of Democrats think either) based on what I've seen I think he'd be a very ineffective candidate in a general election against Team Obama...

I don't get the impression that he has the aggressiveness to go up against what the GOP nominee (whoever they are) will be facing next year...

And It's Gonna Be Nasty:

I had to chuckle a couple of days ago, when Obama characterized himself as "the underdog"....

Yeah, right, an "underdog" with a billion dollar campaign war-chest (to say nothing of independent expenditures from labor unions and other Democratic Party auxiliaries)

That's a billion dollar plus shit hurricane of negative campaigning that's going to make landfall squarely on the GOP nominee, whoever they are, with one single goal in mind....

To absolutely destroy them...To convince the American public, that no matter how unhappy they may be with Obama's performance, that the alternative represents The End Of Civilization As We Know It....

It's likely to be the most negative "politics of personal destruction" campaign run by an incumbent, (not Obama himself personally of course; he'll try to remain "above the fray"... but by Axelrod and the rest of the Old Chicago Gang) since Jimmy Carter tried to get re-elected by convincing the voters that Ronald Reagan would start a nuclear war....

Politically, I don't blame them a bit. With unemployment stuck at over 9%, and a double dip recession on the horizon, they can hardly run a "It's Morning In America" campaign....

Destroying the GOP nominee is their only realistic path to victory. If I were working for them, that's the strategy I'd advise....

If my party wants to defeat that strategy, it would help immensely if we don't nominate a candidate who plays into it....

And with each passing day, it becomes more and more apparent that the only candidate we have among those available with a realistic chance of being nominated who might be able to defeat that strategy is Mitt Romney...

[dgs49]

There is an inevitability to Romney's winning the nomination and the presidency.

He is both competent and knowledgeable. He is an adult. He has been in this campaign mode for so long that there is virtually no chance of a significant gaffe or the exposure of some skeleton in his closet.

The primary process is one that is driven by the ideologues of the party, and they want someone who will make their figurative nipples hard, but such a candidate would have no chance in a general election. The Media frantically attacks those whom the "base" wants to exalt, and none of the possible "Plan B" candidates (e.g., Christie, Paul) wants to go through that meatgrinder.

Mitt will not make any significant mistakes and he will be, in the long run, the best financed and the best-packaged candidate. He will win the nomination easily, and everyone who is taking potshots at him now will come on board. Who are they going to support? Barry?

Our Beloved President should not be blamed for the mess he inherited, but all of his reactions, when seen in the light of day, were nothing more than throwing taxpayer billions to favored interest groups (this campaign continues apace). And while the public is confoundingly stupid, they are not so stupid as to think Barry thinks like them or has their best interest at heart. When it comes to being a believable phony, he could learn a lot from WJC.

He is toast.

It is difficult to imagine a Republic nominee who could lose this election.

Maybe I'll post a self-congratulatory thread here on November 8th next year, but probably not. Predicting the inevitable is not all that difficult.

[Gob]

Polls in 2007 and 2011 indicated that about a quarter of Republican voters, and a quarter of voters overall, said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who was a Mormon

Once the toons have your number you're screwed!

[Long Run]

Well, they said we'd never elect a Catholic, then JFK won.
Then they said we'd never elect a Muslim, then Obama won.

[The Hen]

And how about a woman?

[The Hen]

I had to chuckle a couple of days ago, when Obama characterized himself as "the underdog"....

Yeah, right, an "underdog" with a billion dollar campaign war-chest (to say nothing of independent expenditures from labor unions and other Democratic Party auxiliaries)

Being an underdog has nothing to do with the amount of money you may have to throw away on a campaign.

un·der·dog  (ndr-dôg, -dg)
n.
1. One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics.
2. One that is at a disadvantage.

Seems to me Obama is right in his characterization, unless everyone is in agreement that he is likely to win.

[Lord Jim]

Quite right, if Obama is Underdog....




That would make Romney Simon Bar Sinister....

[Lord Jim]

There is an inevitability to Romney's winning the nomination and the presidency.

Well, I don't know about his winning the Presidency being, "inevitable"....

Though all factors being considered, it's probably more likely than not...

The likelihood of Romney winning the GOP nomination is certainly all but inevitable at this point...

Fortune has smiled on Romney to such a degree, it almost makes one want to become a Mormon....

Every person who could have given him a serious run for the nomination;

Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, have all begged off...

The only other candidate who might have given him a serious run who did get in....

Rick Perry...

Busied himself about the task of destroying himself, almost from the moment he entered the race...

Perry's poll numbers have collapsed to the point that he's running neck and neck with Herman Cain....

Mitt seems to be living a charmed life...

[Lord Jim]

So how will Team Obama take on Romney?

They'll completely switch gears...

The strategy won't be to destroy Romney by trying to portray him as "The Evil One" and motivate their base...

The strategy will be to try and suppress GOP turnout by trying to claim that Romney isn't all that much different from Obama...

Obama already initiated that strategy when he handed Romney left handed complements about his healthcare system in Massachusetts..

They'll also point out that Romney used closing tax loopholes to close his budget deficit....

[Gob]

God will bless them Jim, god is on their side.

The four front runners in the race for presidency all say they have God on their side, report Catherine Dodge and Kristin Jensen.

WASHINGTON: Republican presidential contenders are courting evangelical Christians, a crucial voting bloc in the party's primaries, free of competition from Sarah Palin.

A ''Values Voter Summit'' in Washington is giving front runners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney a chance to make their pitches, along with Michele Bachmann, who is sliding in opinion polls, and a rising Herman Cain. It's largely an opening for Republicans seeking an alternative to Mr Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, now that Mrs Palin, the party's 2008 vice-presidential nominee, has decided against joining the 2012 race.

''There should not be a single policy coming out of Washington, DC, that interferes with decisions best made by the families,'' Mr Perry told summit attendees. ''The demise of the family is the demise of any great society.''
Advertisement: Story continues below

The annual gathering focuses on efforts to ''champion traditional values'', limit government and cut federal spending. This year's Republican contest elevates the significance of this and similar events for candidates seeking support from the evangelical movement, a major force within the party since it helped promote Ronald Reagan's presidency.
ers, said Lee Edwards, a political historian at the Washington Heritage Foundation, which is among the summit's co-sponsors.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/republicans ... z1aEz5i0ec

[Lord Jim]

That reminds me of a supposedly true story...

There was a Latin American baseball player who used to cross himself every time he came up to the plate, (It might have been Roberto Clemente, but I don't remember for sure.)

One day an opposing pitcher who was getting fed up with this stepped off the bag after he saw the batter it, and then crossed himself....

He then yelled to the batter, "He can't help both of us!"

[Andrew D]

That's a billion dollar plus shit hurricane of negative campaigning that's going to make landfall squarely on the GOP nominee, whoever they are, with one single goal in mind....

To absolutely destroy them...To convince the American public, that no matter how unhappy they may be with Obama's performance, that the alternative represents The End Of Civilization As We Know It....

In les hyperbolic terms, it will cost the Democrats a lot of money -- money raised mostly from ordinary working people, not from the billionaires who lavish their spare change the rabid right -- to remind people of a basic truth:

The leaders of the Republican party got us where we are, and what the leaders of the Republican party really want is more of the same. To them, the ideal economy is feudalism.

[rubato]

Meanwhile ... in yet another move by the Republicans to pander to the hate-filled right.

"Newtie" wants to undo the civil rights movement and restore school segregation:


_______________________________
http://thinkprogress.org/
Justice
Newt’s Awful Speech Part I: Newt vs. The Little Rock Nine

By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Oct 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm

The following is the first in a multi-part series on former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s speech to the Values Voter Summit

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich just completed one of the most radical speeches ever delivered by a presidential candidate on the judiciary. Gingrich’s speech calls for a radical reshaping of our constitutional democracy, eliminating the judiciary’s power to make binding constitutional decisions. He promises to openly defy Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with, and pledges to intimidate judges who dare to part ways with the Constitution According To Newt.

Newt begins his speech with a rant about an unspecified 1958 Supreme Court decision which, he claims, wrongly created a doctrine of “judiciary supremacy”:

Imagine that, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court decided that 2+2=5. Under the current theory, which the Warren Court promulgated in 1958, the only effective recourse would be either a) to get a future Supreme Court to reverse them, or b) to pass a constitutional amendment declaring 2+2=4. . . . This is an absurdity, foisted on us in 1958 by an historic lie. There is no judicial supremacy, it does not exist in the American Constitution.

What Gingrich labels “judicial supremacy” is merely the Supreme Court’s authority to be the final word on constitutional interpretation, and this authority was recognized long before 1958. Indeed, it was first announced by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison‘s declaration that “t is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” By questioning Marbury, Gingrich questions the very foundation of constitutional governance. If an independent judiciary cannot issue binding constitutional rulings, then the Constitution as a whole is meaningless because the only thing enforcing it is the willingness of government officials to comply with it completely voluntarily.

Additionally, Gingrich’s bizarre citation to the year 1958 turns out to be very revealing of what America would look like under Gingrich’s impotent Constitution.

A white paper published on Gingrich’s campaign website names Cooper v. Aaron as the 1958 case Gingrich finds so very offensive. In Cooper, Arkansas’ governor and state legislature decreed that the state was not bound by Brown v. Board of Education, and pledged to resist efforts to desegregate public schools. Eventually, they even called out the Arkansas National Guard to keep African-Americans from entering Little Rock’s Central High School. In a rare unanimous opinion signed by every single justice, Cooper held that lawmakers have no right to openly defy the Constitution in this manner:

[W]e should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. . . . Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”

So when Gingrich lashes out against what he calls “judicial supremacy,” it is important understand exactly what he is saying. Newt believes that the governor of Arkansas was right, and the Supreme Court was wrong, about who had the last word in deciding whether African-American children can attend integrated schools.
_______________________________________


yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

so the candidates would benefit from bigger dicks?