The South Will Rise Again
By Jeff Fecke | January 21, 2012
South Carolina Republican Primary, January 21, 2012
✔Newt Gingrich 40%Mitt Romney 28% Rick Santorum 17% Ron Paul 13% Herman Cain 1% Rick Perry 0% Jon Huntsman 0% Michele Bachmann 0%
Nevada Democratic Caucuses, January 21, 2012
✔Barack Obama (Incumb.) Uncontested
So, Who’s Up, Who’s Down, and Who’s Out?
Who’s Up
Newt Gingrich
A Gingrich win would have been a big deal under any circumstances. But the blowout, double-digit win that he just hung on Mitt? In the words of our Vice President, that’s a big fucking deal. Newt didn’t just edge Mitt. He crushed him, sweeping all congressional districts and all 25 delegates up for grabs in the state.
Newt won, flatly, by playing ever ugly card ever devised by Lee Atwater, Dick Nixon, and George Wallace. He’s running against the media, people of color, women, and the Republican establishment itself — and this is something that will be unpredictable. Because let’s face it, the 2010 elections were all about the activists in the GOP throwing off the yoke of their more plutocratic masters, and seizing control for themselves.
Newt is probably going to lose Florida (a significant number of absentee ballots have already been cast, and it will be hard for him to close the likely gap). But he’s going to come in with a ton of momentum, and he could make it close. If he keeps it close or if he scores an upset, all hell could break loose.
Mitt is still the guy to beat, probably — he has better organization and more money, and the party apparatchiks are going to be backing him with guns a-blazin’. But at least for tonight, Newt has to be seen as the front-runner, the man with the most momentum, and the man to beat.
Barack Obama
Obama isn’t up because of his win in the uncontested Nevada primary. He’s up every day that the GOP continues to fight things out.
Let’s face it: the 2008 Democratic Primary was bitter and divisive at times. But it didn’t have a patch on this race. Newt and Mitt are ripping each other to shreds, and the only possible outcome of that is good news for Barack Obama.
Newt’s win tonight means that the GOP race should continue on through at least Super Tuesday. That’s great news for Barack Obama. And if Newt somehow wins? Oh, that’s to wonderful to imagine.
Who’s Down
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney has a glass jaw. That is now obviously, painfully clear. He took his first tough shot of the campaign over the last two weeks, and it knocked him to the canvas. He looked lost and disoriented in his attempts to react to Newt’s attacks, and indeed, managed to make things even worse through unforced errors. Then Mitt got thumped tonight, and while he hoped to roll out a Jeb Bush endorsement tomorrow to try to stanch the bleeding, this will not happen, which wouldn’t be so bad, except that they’d already been leaking that it would.
Now, in principle, the next few races should favor Mitt. He’s been banking absentee ballots in Florida, and has more money and more organization there than Newt does. Florida is followed by Nevada, which has a large Mormon population, and then Maine, which is in one of Mitt’s back yards.
In Mitt’s ideal world, by the time he hits Colorado and Minnesota on February 7, he’ll have won three straight races and four of six, and he’ll be back into inevitability mode.
But that said, if Newt can score an upset in Florida or Nevada or, ideally, both, Mitt could be dealt a fatal blow.
Mitt is in desperate, desperate straits. Things are so bad tonight that his campaign is actually trying to spin this as a great victory for Mitt, and a big loss for Gingrich. That this is patently absurd is no matter; they have to explain this away, because this is the ballgame.
This can’t be said too much: Mitt now must win Florida. The good news for him is that he probably will. Probably. But that was “certainly” a week ago. And I do wonder if we’re starting to approach a tipping point, with Newt solidified as the tea party candidate and Mitt as the establishment candidate. And you can ask Mike Castle who wins that one.
Ron Paul
Paul isn’t out of the race, but there’s no question his mojo has been dented by his fourth-place finish. When Paul racks up 23 percent and second or third place, he’s interesting. When he’s finishing a distant fourth and taking 13 percent, he isn’t.
Paul is running, per his speech tonight, to get delegates and influence in the Republican Party, far more than to win the nomination. So he’ll keep slogging on, because, well, why not? But if he doesn’t do better soon, he’s going to stop being a story worth following, and at that point, Ron’s influence begins to wane. And hopefully, for denizens of the internet, that means we hear less from the Ronulans.
Who’s Out
Rick Santorum
Santorum won Iowa, and he had a brief moment when he could have become Romney’s main foil. But that moment has passed. He won’t win the nomination, and I’d say the odds of him quitting before Florida are 50/50. Unless Newt totally collapses again, I don’t see how Santorum has any path to the nomination; indeed, I really don’t see how Santorum has any path to the nomination, period. If Newt collapses, he’s more likely to come back to life yet again than Rick to make a move. Santorum is done. It was a nice run.
I’m not sure how to feel about Santorum, at least relative to Newt. He’s certainly far less evil and venal than Newt. Far less overtly hateful. His hate is much quieter, less overt. And far more radical. I think I’m glad that Newt is the foil for Mitt. Rick is good at seeming not horribly evil. That is not Newt’s forte.
Stephen Colbert
Colbert has done a lot of very interesting and hilarious work exposing the disaster that is our campaign financing system. But as one could have expected, he didn’t do particularly well in South Carolina; Herman Cain, his stand-in on the ballot, only pulled 1 percent.
So ends the dream of a Colbert presidency. It’s too bad. I was really looking forward to him putting Canada on notice, listing North Korea on the threatdown, and outlawing bears.
Buddy Roemer
Roemer wasn’t on the ballot in South Carolina; it really wouldn’t have mattered if he had. He isn’t having any impact on the race at this point. Really, he’d be better off just making the jump to a third-party run and being done with it.
Fred Karger
Karger also wasn’t on the ballot, and he’s having even less of an impact on the race than Roemer. Really, it’s time for Karger to go.
He Who Must Not Be Named
Beyond time for the anti-choice douchebag to drop out. Of the race, the world, whatever — go away, and don’t let the door hit you.
Topics: Barack Obama, Election 2012, Herman Cain, Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul | 2 Comments »
You Can Rely On the Old Man’s Rankings
By Jeff Fecke | January 21, 2012
So with a victory in New Hampshire and a win tie close second in Iowa, Mitt Romney’s got it all sewn up, right? A victory in South Carolina and it’s all over.
Possibly.
Because just at the moment Mittens got a hammerlock on the nomination, he went and had arguably his worst week in the six years of hiscampaign for the presidency — a week of gaffes, missteps, and a transformation into a caricature of a rich, obnoxious, out-of-touch plutocrat, which replaced his previous image as a flip-flopping, kind of geeky, out-of-touch plutocrat.
So what does this do to the power rankings? What about Ron Paul? And where does Colbert debut? It’s time to play power rankings.
Republicans
1. Fmr. Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney (Last Rank: 1)
Mittens is still in a commanding position to win the nomination. He’s still got the best national organization, the most money in the bank, and a field that is still incredibly weak. He even had Jon Huntsman drop out of the race, which should earn him all 73 of Huntsman’s national supporters, not to mention Huntsman’s cadre of fluffers inside the Beltway. Even if he drops South Carolina on Saturday, he’s still the odds-on favorite to win the nomination. That hasn’t changed. But in many ways, Mitt Romney has never been in a more precarious position in his six years of campaigning for this office.
It didn’t have to be this way. All Mitt really had to after winning New Hampshire was to not screw things up. If he just could get through the week without some kind of disastrous misstep, he would win South Carolina going away, and the race would be over. Yet even before the votes were counted in New Hampshire, what did Mitt do? Start acting like the rich, out-of-touch guy he is.
He said that he “liked to fire people” who provide services to him – yes, it was said about insurance companies, but the words weren’t the ones a former takeover king needed to say. He declared, in all seriousness, that discussions of income inequality were only driven by envy, and should be discussed, not by politicians, but away from the public in “quiet rooms.” He said that he didn’t make much money on speaking fees — fees that were running around $360,000 a year. He admitted that he pays just 15 percent in taxes — a rate about half of that paid by most Americans, that, yes, is legal, but certainly doesn’t make him seem like a man of the people.
And worst of all, as his opponents on the right attacked him for being out-of-touch, Romney flailed, trying to argue that the attacks were driven by a hatred of capitalism. He said that he’d created one hundred thousand jobs while at Bain, then ten thousand, then ”thousands,” then back to one hundred thousand. He simply could not find a counterattack that worked.
And remember — this is, was, and always will be Mitt’s Achilles heel. He comes across as an out-of-touch plutocrat because he is an out-of-touch plutocrat, a guy who really does think $360,000 is not that much money.
A better politician could cover that. A better politician would work to learn, if only by rote, that average Americans aren’t nearly as well off as they are, and that they have to learn to communicate in ways that don’t advertise that fact.
But Mitt is not a good politician. He has a glass jaw. And while he probably will still win the Republican nomination — after all, look at the craptacular field he’s running against — he’s looking more and more like a fatally flawed candidate.
Now, Mitt is in serious trouble. Newt is leading — and likely to win – South Carolina, which was always Mitt’s firewall. Mitt’s national support is in freefall. If he loses South Carolina, he could be in jeopardy of losing the nomination. And even if he somehow muddles through, he’s now viewed as seriously damaged goods by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Throughout Obama’s term, I’ve argued that we are essentially living a mirror-universe 1980s, with Obama playing the part of alternate Reagan. If that’s the case, then we’ve entered mirror-1984. And if the economy is indeed picking up — as it appears to be — and it Mitt wins the nomination — as he still probably will — this could end up echoing that election. If Mitt loses the nomination — well, then Obama could do nothing but sing Al Green songs until 2013.
2. Fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. (LR: 5)
After Iowa, and especially after New Hampshire, Newt looked pretty well dead in the water. He was back in the single digits both times, and it looked very much like Mitt’s attacks on him had worked.
But with Perry departing the race, and Santorum unable to get his campaign into gear, Newt is really the only quasi-viable candidate left who can take out Mitt. And while I don’t know as “take out Mitt” is quite enough for Newt to win by itself, it’s definitely enough to make life very hard on Romney in the interim.
The other thing working in Newt’s favor is that he is willing, as he always has been, to be precisely as evil as he needs to be to win the day. In South Carolina, that’s meant being flat-out racist (the code — “No, I just said ‘poor, inner city children are lazy bums.’ I never talked about their race.” — isn’t so much a dog-whistle as a foghorn). When he attacked Juan William with a dripping, condescending, “Now, Juan,” hitting his name as if it was an epithet, he was echoing the worst impulses of those who bought into the Southern Strategy.
Is Newt racist? Does it matter? He’s certainly willing to use racism to win in South Carolina. And all signs are that it’s working. It’s depressing, but racism, misogyny, homophobia, and religious bigotry are all that’s holding the right together these days, so I can’t say as I’m surprised.
Newt should win in South Carolina. Really, the only question is by how much. If he does…well, South Carolina picks Republican nominees. It’s done so every single time since Reagan. That could be tested if Newt wins; Romney is still the odds-on favorite to win, for a variety of reasons. But thanks to Mitt’s loss in Iowa, should Newt win South Carolina he’ll have won as many states as Romney. What’s more, if Santorum fades (more on him in a moment), Newt has a great chance in Florida. At the very least, Newt is back in the game in a major, major way. At best, Newt could win the nomination.
3. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (LR: 3)
Paul continues to putter along, pulling about a fifth of the vote, not rising, not falling. Will he win the nomination? No. Will he send some Ronulans to the GOP convention? Sure. Will he run as a third-party candidate? Maybe. We’ll see soon enough.
What is interesting, I think, is that the Paul flirtation on the left seems to be dimming somewhat. I’ll get into the polling when we hit the third party section, but suffice to say that Paul is pulling much more from Republicans than Democrats. Of course, that makes sense: Paul’s politics are, at heart, the politics of Pat Buchanan, only not quite so anti-gay. Yes, that makes him anti-war, sort of. Pitchfork Pat is, too.
Paul will end 2012 like he did in 2008 — he’ll have his supporters, he’ll be a potential candidate in 2016 if he’s still alive — but he has no chance of actually winning the GOP nomination. He never did.
4. The Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA (LR: NR)
Colbert makes his debut in the rankings at number four, because he’s certainly driving a significant part of the conversation. Yes, as Chuck Todd managed to discover, Colbert is making a mockery of the post-Citizens United landscape. But it so desperately needs to be mocked. Indeed, what we have now is an almost worst-of-all-possible-worlds scenario, where companies are able to funnel money to shadowy groups that “don’t” coordinate with campaigns.
There could be changes made to the system that would at least mitigate the damage. The absurdly broad loopchasms could be tightened; reporting requirements could be improved; and frankly, campaign donation limits could be removed until we can find a way to overturn Citizens United, because it would be better if this money was going to the campaigns directly. At least they’d be accountable.
Colbert obviously won’t win the presidency, and he’s obviously not trying to. But at the very least, he’s shining a spotlight on the serious problems that plague our campaign financing system. And in so doing, he’s managed to explain the problems with our system far better than the media in this country. That’s to his credit. And it’s a serious indictment of not just our campaigns, but our media.
5. Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn. (LR: 2)
The Frothy Mix won the Iowa Caucuses Thursday. Unfortunately, the good news came too late. South Carolina is clearly more for Gingrich than Santorum, and if he finishes a distant fourth there, as appears likely, it’s hard to see how he can continue on.
Santorum blew it, because Santorum really is a lousy candidate. He’s not especially adroit, he’s not especially charismatic, and his positions on contraception put him outside the mainstream of even the Republican Party. Moreover, he just doesn’t know how to shovel the red meat to the base the way Newt always has.
About the only way Santorum can continue on is if he surprises in South Carolina. The bad news is that if he surprises in South Carolina, it will probably be at Newt’s expense, and if that happens, Romney probably wins South Carolina and ends the race. At this point, I think it’s clear the GOP race is down to two men. Santorum is not one of them.
6. Sarah-Jeb B. Christie-Jindal (LR: 6)
The White Knight is still a possibility. Mitt clearly has the glass jaw that Republicans feared he had, and Newt…well, Newt is great for running a campaign that echoes George Wallace, but that’s kind of a problem if you actually want to win.
If Romney can pull out of his nosedive, I think the powers that be will leave well enough alone. Romney will probably lose in November, but he (probably) won’t embarrass himself, or blow the party up with him. But if Mitt struggles, and it looks like a long and bloody fight is going to engulf the party, or — worse — that Newt’s gonna win, I could see, say, Jeb Bush stepping forward as a healing figure. Likely? Probably not, for a variety of reasons. But possible.
Now, if someone does jump in, it would have to be someone who could plug into a national organization. That’s a very short list. McCain could, but he’s already been tried and found wanting. Sarah Palin has a bit of national organization, kinda-sorta, but nothing that’s capable of running an actual campaign. The other oft-touted candidates – Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal — would all have to build a national organization on the fly, while undergoing a seriously intensive vetting by an outraged Romney and/or Gingrich.
For that reason, I really think that if there’s a white knight, it will have to be the former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. He could plug into his brother’s and father’s network, he’s got good name recognition, and he meets threshold credibility. Of course, Jeb would lose badly, because there’s really no way Jeb can pretend his brother was never president, which has been the strategy of all GOP candidates so far. But Jeb could at least lose with dignity, unlike Newt. He is the only option if the GOP decides on a “somebody else” strategy. For that reason, I doubt he’s gonna be the guy, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility yet.
7. Fmr. La. Gov. Buddy Roemer (LR: 9)
Roemer continues to be the non-factor that he’s been, and like fellow non-factor Gary Johnson and previous non-factor Mike Gravel, he’s now toying with a third-party run, on the Americans Elect line.
Will Roemer be a factor there? Well, he certainly won’t be any less of a factor than he has been in the Republican race. But while he meets the main Americans Elect criteria — he’s old! he’s white! he’s sort of moderish! — he doesn’t really have the name recognition or national interest to make that party anything more than the pretend sideline that it’s been.
That doesn’t mean Roemer’s going away, of course. Candidates like Roemer never go away. He’ll be running well into 2014. Running as fast as he can, far beyond the horizon. Godspeed, Buddy. Godspeed.
8. Fred Karger (LR: 11)
Karger continues to be the least interesting candidate in the field. It’s not just that he’s not in the debates. It’s not just that he’s not planning on a third-party run. It’s this: can you think of anything Fred Karger’s done over the course of this race? Anything? I mean, Buddy Roemer’s complained that he didn’t get on Twitter. Gary Johnson got some non-endorsement love from Glenn Greenwald.Vermin Supreme’s glitter-bombed He Who Must Not Be Named. He Who Must Not Be Named is running graphic anti-choice ads during the Super Bowl.
But what has Karger done? What has he accomplished? Where is his influence on the race? Yes, he’s a gay Republican. So how has he pushed the causes of gay rights? How has he influenced the campaign?
And don’t tell me to look it up. First, I’ve been following the race far closer than anyone should. Second, it’s not my job to get Karger’s message out. It’s Karger’s. Say what you will about Buddy Roemer, but he’s marketed himself very well. Karger? Not so much.
And so Karger can go on, or not; it doesn’t really matter. He’s not influencing the campaign in any way, shape, or form. He’s an insult to hopeless vanity candidates.
Falling Out: Rick Perry (4), Jon Huntsman (7), Michele Bachmann (8),
Jimmy McMillan (10)
Democrats
1. President Barack Obama (LR: 1)
I really don’t know how Obama could be having a better campaign season so far. The Republicans have been hammering Mitt Romney — their only candidate with a chance of beating Obama — and doing so using liberal memes. The GOP attacking Mitt is great, but attacking him for firing people while at Bain? For being elitist? For not paying as much as we plebes? That is a dream come true.
Add to it Mitt’s never-ending series of gaffes, Newt pushing the party into Bircher territory, and the fact that this trainwreck appears to be gathering steam, and Obama is really in about as good a position as he could possibly be in. And that’s before you factor in the slow-but-steady improvement in the economy, one that’s starting to register with people in the country at large.
Obama will win the Democratic nomination; that much is assured. This week showed that, while it will take a lot of work, if that work is undertaken, Obama is likely to win reelection. It’s not certain, of course — nothing ever is in politics. But it’s more likely than not, and it’s more likely today than it was in December.
2. Vermin Supreme (LR: NR)
I had totally not realized that Vermin Supreme was running. I don’t have much to say about him, although I always have loved his boot-hat. And the fact that he glitter-bombed that anti-choice douchebag justifies his continued campaign for office.
Of course, Supreme rarely keeps up his race much past New Hampshire, because unlike Fred Karger, he realizes that once you’re made your point, you move on. So I doubt Supreme is going to mount a national campaign. But I wouldn’t mind if he did. He’s got better fashion sense
than Santorum, a better platform than Gingrich, and he’s less of a douchebag than Romney. Of course, that’s really true of all of us.
3. He Who Must Not Be Named (LR:3)
The anti-choice douchecanoe is still allegedly running, primarily so he can run graphic anti-choice ads during the Super Bowl. You know those really graphic anti-choice ads that they like to hold up outside of events? The ones that make everyone hate the anti-choicers, even moderate anti-choicers? Yeah, they’re going to do that, but on television, during the Super Bowl.
And I, for one, am glad. Nobody human wants those ads up during the Super Bowl. People want to be left alone. If the ads have any effect, it will be to anger America, not at abortion, but at the jerks who ran the ad. And so I guess we should thank He Who Must Not Be Named. He’s going to help the pro-choice cause with his run. That doesn’t make him not scum, of course. But at least he’s doing more for us than he did for his side.
Falling Out: Uncommitted (2)
Third Parties
1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (Libertarian) (LR: 2)
Paul edges up to the top spot on the independent list, based on the fact that people seem willing to poll about him being a third-party candidate, and not so much anyone else (other than Gary Johnson – more on him in a minute).
If Paul runs as a Libertarian, it would pretty much eliminate any chance for the GOP to win the presidency. In a hypothetical matchup of Obama, Romney, and Paul, Paul draws two-thirds of his support from Romney backers. Not only does this indicate that Paul is who we thought he is — a paleoconservative with a libertarian veneer — but it shows that reports of a huge liberal groundswell for Paul have been greatly exaggerated. It’s hard for liberals to support a guy who’s anti-choice, thinks gay marriage should be illegal if states want it to be illegal, and wants to zero out Social Security. And Paul most definitely is that guy.
Will Paul run? I don’t know. It would be foolish of him to do so. On the other hand, the guy has an ego, and he may run just based on that. As a Democrat, I’m obviously hoping he does.
2. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Americans Elect) (LR: 1)
Bloomberg has given no indication he’s running, but I can’t shake the feeling that he’s Americans Elect’s dream candidate. He’s exactly the kind of guy that the Beltway folk love — vaguely authoritarian, willing to make the underclass knuckle under, happy to put the focus on deficits rather than pesky things like taxes.
But while I think Bloomberg is the guy that the Guys Who Dream of a Bland White Warrior dream of, I’m not sure if Bloomberg is willing to pull the trigger. He’s been here before, in 2008, and he didn’t run then, either. Will he decide that 2012′s the time? I kind of doubt it. But until he’s recruited by Americans Elect and turns them down, he’s on the list.
3. Fmr. N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian) (LR: 3)
Johnson pulls about 7 percent in national polls when run against Obama and Romney; that’s 7 percent more than he’d actually get if he were running. But it’s enough that Johnson should actually get a bit of publicity, assuming that Paul doesn’t steal it by making a third-party bid himself.
Would Johnson affect the race? Probably not much. He takes more from Romney than Obama, but given that he’ll probably take less than 1 percent of the vote, it probably won’t be decisive.
Johnson, of course, should be the Libertarian Party’s nominee, rather than Paul; Johnson is a much more traditional libertarian ideologically. But I’m guessing if it comes down to Johnson and Paul, the Ronulans will seize control of the Libertarian Party. Which would be…well, pretty indistinguishable from the state of affairs before.
4. Donald Trump (Americans Elect) (LR:4)
Trump sat alone in his golden chair
Totally motionless except for his hair
Candidates came to his place and grovelled
At least they did until his big debate was cancelled
He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He’s been bankrupt
He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He kinda sucks
Trump lingered last for humility
Thinks he could lead the country from sea to shining sea
He cut his pizza, after that he chewed
Is Trump gonna run? Well if his show isn’t renewed….
He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He bought his hair
He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He doesn’t care
Is this Trump running this fall? I think no.
Does this Trump have much of a chance? I think no.
Is this Trump kind of a dick? I think so.
If he runs, will he get his butt kicked? I think so.
5. Fmr. La. Gov. Buddy Roemer (Americans Elect) (LR: NR)
Roemer actually would make a good candidate for a new, moderate third party if it wasn’t Americans Elect. Roemer is pretty moderate, really does straddle the two parties ideologically, and wouldn’t be an altogether terrible fit for them.
Unfortunately, he lacks zazz, star power, a certain je ne sais qua. He’s no Joe Lieberman, I’ll tell you that. And so while he could, and probably should, be the Americans Elect nominee, something tells me they’ll find someone else — or quietly fold, just like Unity08 before them.
6. Robby Wells (Constitution) (LR: NR)
Robby Wells is a former head football coach at Savannah State University, an HBCU in Savannah, Georgia. Wells himself is white. After rolling up an impressive 7-15 record in two seasons, Wells was fired, and being the kind of guy who’d eventually seek the Constitution Party’s nomination, he sued for racial discrimination, ultimately settling out of court.
The main question at this point is whether Wells can win the Constitution Party’s endorsement. His platform actually puts him to the left of the Republican Party, although, to be fair, there really is no ideological space left to the right of the Republican Party. Wells benefits primarily from the fact that nobody else seems to be seeking the CP’s endorsement. Wait. What’s that? Is — is that — Alan Keyes’ music?
It isn’t? Oh well. A guy can dream.
7. Pastor Terry Jones (Independent) (LR: NR)
You may remember Jones from the time he tried and failed to burn a Qur’an. Well, he’s back, and this time he’s running for president. Or something. I assume he’s running on a pro-burning Qur’an platform.
The main thing Jones makes me think is this: both he and John Bolton have goofy white mustaches. Is that a thing? Is it that if you hate Muslims, you have to grow a goofy white mustache? Or does your goofy white mustache make you so mad that you lash out at the obvious culprit — Muslims? Maybe it’s a chicken-or-egg thing. I don’t know. All I know is that if my mustache ever goes simultaneously white and goofy, I’m shaving.
8. Kent Mesplay (Green) and/or Jill Stein (Green) (LR: NR)
Mesplay and Stein are running for the nomination of the Green Party, and I think this is a good thing. Not because I know anything about either Mr. Mesplay or Ms. Stein — I don’t, other than that they’re probably to my left on most issues. No, what’s good is that they’re unknown activists working on building their party, which is exactly who the Greens should nominate.
Three of the four Green Party tickets have been headed by gadflies – Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000, Cynthia McKinney in 2008. And it’s badly damaged the party. Yes, Nader drew 2 million votes in 2000. But when Nader flounced out of the party in 2004, it became apparent that he really hadn’t built the party at all. McKinney’s bid was ineffective as well.
Mesplay and/or Stein are unlikely to draw a few million votes. But they will help build the party. Now, I think it unlikely that the Greens in America will ever be more than a fringe party — our system discourages third parties, generally. But they’ll grow a lot more from the grass roots than they will from the top down.
10. Roseanne Barr (Green Tea) (LR: NR)
I am not making this up. Roseanne Barr — last seen growing nuts in Hawai’i — has decided to run for president as a member of the “Green Tea” party. And for those of you who follow the Twitter, you know that Roseanne has launched her campaign by being kind of a puritopian jerk.
Will it play in Peoria? I strongly doubt it. Especially since it’s really easy to say you’re running for president, but much harder to actually run for president. I suspect Roseanne views this as a way to grab some cheap publicity and go.
Still, it’s early, so at least the run is entertaining. Of course, by November she’ll be elected President, only to tell us later that all of reality is a novel that she wrote, and really her kids are married to each other’s fictional spouses and her husband is dead. And that will be unforgivable.
Topics: Americans Elect and/or Unity12, Barack Obama, Chris Christie, Donald Trump, Election 2012, Gary Johnson, Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Mike Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Power Rankings, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul | 1 Comment »
Paint It Black
By Jeff Fecke | January 18, 2012
So yes, I’ve joined the anti-SOPA-slash-PIPA protest, but not by shuttering my site. I don’t begrudge Wikipedia for shutting down, mind you — the bills as conceived would present an existential threat to their site. But ultimately, I believe the internet is a communications medium, and that it is best used when it’s, well, used.
So instead of shutting down the site, which I’m sure would annoy all six of you, I’ve gone back to the future. I’ve turned my site black.
Now, you may say, “But Jeff, why are you turning your site black? What does that symbolize?” Well you should ask! Sit down, you kids under the age of 30. Let me tell you about the Communications Decency Act.
The CDA was authored in 1995 by Sens. James Exon, D-Neb., and Slade Gordon, R-Wash. It was meant to “clean up” the internet, which was then, as now, a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Most importantly, it was meant to give the government sweeping powers to ban pornography on the internet, including an attempt to expand the “community standard” test nationwide. In effect, it would have allowed a prosecutor in Alabama to indict a content provider from San Francisco for violating community standards. Moreover, other sections would have required word filters on all library computers. In theory, fine, but in practice, it meant anyone searching on “breast cancer” at a library computer would find their search blocked. It also sought to block, not only obscene speech (which is not protected by the First Amendment), but indecent speech (which is), if said speech could be viewed by a minor.
Such requirements were unworkable, of course, and represented an existential threat to the internet in its infancy. It basically said that adult conversations could only take place behind a paywall, or some other mechanism used to verify the age of viewers. If you’ve ever read a post about homosexuality or abortion rights, you’ve read a post that could have run afoul of the CDA. And what’s more, as originally written, it held ISPs liable for the websites they hosted, and websites liable for posts by commenters or guests.
And so, in 1995, the internet went black. The sites didn’t literally turn off; no, they simply reversed color, so that sites no longer had their usual backgrounds. They were white text on black backgrounds. And all the heavy hitters of the time did so — all the way up to Yahoo! itself. It was a simple, one-day protest, designed to illustrate the opposition to the proposed legislation.
Now, the CDA passed. But it passed with an important caveat — the addition of Section 230 of the act, which specifically exempted ISPs and web hosts from liability. This allowed the internet to go forward without fear that a stray post on a comment board could take down AOL. The worst of the law was then gutted by Reno v. ACLU, which held the restrictions on indecent speech ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The protest worked. As, no doubt, today’s SOPA and PIPA protests will work. Indeed, they already have — President Obama has come out against the worst of the bills. And while I suspect something will find its way through Congress, it will be significantly more benign than what was originally proposed.
Anyhow, there’s no harm in putting that final nail in the coffin. And there’s also no harm, as you yell at your legislators, in thanking President Obama for taking a stand against the worst parts of these bill.
Topics: Blog Navel-Gazing, Civil Rights | No Comments »
What Dr. King Did
By Jeff Fecke | January 16, 2012
We all know what Martin Luther King, Jr. did. He marched, and integrated the lunch counters, and made white people and black people friends forever and ever, and also he opposed affirmative action because he had that one line in that speech that conservatives love to quote.
This is what King did, and it’s a comforting tale. Sure, white people were a bit crazy in the South (and only the South; certainly not the North, were all us white people were already super-nice), and yeah, that whole drinking fountain thing was kind of silly, and it was good that he got rid of it.
But of course, that wasn’t what King did. He — and the many people who worked with him — did far more than that, though we don’t like to admit it much, because admitting it forces white people to admit to sins far more grievous than simply requiring kids to go to different schools based on skin color. Imani has a guest-post up by Hamden Rice laying out exactly what King did do, and while it’s a lot more painful that we care to remember, it’s extremely important that we never forget it:
The reason I’m posting this is because there were dueling diaries over the weekend about Dr. King’s legacy, and there is a diary up now (not on the rec list but on the recent list) entitled, “Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Dream Not Yet Realized.” I’m sure the diarist means well as did the others. But what most people who reference Dr. King seem not to know is how Dr. King actually changed the subjective experience of life in the United States for African Americans. And yeah, I said for African Americans, not for Americans, because his main impact was his effect on the lives of African Americans, not on Americans in general. His main impact was not to make white people nicer or fairer. That’s why some of us who are African Americans get a bit possessive about his legacy. Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, despite what our civil religion tells us, is not color blind.
[...]
So anyway, I was having this argument with my father about Martin Luther King and how his message was too conservative compared to Malcolm X’s message. My father got really angry at me. It wasn’t that he disliked Malcolm X, but his point was that Malcolm X hadn’t accomplished anything as Dr. King had.
I was kind of sarcastic and asked something like, so what did Martin Luther King accomplish other than giving his “I have a dream speech.”
Before I tell you what my father told me, I want to digress. Because at this point in our amnesiac national existence, my question pretty much reflects the national civic religion view of what Dr. King accomplished. He gave this great speech.Or some people say, “he marched.” I was so angry at Mrs. Clinton during the primaries when she said that Dr. King marched, but it was LBJ who delivered the Civil Rights Act.
At this point, I would like to remind everyone exactly what Martin Luther King did, and it wasn’t that he “marched” or gave a great speech.
My father told me with a sort of cold fury, “Dr. King ended the terror of living in the south.”
Read the whole thing. Really — the whole thing.
Image: Postcard commemorating the 1920 Duluth, Minnesota lynchings.
Topics: Race | No Comments »
The Mountaintop
By Jeff Fecke | January 16, 2012
Topics: Race | No Comments »
Team Awesome!
By Jeff Fecke | January 13, 2012
As you may know, the semifinals in the race for the presidency are already winding down. Willard Mitt “Mitt” Mittens Romney appears headed to the GOP nomination, while Barack Obama, much to the chagrin of the Puritopians, is running unopposed in the Democratic primaries. It’s looking like it will be a battle of Mittens and Barack, two men who — true story — had fathers born in foreign nations. (Which reminds me: Where’s the birth certificate, Mitt?)
Anyhow, you might think that with Romney in the race, all possible political positions would be well-represented. But you’d be wrong. After all, where’s the guy who believes we need to gut social security, but doesn’t care much about abortion rights either way? Where’s the guy who thinks we need to cut taxes on the rich, but thinks the GOP is a bit caustic sometimes? Where’s the guy who thinks the whole “gay rights” argument is a distraction from more important issues, like reducing the deficit through draconian measures? Where’s the candidate of Tom Friedman?
Well, never fear, because a group of shadowy bankers has launched Americans Elect, which is seeking ballot access in all fifty states to allow Americans to pick their own nominee for president, as long as that nominee meets with the approval of said shadowy group of bankers. This group has its own idea of who could be a standard bearer, and despite their initial hesitancy at joining a non-existent party, they are awesome:
A new group that hopes to tap into a rising appetite for a third-party presidential challenger has discovered that $30 million in secret cash can buy ballot access and attention, but not necessarily a dream candidate.
The group, Americans Elect, failed to generate interest in possible campaigns from Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lamar Alexander, and its intensive outreach to a host of other prospective candidates, including former Nebraska Sens. Chuck Hagel and Bob Kerrey, hasn’t yielded much public enthusiasm for its efforts.
No public enthusiasm? Unpossible! I mean — Chuck Hagel! Joe Lieberman! Bob Kerrey! Lamar Alexander! If David Broder were still alive, he’d die of joy at such a line-up of bland white centrists. It’s the party of the Beltway’s dreams. I mean, sure, there’s no consistent ideology among those guys, and, yeah, they have wildly different views on things like whether gay people should have equal rights, or women should be able to have abortions. But they’re serious! And willing to make hard decisions! And serious!
I just can’t believe they turned down Americans Elect. The chance to finish fourth for president doesn’t come along often, guys! I mean, imagine the joy of a Lieberman-Hagel ticket. Imagine President Lamar Alexander! (Who hasn’t?) It’s like a magical dream. Shh. Don’t wake the Beltway Boys up.
Topics: Americans Elect and/or Unity12, Election 2012 | No Comments »
Better Than Obama On the Issues That Matter
By Jeff Fecke | January 12, 2012
Tim Wise has decided that, like many of us true progressives, he’s had enough with that fascist Obama. He’s decided to throw his lot behind a guy that, sure, has some baggage, and, yeah, said some racist stuff. But on the big issues, the important issues, the issues that really matter, he’s spot on:
I would like to properly introduce you to a man about whom you’ve heard much — especially from his enemies and those who prefer a continuation of the status quo — but at whom you might wish to take a second look, and whom you might consider supporting for president.
Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an immediate end to our current and ongoing wars abroad.
Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an end to predator drone attacks by the United States military, which kill innocent civilians and foment growing hatred of America. He believes that the so-called “war on terror” as we’ve engaged it has undermined American freedoms at home and contributed to greater tensions and anti-American sentiment abroad.
Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an entirely revamped Middle East policy, in which the U.S. will no longer subsidize the oppression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.
Unlike Barack Obama, he supports either abolishing or fundamentally reforming the Federal Reserve system, and he opposed bailing out the banks with public funds.
Unlike Barack Obama, this individual opposes government spying and believes in absolute freedom of speech and the press, and as he puts it, “reduced government intrusion into our lives.”
Is it Ron Paul? It’s gotta be Ron Paul, right? Ron Paul rules! Ron Paul is the Constitution! Ron Pual Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul!
Ladies and Gentlemen of the left, I give you your perfect candidate for 2012:
David Duke.
Oh I’m sorry, did you think I was talking about someone else?
Ron P–
Uh.
Yeah. Go read the whole thing.
(And yes, this is obviously satirical.)
Topics: Barack Obama, Election 2012, Ron Paul | No Comments »
The Love Song of W. Mitt Romney
By Jeff Fecke | January 12, 2012
Every so often, a candidate will accidentally let slip what he or she really thinks.
This doesn’t happen with the better candidates. Not because the better candidates are more guarded — they aren’t — but because the better candidates generally are honest about what they believe. They may slip and say something goofy or off-key, but it’s not revelatory, because it’s not something they’ve been trying to keep hidden.
Mitt Romney is not one of the better candidates. Indeed, he’s one of the worse ones. Guarded beyond all rational levels, his very political positions a mystery to all but him (and perhaps, all including him), Mitt has been running for various offices since tge 1990s on a “Whatever you’re for, I’m for” platform. And in all that time, he’s never expressed a coherent reason for running.
But I think yesterday morning, while discussing the envy and jealousy that we all feel about the über-rich — because we can’t be concerned about income inequality for any other reason than that — Mitt accidentally let slip his entire worldview, and the precise reason he’s running for office:
LAUER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word ‘envy.’ Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?
ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.
LAUER: Yeah but envy? Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as ‘envy,’ though?
ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.
Did you catch that? (Probably. I bolded it, after all.) Mitt thinks things like inequality are subjects for “quiet rooms.” Not a campaign. Not even in Congress. But in quiet rooms, away from the limelight, away from the prying eyes of the hoi polloi. That’s where the decisions get made, after all. Not by the plebes. But by rich men in sharp suits who discuss these things over a fine dinner, perhaps some drinks for one’s non-Mormon friends.
And that’s how Mitt sees things. He’s not running because he has any particular ideology — he doesn’t. He just wants to be in those quiet rooms, discussing things with his fellow Very Important Men. And he’s willing to change his positions like some people change underwear because his positions don’t matter. This is all a show for the rubes. Discussing actual policy positions? That’s unseemly. The public should have no voice in these matters. And the idea that they should — well, that’s just stoking envy and class warfare.
That’s Mitt’s worldview. That’s Mitt’s core. You don’t matter. Nobody matters except those select few who manage to trick people into giving them power. It would be best if all of us just shut up and elected Mitt so he can do what he thinks is best, which itself doesn’t really matter.
It is an interesting way to view the world, one far more consonant with 16th century England than 21st century America. But one that never went out of fashion with a certain subset of wealthy people, who really do believe that they are born to lead, and we are born to serve. He hid it well, but Mitt has finally come clean about what he honestly believes.
Topics: Mitt Romney, The Class War | 1 Comment »
Adherents of the Repeated Meme
By Jeff Fecke | January 11, 2012
How good is Bob Cesca’s post on Ron Paul? So good that I’m actually linking to HuffPo.
The word “cult” is often employed in political contests, but seldom in recent history has it been more appropriate than when describing the so-called Ron Paul Revolution. Specifically, Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination (and he doesn’t really want to); if a miracle happens and he actually does win the nomination and, subsequently, the presidency, he has no chance to successfully govern; and his libertarianism is pure hocus-pocus science fiction, evidenced by the fact that it’s never been successfully implemented. Ever. But Ron Paul’s supporters don’t know it. Or, at least, none of them can describe a single instance in history when such a system has prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects.
[...]
The election of Ron Paul is a minor conundrum compared with implementing his libertarian ideas. If we presuppose that he wins and then achieves any of his proposed changes to the system in the face of a divided electorate, few working coalitions and no party support in Congress, those policies would absolutely crush the economy and, ultimately, the very “liberty” which Ron Paul cultists repeat like hiccups in response to any challenges to their leader.
[...]
Among other monikers, Ron Paul fancies himself a “constitutionalist,” but that strict adherence to the Constitution ends with the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court, according to its explicit powers enumerated in Article III, decided that the 14th Amendment includes a right to privacy and, thus, the right for a woman to have an abortion. I fail to understand how constitutionalists and those who cling so dearly to the ideals of limited government and “liberty” can so casually and oppressively order strict government regulations dictating what occurs within the bodies of every woman of child-bearing age.
Furthermore, with the rolling back of the Civil Rights Act, entire sectors of the free market would be free to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender. At the state and local level, we would see an inevitable return of Jim Crow laws that allowed, among other things, poll taxes andneo-slavery, and so the growing American minority population would find itself trapped in a new American apartheid without any recourse for justice.
But, you know, “liberty!”
[...]
See, Ron Paul isn’t a candidate. He’s a meme. Much like a popular YouTube video, Twitter hashtag or literary blog metaphor, if you’re aware of it, you’re savvy — you’re one of them. Ron Paul is a shibboleth for nihilistic hipsters. If you can work “Ron Paul” and “liberty!” into a tweet, you’re one of them. You’re anti-establishment. People who are devoted to Ron Paul appear to be more interested in the fantastical, fictitious idea of President Ron Paul than the realistic manifestation of President Ron Paul.
Read the whole thing level: off the charts.
The beauty of the article is that it completely and accurately diagnoses the Ron Paul fandom. It isn’t rational — no matter how “rational” the Ronulans style themselves. It’s not really a cult of personality, as Ron Paul has no personality other than vaguely menacing crank handing out zines on the corner. It’s a fandom. It’s based on the idea that Paul is Liberty Incarnate, and that if he just wins, then we’ll all be free. It’s why articles that state facts about Paul are met with incredulous posts by Paulbots demanding that the authors go Google Ron Paul, because if they just read about the man’s genius, they’d see that these concerns about civil rights and women’s rights and economics and isolationism are wrong, because Ron Paul is the Constitution, man.
It’s not rational. It’s just something to mutter in a corner while seeking purity. Ronulans don’t support Ron Paul, the man. They support Ron Paul, the idea. And fortunately for all of us, he’ll never get elected president, so none of us will have to live in the world that Ron Paul, the man, would lead us to.
Topics: Ron Paul | No Comments »
Bain of My Existence
By Jeff Fecke | January 11, 2012
New Hampshire Primary, January 10, 2012
Republican Party
✔Mitt Romney 39%
Ron Paul 23%
Jon Huntsman 17%
Newt Gingrich 9%
Rick Santorum 9%
Rick Perry 1%
Buddy Roemer 0%
Write-In 0%
Michele Bachmann 0%
Fred Karger 0%
Kevin Rubash 0%
Gary Johnson 0%
Herman Cain 0%
Others 0%
Democratic Party
✔Barack Obama (Incumb.) 82%
Write-In 10%
Ed Cowan 2%
Vermin Supreme 1%
Randall Terry 1%
Cornelius E. O'Connor 1%
John D. Haywood 1%
Craig Fries 1%
Bob Ely 1%
Others 2%
So Who’s Up, Who’s Down, and Who’s Out?
Who’s Up
Barack Obama
Obama’s 82 percent may look less-than-overwhelming to those who want to view it that way, but it compares favorably to the 80 percent George W. Bush took in 2004, and is right in line with the 84 percent Bill Clinton took in 1996. All three men had the overwhelming support of their parties behind them, despite (in the case of Bill and Barack) some grumbling from the usual suspects.
Obama’s not just up because he trounced Vermin Supreme, though. He’s also up because the Republican primary has devolved into a game of throw-wild-haymakers-at-Romney. More on Mitt in a minute, of course — but suffice to say that a great cheer went up in Chicago when Rick Perry — Rick Perry! — called what Romney did at Bain “vulture capitalism.” Will the Obama campaign run Newt calling Mitt a liar on infinite loop from June through November? Yes. Yes they will.
Ron Paul
Paul rebounds somewhat from his disappointing Iowa showing, coming in second in friendly territory. 23 percent won’t set the world on fire, but it’s good enough for him to keep trudging on.
If Paul were a conventional Republican, he’d be clearly Romney’s most dangerous opponent. But of course, he isn’t — and just as Mitt has seemed to have a ceiling, Paul does too. And while the GOP may unify behind Mitt because, well, he at least pretends to be a doctrinaire conservative, Paul is not going to get the same benefit of the doubt.
The big question is whether Paul will bolt for a third party run. I’m kind of thinking no, simply because it would screw things up for Rand. But we’ll see.
Who’s Down
Mitt Romney
From one point of view, Romney did well in New Hampshire. He pretty much met expectations, Ron Paul finished second, Newt and Santorum finished way back. Mitt basically tied Iowa and won New Hampshire; if he can win South Carolina, he should be the nominee.
But from a more important standpoint, Mitt’s finish in New Hampshire was disastrous. Because for the last 72 hours leading up to the vote, Mitt was on the defensive — and was doing a disastrous job of defending himself. What’s more, his GOP opponents were blasting him, not from the right, but from the left — attacking his “vulture capitalist” days at Bain Capital.
That this line of attack was so open — and that Mitt had no real answer, other than to mutter about “envy” — had to send a chill down the spine of the humans Mitt picked to run his campaign. Because this will be Obama’s attack, an attack that Mitt’s been preparing for since 2008, and Mitt looks utterly unable to parry it.
Will it kill him in the GOP primaries? Probably not. The party’s been drinking from the well of Objectivism for too long to turn on Mitt now. But will it hurt him with the vast majority of the country that recognizes wealth inequality as a problem? You bet your sweet bippy.
If Mitt had something else to offer save business acumen, that wouldn’t be fatal. But he doesn’t. Much as the swift boat attacks on Kerry damaged his raison d’être, so these attacks damage Mitt’s — and these attacks, unlike the swift boaters, are true, and backed by Mitt’s closest ideological allies. It would be as if Howard Dean, mad about losing Iowa, had launched the swift boat attacks in February of 2004. It would have destroyed Kerry. And this will destroy Mitt.
Rick Santorum
Santorum dropped precipitously from his Iowa finish, and stumbled badly during the week leading up to it. He’s not dead until after South Carolina, but he’s not going to get far if he keeps trying to explain that he didn’t say black, but blah or plives or to blave or what have you.
The good news for Santorum is that South Carolina really is more fertile ground for his particular brand of evil than New Hampshire. He’ll run into fewer students attacking him for hating gay people and more, well, people who hate gay people. But because of that, he doesn’t have an excuse if he tanks there; he will have to finish at worst a strong third behind Paul to remain even quasi-viable.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich eked out a fourth-place finish in New Hampshire, and has some financial backing going into South Carolina that should help him remain barely alive. But he’s clearly an also-ran at this point, having finished out of the money in both early tests.
The real question is whether that matters to Newt at this point, and I think the answer is no. I think he really is pissed off at Mittens for going negative, and that he’s adopted a new campaign slogan of “to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.” Newt is out to destroy Mitt, and if he can’t do it in the primary, he’ll do it for the general.
That’s what the attacks on Mitt’s Bain record do. Some have suggested this inoculates Mitt against Obama attacks; I think just the opposite. It mainstreams Obama’s attacks, because all Obama has to do is quote Newt. And Newt is very quotable.
Which is why I hope he stays in the race indefinitely. Can he win? Probably not. But the longer he stays in, and the more bitter he gets, the better it is for the Democrats.
Who’s Out
Rick Perry (again)
Rick Perry went back to Texas to reassess his campaign. And after reassessing it, he decided it was super-awesome, and he should keep going.
That was not a good reassessment.
The problem, of course, is that “reassess” doesn’t mean “reassess” in American political kabuki. It means “I quit.” And you can’t come back from quitting. Nobody likes a quitter. And Rick Perry quit.
He’s done. Completely and utterly done. If he was smart, he’d quit now. But he’s Rick Perry, alas.
The sad thing is, I don’t know why he soldiers on. I understand why some of the other hopeless candidates continue. Santorum thinks he can actually win. Gingrich is out for vengeance. Paul wants to build his cult of paleoconservatives. Buddy Roemer is running for…whatever reason it is Buddy Roemer’s running. But Perry? What’s he accomplishing, other than to create anti-Mitt ringtones? I don’t get it. I don’t get it at all.
Fred Karger
Karger drew less than 1 percent in New Hampshire, below Michele Bachmann, who wasn’t running, and just ahead of Kevin Rubash, who may or may not exist. Karger was never a viable candidate for the presidency; this underlines it.
Buddy Roemer
Roemer is the Mike Gravel of 2012, and there’s no doubt about it. Indeed, given that we long ago determined that Mike Gravel was a surrealist performance artist, it’s entirely possible that Buddy Roemer is, in fact, just a character created by Mike Gravel, sort of the Borat to 2008′s Ali G. I can’t wait for the video where he throws a rock into a fire.
Vermin Supreme
Had I but known he was running, I would have mentioned him in power rankings; alas, this probably isn’t a strong enough showing to go on.
That Anti-Choice Douchebag
That guy got less than 1 percent (he gets to 1 in the rundown only by rounding), and finished behind both Vermin Supreme and Ed Cowan, who appears to be your general, run-of-the-mill vanity candidate. To top it off, he’s planning to run grisly anti-choice ads on the Super Bowl, because nothing rallies people to your side than video versions of the anti-choice ads that everybody, including anti-choicers, despises.
Remember, his goal was to embarrass Obama by proving there are a bajillion anti-choicers out there who hate him. Well, he proved that he can motivate an army that is almost as large as the one mobilized by Vermin Supreme. His pathetic last act in American life thus played out, let him scuttle back under the rock from which he crawled.
Topics: Barack Obama, Election 2012, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul | No Comments »
The Brown Note
By Jeff Fecke | January 4, 2012
As you may remember from four years ago, this is how we do it.
Iowa Caucuses, January 3, 2012
Republican Party
✔Mitt Romney 25%
Rick Santorum 25%
Ron Paul 21%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Rick Perry 10%
Michele Bachmann 6%
Jon Huntsman 1%
No Preference/Other 0%
Herman Cain 0%
Buddy Roemer 0%
Democratic Party
✔Barack Obama 98%
Uncommitted/Other 2%
So Who’s Up, Who’s Down, and Who’s Out?
Who’s Up
Rick Santorum
Santorum finished just eight votes behind Mitt Romney (and that only after Karl Rove discovered an [ahem] tabulation error that favored Romney), so he’s only partly number two.* Granted, Santorum’s essential tie for first was based not so much on his own skill as Hobson’s choice — he was the only candidate who hadn’t been tried and found wanting by the Republican electorate.
This makes things very interesting for Santorum. After all, while his absurdly conservative positions on gay rights, abortion, and birth control — yes, birth control – put him way, way, way outside the mainstream of America, they don’t put him beyond the right wing of the GOP, and I can absolutely envision Santorum getting the religious right to coalesce around him between now and South Carolina as the last non-Mitt standing. On the other hand, because he hasn’t had to endure any significant barrage from Romney’s buddies on Wall Street, he could find himself napalmed into oblivion.
But given that oblivion was where he was two weeks ago, that isn’t the end of the world. At worst, Santorum has bought himself a ticket all the way to Florida; at best, he could win the nomination. Given that I can’t read his name in any context without thinking of a puerile double entendre, that could prove disastrous for me.
Barack Obama
Obama secured 98% of statewide delegates yesterday, underscoring, underlining, bolding, and italicizing the fact that he is the overwhelming preference of Democrats going into this election. I’m not going to argue Obama’s perfect, because he isn’t — but then, who is? But while you can attack Obama for his stance on education or the tactics used in prosecuting the war on terror or extending the Bush tax cuts for a year — and should — you also have to admit that his accomplishments in his first three years are significant and important.
Obama has earned a shot at a second term. And given the realities of our political system, he will be the standard-bearer for the left. If you want to move the country leftward, undercutting Obama won’t accomplish it; electing more and better liberal Senators and Representatives (and school boards, and state legislatures) will. Iowa Democrats get that, and I have a strong feeling that Democrats across the country do, too.
Newt Gingrich
This seems counterintuitive. Didn’t Newt finish a distant fourth? Well yes. Yes he did. That said, Newt beat Rick Perry, and that was his main competition here.
The old saw is that there are three tickets out of Iowa. Thanks to the weirdness of Ron Paul’s candidacy, there are really four this year. Gingrich got the fourth one, but it could be better than that; if Santorum withers under Romney’s attack, Newt is well-positioned to rise again. Polling is old in South Carolina, but Newt was doing well there when last checked. If Santorum stumbles, Gingrich will be well-positioned to coalesce support as the only guy who can stop Mitt. And that may be enough this year.
Moreover, Gingrich will play an important role regardless of his positioning, because Newt has an ego, and Mitt has bruised it. And as his speech last night showed, Gingrich is ready, willing, and able to rain down hellfire upon the well-coiffed head of Mitt Romney in revenge. And — oddly — Mitt really hasn’t been on the receiving end of attacks yet. The right has squabbled among itself. If Newt trains his guns outward, it could help him, help Santorum, and either damage or destroy Mitt. Pass the popcorn. This could be good.
Who’s Down
Mitt Romney
Yes, Romney “won” the caucuses yesterday. But his eight vote margin isn’t fooling anyone. He actually dropped in support from 2008, both in real terms and percentage-wise. He had the lowest percentage of any winning candidate in Iowa history. He did nothing to alter the conventional wisdom that the vast majority of the GOP really, really, really doesn’t like him. And his victory speech was simply awful, a reminder that Mitt really isn’t a particularly good or charismatic campaigner.
And frankly, New Hampshire won’t help this. He’s going to win it handily. But we’ve known that since 2009. Everyone expects Mitt to blow out his competition in New Hampshire. And that means he won’t get a boost by blowing out his opponents, unless he does so with epic, 60-point margins. “Winning” Iowa and winning New Hampshire would ordinarily be viewed as a knockout blow, but Mitt’s going to have to win South Carolina, too, if he wants to end this quickly.
Don’t get me wrong: the race is still Mitt’s to lose. He has far more money than Santorum, and he can grind out a win if he has to. But he has some serious, glaring weaknesses, and even if he wins, that doesn’t mean they’re going away.
Ron Paul
Paul finished third with 21 percent. That would have been impressive back in December. But after the Paul boomlet, it looks like he’s sinking back down to where he always is — somewhere in the teens, drawing enough to remain in the conversation, but not enough to threaten anything.
Paul’s failure to beat Romney is ulitimately an indictment of the Paulbot Army, who couldn’t deliver when it counted. It also suggests that the far left’s non-endorsement endorsement of Paul was exactly as useful as expected.
This doesn’t mean Paul is dead. He has the money and organization to compete all the way to June, and if he wants to bolt for a third-party run, November. But it does mean Paul is dead as a factor in the GOP nomination fight. He can rack up all the third-place finishes he wants, but it’s ultimately meaningless.
Jon Huntsman
Huntsman didn’t contest Iowa, so he can use Giuliani logic and claim his 1 percent finish doesn’t count. But it doesn’t help, either. Yes, he’s doing better in New Hampshire, and he could wound Romney there. But there’s no sign that he’s going to do anything nationally. My guess is he finishes in single-digits in the Granite State, and he’s done after that.
Cenk Uygur
Okay, Cenk isn’t running. But he did take to the Huffington Post to argue that liberals should caucus for uncommitted to protest the fascist Obama. Uncommitted drew 2 percent of delegates. Draw your own conclusions.
Who’s Out
Rick Perry
Actualy Out
Perry had one of the more epic collapses of any political figure in American history. He was winning big in September. By January, he was a national joke. His bizarre, rambling concession speech, centered on a letter from a supporter talking about how awesome Perry is, was the perfect coda to the sad spectacle of the Rick Perry campaign.
Essentially, Perry’s political career is over. It’s hard to see how he wins anything after this. And I think we’re all okay with that.
Michele Bachmann
Bachmann says she’s going on after this, but it’s hard to see how. Her dismal sixth-place finish in her native state, a state she’d bet everything on, is simply not survivable. It’s hard to imagine her equaling her 6 percent tally anywhere else, and that puts her squarely in also-ran status. She has no path to the nomination. She is done.
The only question is when she pulls the ripcord. It’s going to have to be soon if she intends to run for reelection. And if she wants to be Sarah Palin Lite, she can only hurt her brand by getting mauled from sea to shining sea. That said, Michele doesn’t view reality like you or I do. She may really think she can still pull this out. It would be sad, if she wasn’t Michele Bachmann.
UPDATE: Actually Out
Bachmann evidently could read the writing on the wall; she’s giving up. It’s the right decision, which is why I’m so shocked she made it. This is, incidentally, good news for Rick Santorum.
Buddy Roemer
Roemer finished dead last, even behind Herman Cain, who was not running anymore. He was doomed already, but this should underline that his is a vanity candidacy at this point. We can start completely ignoring him now.
Jimmy “The Rent is Too Damn High” McMillan
Received no votes in Iowa. I expect him to continue on undaunted.
Fred Karger
See: Jimmy McMillan
That Anti-Choice Douchebag
I didn’t hear anything about him last night, did you? No? Good. Let’s keep it that way.
*Yes. I am twelve.
Topics: Barack Obama, Election 2012, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul | No Comments »
Michelle Obama Must Be Fat
By Jeff Fecke | January 3, 2012
So with all the swirling excitement about Iowa, not to mention my having a day job, I missed this awesome story:
Can you imagine how the incident would play out if an African American congressman made a crude remark about First Lady Laura Bush’s body? It certainly would have taken more than an insincere apology to wash that sin away. That scenario never happened — hopefully because those congressmen were raised with a measure of common decency. I know that America’s first family – an image this country presents to the world — is traditionally granted a certain amount of respect across party lines.
Only Wisconsin Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner apparently isn’t bound by such traditions. While I suspect he might be the first to defend the honor and dignity of previous First Ladies, he was recently overheard at Washington’s Reagan National Airport loudly criticizing Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative: “She lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself.”
His insults quickly disappeared from the headlines after he pledged to send the first lady an apology.
Well, at least he….
Even then, though, he couldn’t resist — through a spokesperson — taking another shot at Michelle Obama’s efforts to get Americans to add more fruits and veggies to their diets and to get moving.
The aide’s note said: “Mr. Sensenbrenner was referring to the First Lady’s healthy food initiative. He doesn’t think the government should be telling Americans what to eat. While he may not agree with all of her initiatives, he plans to contact the First Lady’s office to apologize for his comments.”
Well, isn’t that douchey.
There are many attacks on the Obamas that I find wrongheaded. Take this facile attack on Michelle Obama’s vacation in the exotic foreign nation of Hawai’i, please. But at least I can understand their genesis. It does cost a lot of money for a first family to travel, because, unfortunately, there are wackos that would like to kill them. The alternatives are worse, of course, and the complaints tend to be very partisan, but at least they have some basis in reality.
But the attacks on Michelle Obama’s looks? I don’t get them. At all. If Michelle Obama was fat, Sensenbrenner’s attack would be vicious and wrong. But Michelle Obama is not fat, not by any rational measure. It would be like attacking me for having too much hair — it’s not just wrong, but it’s simply not true.
Can one criticize the First Lady’s focus on ending childhood obesity? Yes, one can — heck, one should. Spending too much time on obesity feeds into the myth that fat qua fat is somehow wrong. I’d much rather the emphasis was on eating healthier and exercising without regard to weight.
But even if you find Obama’s emphasis on obesity to be wrong, it’s hardly Orwellian. She’s gone on the Disney Channel to encourage kids to eat better and exercise more. There hasn’t been a policy component to it. Compared to Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign — which dovetailed with the beginning of the War On Drugs — it’s been pretty low-key. Hardly the kind of thing that merits a full-throated attack on Obama’s policy, much less her personal level of fitness.
And that, frankly, is what’s so shocking about the treatment of Michelle Obama. You can criticize her on many things, but she certainly appears to be fit for an almost-48-year-old, and by conventional standards of beauty, she at least rates as attractive. And yet, just as the right attacks her husband for being stupid, they attack Michelle for being ugly and fat.
I don’t think one has to dig too far to find the racism implicit in these attacks. Michelle Obama cannot be attractive because she’s black; black women can’t be attractive. Never mind that she is and they are. If we start admitting that Michelle Obama is pretty and that she and her husband are smart, we might have to start asking why we’ve built up all these racist assumptions about what “attractive” is, and who can be “smart.”
As Mary C. Curtis puts it:
Not only is this disrespect crude, it also proves yet again that you can’t go wrong disrespecting a black woman in the United States of America, even if she lives in the White House – and in some constituencies, especially if she lives in the White House. Sensenbrenner’s nasty rant made me sick and sad because it brings to the surface the ugly history of how black women are viewed in America, stereotyped and dehumanized, our bodies everyone’s business except our own.
What in the world is Sensenbrenner doing staring at the First Lady — not as a person but as a specimen, each part an item on an anatomical checklist? He doesn’t approve of what he’s seeing but he can’t keep his eyes off of her. It’s creepy but unfortunately familiar, the way he devalues black beauty while being mesmerized by it.
Exactly. It’s depressing, and wrong. But it’s all too familiar. The Obamas must be ugly and stupid, because if they aren’t — if they’re actually attractive and smart — it calls into question the comfortable lie that far too many successful white people have told themselves. And we can’t have that.
Topics: Fat Phobia, Race | 2 Comments »
Oh, There’s Nothin’ Half-Way About the Iowa Way to Rank You When We Rank You Which We May Not Do At All
By Jeff Fecke | January 2, 2012
So it’s Iowa Caucus Eve! Is everyone ready? Are the children all nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of Santorum dance in their heads? Have folks refused to leave a peppermint stick for ol’ St. Ron, as simply giving someone a peppermint stick would be redistributive? Are people hoping for an animatronic Romney under the Iowa Tree, or will the Gingrinch steal the caucuses? It’s the last power rankings before Iowa. Hooray!
1. Fmr. Mass. Gov. Willard Mitt Romney (LR: 2)
Romney has edged into the top slot thanks to default, those two sweetest words in the English language. He has done this not so much by growing his support — he hasn’t — but because every other person running against him has collapsed. He appears locked in for a top-three finish in Iowa with a good chance at the top slot; if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be in great shape.
That doesn’t mean that it’s clear sailing for Mittens, however. With Rick Santorum, of all people, now in a statistical dead heat for first in Iowa, and Ron Paul in command of a crazed army of Paulbots, there’s a chance Romney could slip to third. If that happens, he could suddenly find himself on the other end of a flurry of “why can’t Mitt close the deal” stories, which could either catapult another challenger into the lead, or convince one of the undeclared White Knights (Jeb? Sarah? Bobby?) to enter the race.
The good news for Romney is that Santorum is currently the most likely candidate to beat him in Iowa, and Santorum is also the least likely candidate to break out nationally; still, Mitt really needs to win, or at least finish second to Paul, to quiet the doubters. Even then, it appears likely that Romney will underperform his 2008 showing in Iowa; he may get the nomination, but there’s no question that he’s loathed by rank-and-file Republicans. It’s going to be awfully hard for him to hold onto his right flank if he does get the nomination.
But at the moment, he is the odds-on favorite to win. The right is fragmented, and Santorum likely lacks the resources to parlay a win into a national campaign the way, say, Perry or Gingrich could. Things are shaping up well for Mitt. But given the way this race has gone so far, that means Mitt’s collapse could be right around the corner.
2. Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn. (LR: 6)
Santorum spurts up to number two, and nobody’s more surprised than me. When last we played this game, I had declared Santorum done, and why wouldn’t I have? Newt Gingrich was riding the wave of support, and it was December. Surely there wasn’t enough time for Newt to collapse, and give room for the only plausible candidate left who hadn’t gotten a shot at the spotlight.
Well, Newt collapsed, thanks to an epic barrage of attack ads by Romney’s rich buddies. And then Paul briefly surged, but it turned out he was not only a racist (which is not a deal-breaker for the GOP), but was actually open about it (which is) — plus he didn’t want to nuke Tehran. Bachmann had been tried and found wanting, Perry was dumber than a brick, and Santorum…well, he was the only one left who hadn’t collapsed.
And so it’s the frothy mixture’s turn. Color me skeptical. Santorum is nobody’s first choice; he’s a place-holder. A convenient protest vote against Mittens.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that he won’t make a splash tomorrow. He could conceivably win the Iowa caucuses, and if he does, who knows? It could actually turn Santorum into the anti-Mitt, and certainly, he has the anti-gay, anti-woman bona fides to run with it. If not, it could at least prove that there’s an anti-Mitt group out there, and give renewed hope to candidates with actual national organizations and money to continue on even if Mitt wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
3. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (LR: 3)
Paul had his own mini-surge, and briefly led in Iowa. This had the salient effect of causing the media to actually cover Ron Paul. Hilarity ensued. It turns out that the media was doing Paul a huge favor by not covering him; covering him required noting that he’d published ten years’ worth of racist, sexist, and anti-gay newsletters that played to the Patriot movement in the time leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing.
Paul’s explanation — that he’d published the newsletters but had never read them — didn’t really work out so well. Instead of killing the matter, it changed the question from whether Paul was racist or not to whether Paul was racist or incompetent. (Answer: both.)
Did this kill him? Not exactly. Certainly, there were plenty of socially awkward 20-year-old white men who would back him no matter what. And more than a few (universally white, universally male) “progressive” pundits who’d tout Paul as an answer to the evil Barack Obama (pay no attention to Paul’s views on women’s rights, civil rights, medicare, social security, education, welfare, or anything else). But Paul’s words — whether his or ghost-written — prevented him from growing his support beyond his committed supporters.
This doesn’t mean that Paul’s Ronulan army won’t help him finish in the top three. I think he will; heck, he could still win the thing. But it does mean that he’s back to being what he always is — the angry guy muttering in the corner. He’ll finish third lots of places. He won’t get the nomination. Period. The only interesting thing to see is whether he ultimately breaks ranks and runs as a Libertarian. As an Obama supporter, I hope he does.
4. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (LR: 4)
Trying to figure out what’s going to happen in the GOP race is a mug’s game. Other than Romney finishing in the top four tomorrow, I wouldn’t bet on any result. That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that Rick Perry is going to overperform tomorrow. And if that happens, I think there’s a chance that he becomes the comeback kid, the best hope for conservatives to challenge Romney. Well, either him or Gingrich. (More on that in a moment.)
The main reason for this is simple: money. Perry’s got money to stay in the race at least through Florida, and possibly beyond. If he can get past Gingrich and Santorum, he’s best-positioned to challenge Romney. Sure, he’s dumb as a box of hammers, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a shot.
5. Fomer House Speaker Newt Gingrich (LR: 1)
Newt never wanted to run for president. He wanted to sell some books, maybe get on talk shows. And then one day, he ended up the front-runner by Hobson’s choice, and for one brief moment, his ego swelled to Brobdingnagian heights, he thought he had a chance to win.
Had he done anything like, you know, organize a campaign, he might have. He might have been ready for the obvious attacks by Romney and company. Might have been ready for the withering negative ads, might have been prepared for his past statements to be examined, might have been ready to explain the commercial with him and Pelosi.
But Newt had decided to hang out in Greece and Hawai’i instead of working for the presidency. And so when the attacks came, Newt was unprepared. And that knocked him out of the upper tier of candidates.
That doesn’t mean that Newt is dead — nobody’s dead in this group. He’s still polling well in South Carolina, at least for the moment. If he can pull a top-four finish tomorrow, and a top-three finish (ideally with Paul) in New Hampshire, he can lay claim to the anti-Romney mantle — simply because he does have the resources to compete with that Santorum lacks.
I think in the end, it comes down to Newt and Perry. The candidate who does better between here and South Carolina is best positioned to challenge Romney from Florida on. And make no mistake: even if Romney can sweep the first three, unless he beats 30 percent in Iowa and South Carolina, he’s vulnerable. Newt could rise again.
6. Sarah-Jeb B. Christie-Jindal (LR: NR)
In Patrick Dennis’ marvelous and lamentably out-of-print novel First Lady: My Thirty Days Upstairs in the White House, the protagonist relates the bitter nominating fight at the Bull Finch Party’s convention in 1908. After thirty ballots, the husband of the wildly unreliable narrator somehow makes it onto the second spot on the ticket, an eventuality that leads one delegate to despairingly cry out, “for God’s sake, anybody.” Alas, the delegate asks for volunteers in vain; Butterfield ends up on the ticket, and eventually becomes president, at least until the stolen ballots surface.
Anyhow, the Republican Party is noticing that Romney is likely to win, and is currently at the for God’s sake anybody! stage of grief. And that means there is space open for a white knight to come gallivanting into the race to save the party from defeat, or Mitt, or what have you.
Jeb Bush? Sarah Palin? Bobby Jindal? Even a back-stabbing Chris Christie? Sure, none of them are likely to jump into the race at this point. But let’s face it: all of them are more likely to win the GOP nomination than Jon Huntsman or Michele Bachmann.
And so we put them on the big board this week. Incidentally, the B stands for brokered, the other possibility that is remote but possible — a scenario in which Santorum wins some states, Gingrich others, Perry still others, and then they team up as a Voltron of right-wing disaster. Possible? Folks, Michele Bachmann was considered a viable presidential candidate this cycle. Nothing is impossible.
7. Fmr. Ambassador Jon Huntsman (LR: 9)
Huntsman has crept up only because the media continues to give him far more coverage than a third-tier candidate deserves. You can argue whether Huntsman is moderate (he is, but only in relation to this field) or whether he deserves to win (he does, but only in relation to this field) or whether he’s a decent guy (he is, but…), but none of that appears to be making much difference.
The only way Huntsman will affect the race is by overperforming in New Hampshire and hurting Romney. There’s no indication he will. My guess is that after New Hampshire, Huntsman is a footnote. Maybe he can beg Obama for another ambassadorship in 2013.
8. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. (LR: 8)
It’s been a fun six months for Minnesota DFLers. August brought us the flameout of Gov. Timmy, which was immensely gratifying, given that he’d been running for president since being re-elected governor in 2006. Then came the abrupt resignation of GOP state chair Tony Sutton, who left the party $1.9 million in debt. This was followed by the resignation of Amy Koch and the defenestration of Mike Brodkorb over an extramarital affair. And now, just a few days into the new year, Our Michele appears ready to follow Timmy into oblivion. How sweet it is.
Bachmann is, of course, going down with characteristic blindness to reality, saying she doubts polls and believes in what she’s seeing “on the ground,” but it doesn’t matter. Michele is done. The only question is whether she bothers to come back to run in the sixth, or whether she decides to go off into the world and make money. She would be an awesome Fox commentator, if only she were blond.
9. Fmr. La. Gov. Buddy Roemer (LR: 9)
Buddy Roemer is starting to annoy me. Not sure there’s anything I can put my finger on — just a general sense of neediness emanating from his campaign. I think maybe it was when he begged PPP to put him in their polling. It’s just sad. Jimmy McMillan is polling in negative numbers. Fred Karger may not exist. But do either of them bemoan their fates? No! They’re 23rd-tier candidates and they like it. They like it fine.
Roemer, I fear, is becoming Mike Gravel. He won’t go away, no matter what happens. Which is annoying, because that means I’m going to be tired of his antics for months.
10. Jimmy “The Rent is Too Damn High” McMillan (LR: 12)
Jimmy McMillan knows the rent is too damn high. But that’s not all. As the only black candidate left in the race, he can garner the support of all the black republicans out there. Like Herman Cain! And Michael Steele! And J.C. Watts! And…well, I’m sure there must be others. Combined with his huge base of support among those who like vanity candidates, that could propel him into the top ten! And you know what that means, right? Right? Well, if you do, let me know.
11. Fred Karger (LR: 12)
Karger continues to be at the bottom of the big group of fail. And what more can you say about him? No, really, what more can you say about him, ’cause I got nothin’.
I mean, this is the hard part of the power rankings, folks. Anyone can riff on Newt (Oh, look! He’s got a giant ego and comes up with wacky ideas and stuff! And he’s got a glass jaw!) That’s not hard. But delivering the kind of hard-hitting analysis of guys who have absolutely no chance of being recognized were they to stand in under their own photo? That takes hard work, and maximum effort, folks. And coming up with a paragraph of filler that does nothing but pretend to complain? That’s why they pay me the big bucks.
Falling out: Herman Cain (4), Gary Johnson (10)
Democrats
1. President Barack Obama (LR: 1)
Obama will be the Democratic nominee. There is no question about that. The question is whether he can win re-election in November, and signs are increasingly positive there. Yes, Mitt Romney is in some ways the most dangerous Republican in the race, but Mitt’s major advantage — the fact that most people think he’s moderate — has been damaged by his campaign of the last five years. Add to that the fact that Mitt is an incredibly awkward campaigner, and then multiply by the fact that the economy appears to be fitfully awakening from its slumber, and you have the makings of a win for Obama — potentially a big win.
It’s early. And much can happen over the next ten months. But if trend lines hold, Obama should be able to win re-election. And then he can usher in his fascist socialist Muslim caliphate that kills Muslim children with reckless abandon while paying for compulsory gay marriages, just as his critics fear.
2. Uncommitted (LR: NR)
Cenk Uygur has been urging his fans to go vote uncommitted in Iowa, because Obama is like George W. Bush only twice as evil. That’s fine, and I wouldn’t be surprised if “uncommitted” won 5 percent of the delegates tomorrow. Those of you familiar with the mechanics of the nominating process realize that all of those uncommitted delegates will end up being Obama delegates once the convention rolls around.
But hey, by all means, Cenk, you stir the pot. I’m sure it won’t be a huge failure or anything.
3. That Anti-Choice Douchebag (LR: 2)
You know what? I’m not going to mention that anti-choice douchebag’s name. He just wants publicity, and I’m not required to give it to him. He should have been drummed out of society after he drug Teri Schiavo’s body around the country; hell, he should have been drummed out when he was grifting back in the eighties. I’m ignoring the bastard. To hell with him.
Third Parties
1. Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Americans Elect)
Bloomberg hasn’t officially launched a candidacy, and if this goes like 2008, he may not at all. But there are some clear signs that he’s mulling it. And I think that would be awesome. What America truly wants is a plutocrat who’s out of touch with average Americans, has liberal social views, and was last seen beating up Occupy Wall Street protesters while bragging about the NYPD being his private army. He’s perfectly designed to be a dealbreaker for everyone in America except the Beltway Boys. Run, Mike, run!
2. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (Libertarian)
Paul hasn’t ruled out a third-party run, and one assumes it would be with the party he made his last third-party run with. Paul would be interesting, no doubt; Glenn Greenwald, David Sirota, and a lot of other white guy progressives would undoubtedly declare that we just had to vote for Paul, because, I mean sure, racism sexism homophobia racism goofball economic policy states’ rights racism sexism sexism sexism screw the poor screw poor countries get out of the UN and let sick people die — but on the other hand, isolationism and weed! Of course, David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald influence far fewer voters than they think they do, and Paul’s history of being Paul has nuked any chance for him to influence more than fringe libertarians.
But Paul could siphon pure pro-life votes from Romney (he said, you may remember, that being anti-choice was the most important issue to him). He’d certainly be a wild card. I don’t think he’d pull more than 5 to 10 percent, and I think that would be mostly Republican, so I hope he runs. But I doubt it; I think he’ll go back home and run for Congress again.
3. Fmr. Republican N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Johnson entered the GOP race because he thought Ron Paul was going to sit it out. And then Paul ran. So he left for the Libertarian Party. If Paul goes to the Libertarians, he’s gonna be hellapissed.
Johnson, for whatever reason, simply can’t generate the zany cult of personality that is the Paulbot Army. Probably that speaks well of Johnson — if I had the Paulbots defending me, I’d be pretty embarrassed. But it does mean that a Johnson run will impact the race much less than a Paul run. Glenn Greenwald thinks a lot of himself, but he doesn’t have the readership to drag Johnson past the one percent mark. I think if Paul chooses not to mount a third-party run, Johnson will get the LP nomination. I also think, as per usual, the LP nomination won’t be worth very much.
4. Donald Trump (Americans Elect)
Does anyone else think that the crash and burn of the Trumpbate makes it more likely that The Donald will run for president, simply because he can? I kind of do. Maybe it’s just because I would really, really like Donald Trump to run for president, for the lulz, and for the fact that he’d pull GOP support from any potential candidate. Enough to win? Oh, you’re hilarious with that. Enough to hurt? Yes, probably.
Of course, the other great reason for Trump to run is that he’d get stomped, which, unfortunately, is probably why he won’t. But hey, a guy can dream, right?
Topics: Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Donald Trump, Election 2012, Gary Johnson, Herman Cain, Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Power Rankings, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin | 1 Comment »
Glenn Greenwald is Like the Holocaust
By Jeff Fecke | January 2, 2012
If you want to use hyperbole to attack your opponents, that’s fine. Indeed, if not for hyperbole, I would literally never have anything to write.
That said, when you’re using hyperbole, you need to be aware that it needs to be, well, hyperbolic. You need to keep it unrealistic. You especially need to keep away from tropes and statements that play into racist or misogynistic stereotypes.
This is a lesson Glenn Greenwald needs to learn. Glenn, in his ongoing efforts to support his non-endorsement of Ron Paul, started yukking it up with a fellow anti-Obama fauxgressive, who likened Angry Black Lady’s support of Obama to…well, see for yourself:
Now, I get where they were going. It’s the old “if Obama ate a baby on television, Obots would defend it” line. But unfortunately, it’s different in tenor than that, because 1. Eating a baby is so ludicrously beyond the pale that it becomes laughable, whereas rape is all too common a crime, and 2. Eating a baby doesn’t play into racist tropes the way a black man raping a nun does, or misogynist tropes by bringing up, well, rape.
Anyhow, when called on this, Greenwald, being a decent fellow, apologized for going along with the joke, and said that while he opposed Obama’s policies, he’d try to be more careful with his language. Kidding! No, Glenn being Glenn, he doubled down on the slur.
When twitter exploded in attacks on Greenwald for making a “rape joke,” instead of apologizing for the comment, Greenwald doubled down, tweeting that the reference to rape was not a metaphor and in fact Obama supporters would defend the president in the face of “ANY evil: assassinations, child-killings: EVEN rape violent crime like rape.”
See, that’s the other thing with hyperbole: it’s hyperbole. I’ve used the “if George Bush ate a baby, conservatives would defend it” line. But if anyone had said, “you’re kidding, right?” I would have said, “obviously.”
Greenwald, unfortunately, doesn’t understand that when you make an absurd argument to make a point, you don’t defend the absurdity. You come back to your point. More than that, he doesn’t understand that when you offend people, the proper response is not to accuse them of foolishness. The proper response is to apologize.
Make no mistake: Glenn should apologize for using rape analogies to attack Obama. But he won’t. Because he’s Glenn Greenwald. He’s literally the worst person in the history of the universe, bar none.
Topics: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Emoprogs, Foreign Policy, The Post-9/11 World | 2 Comments »
The Reason for the Season
By Jeff Fecke | December 21, 2011
There is a reason that Mithras’ birthday was celebrated this time of year. A reason that Bacchus’ birthday, the Saturnalia, Jesus’ birthday, and the New Year come this time of year as well. For those of us living in the Northern Hemisphere, at 05:30 UTC tomorrow morning (11:30 PM Central Standard Time tonight) the Sun’s slow ebb reaches its nadir, and begins its welcome return. For those of us who live in northern climes it is a not insignificant day; the sun will not rise today in Minneapolis until 7:48 AM and will have set by 4:34 PM, a meager eight hours and forty-six minutes of daylight. And Minnesota is in the pink compared to, say, Stockholm, where tomorrow the sunrise doesn’t come until 8:44 AM and sunset is already complete at 2:48 PM–just over six hours of daylight.
It is no wonder that millennia ago, our forebearers saw this day as especially meaningful — the moment at which the Sun began its triumphant rebirth. Thus Mithras, the Sun God, was reborn on this day, to grow and prosper, rising until July, when he slowly began to wither and die. Thus the Son God, Jesus, has a story that, calendar be damned, fits well with the idea of Sol dying, and being resurrected. All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again, an infinite cycle, repeated infinitely — or as close to it as we humans can imagine.
And so today, we celebrate the day that is the progenitor of all our winter festivals, the Winter Solstice–and await again our planet’s rebirth into the light. Happy Solstice.
Topics: Potpourri, Religion | 1 Comment »
