Presidential Campaign Obituary #1: Tim Pawlenty

I feel responsible for this recent defeat of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.  If I had the time, I could have written another GOP Candidate Breakdown of him and it would have garnered all sorts of attention.  Then, Pawlenty would have exited the race much, much earlier, instead of wasting all of his money on the pointless, fruitless Ames Straw Poll.

Should Pawlenty have dropped out of the race?  I think the better question why was he in the race to begin with.

Good for him.

Tim Pawlenty entered the race for 2012 because 1) he was floated as a possible VP candidate back in 2008 and the resulting chatter also speculated that he might make a bid in 2012 or 2016 and 2) he was originally seen as a reasonable guy that was capable of bridging the gap between the GOP and Democrats (he was elected Republican governor of a "blue" state.)

However, Pawlenty fell victim to a number of causes, most of which were preventable.

First, he got in the race to begin with entirely too early.  He declared back in March 2011, which meant that he had five months to get the message out.  Good for him.  But by jumping in so early, it allowed people to get bored with him so quickly and realize that he was the milquetoast candidate.  It wasn't until the end of his campaign that he realized that he had to distinguish himself.  What's more, he declared that he was running for President and then more or less stayed in one place the entire time, which leads me to...

Second, he put entirely too much emphasis on the Ames Straw Poll and the State of Iowa.  Watch this bite Michele Bachmann in the ass.  The Ames Straw Poll is important to two groups of people: the person who wins and the person who's banking on winning and then loses.  It proved to be catastrophic for Pawlenty for the simple reason that he made it so important.  Look at Newt Gingrich.  He wasn't doing nearly as well as Pawlenty and he's not a quitter!  I mean, he should quit, but that's not the point.  These things are only as important as you make them out to be.  Look at Romney:  he couldn't give a shit that he didn't win and he came in behind someone that had announced their candidacy that day (Gov. Rick Perry).  He's still going strong.

Boo hoo, Michele Bachmann is liked more in a corn wasteland than Pawlenty.  

That's like being the King of Turd Mountain.  

Third, he tried to break away from the pack too late.  The most significant point of the campaign before his withdrawal was actually within the last week when he was debating Michele Bachmann, among others.  He showed fire, he showed strength and he showed that he could be as snide and snippy as Rep. Bachmann.  But it was too little too late.  You don't try to out-sass the Sass Queen.  What's more, you have to establish that as your character a while ago.  Otherwise, you look desperate and out of control.

So, what does the future hold for someone like Pawlenty.  As was suggested back in 2008, he would make a good VP for the eventual nominee.  He's agreeable and capable of reaching across the aisle in order to solve issues.  He also would be good for balancing the ticket, not geographically but ideologically.  This would allow the Prez Nominee to be a little further to the right than they normally would be.

He should be on a short list, but it wouldn't surprise this blogger if Pawlenty were to go the way of Tommy Thompson and eventually take up a national level seat in Congress to represent Minnesota.  There might be a chair vacant for Minnesota's 6th District in November 2012.

I won't be using it!

---

You can also follow me on Twitter @truthissoap

Also, be sure to click over to www.nuzcom.com to get more news and commentary.  Be sure to follow my column there!

GOP Candidate Breakdown #7: Rick Perry

On August 13th, ahead of the Ames Straw Poll and after months of speculation, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his bid to run for President of the United States.


"That's why with the support of my family and an unwavering belief in the goodness of America, I declare to you today my candidacy for president of the United States."

I'm Rick Perry and I have a finger.

Like many of the candidates that have declared in the past, the idea didn't come from the candidate him or herself, but rather came from the speculation as to who was going to run and not run.  It didn't matter that Rick Perry himself said that he had no interest in running for president.


But then the current field of candidates came around.  I can't help but think that he's running not because there are good enough candidates in the field but for other ulterior motives.  Romney's a good choice for the nomination, however, he is... well, he's a Mormon.  And while Fred Karger has campaigned on the Anti-Romney concept, he's not a feasible alternative.


With Perry, we have a man that doesn't care about the separation of Church and State, who has a good records on creating minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart and Carl's Jr. and shamelessly flirted with the idea that Texas was permitted to leave the Union whenever it felt that it was prudent to do.


What more could the Republican Party or the Tea Party want?


While I was planning on writing a profile breakdown for Perry well before he announced his candidacy, the announcement today has forced my hand.

Look at this picture and tell me that he's not saying "Hee-yuck" to himself.

Age: 61.  A pretty healthy guy, in regards to his physical health.  Mental health issues have not been released or discussed at length and they should.


Hometown:  He's the first candidate that I've profiled that represents the same state that he was born in:  Texas.  I guess that's one difference between him and George W. Bush (but one of the few differences).


Place in the Republican Party:  Conservatives have a hard-on for Southern politicians.  He's a good-looking guy and doesn't make up words like W. Bush, but is a little gaffe-prone.  For further proof, here's his report card from Politifact: it's a little worse than his college transcripts.


Perry appeals to those Republicans and conservatives that think a) no one remembers George W. Bush and/or b) actually miss George W. Bush.  He's shown to be a fiscal conservative, but if he gets the nomination, the argument may very well become his social conservatism.  


He's also considered a Washington Outsider (like Obama campaigned on, but this may also describe Romney, Huntsman and Palin.)  Why this is considered a good thing is beyond me.  Obama ran on that platform and it's shown to be extremely difficult trying to become part of the beast that you are trying to reform.


Polls: 


Nationally, Perry enters the race consistently second, behind Romney.  It's going to be interesting to see the dynamic but Romney is really just one "He's not really a Christian" remark away from being shoved out of the race.  Romney also made the gaffe that 'corporations are people too', and while legally this is true, it's hard to sympathize with "people" that have teams of lawyers to get them out of paying taxes.  Are we all supposed to have lawyers like that?


It's also interesting to note that, as of this writing, polls show that Obama is vulnerable to nearly any generic GOP candidate that he may run against.  However, when a specific person is named, he tends to do better.  With Perry, such is the case, consistently beating him by double digits.  

Perry demonstrates his chances again Obama, pictured here.

Iowa:  Perry doesn't appear in enough polls to create a sufficient average.  However, Perry does appear in one where he places third.  What's significant about that polling is that it creates for Michele Bachmann a significant problem.  He pulls her supporters away.  In the polling where he doesn't appear, she can get support as much as 30%.  When Perry appears, she's down to 22%.  Clearly, he's going to take the Evangelical Christian vote away from her and that just leaves her with the Crazies.


New Hampshire:  Perry polls 6th here.  You might say that it's because it's only until today that he's established a campaign.  To that I say included in this same poll would be Palin and Giulinani, a figure who is sometimes mentioned, but by no means is seriously floated as a contender for the nomination.  Perry ranks behind them.  Maybe as time wears on (and he's had a chance to show his face in NH), he'll gain more support, but assuming that Perry gets as far as the NH primary, it'll be surprising if he takes it.  After all, Bush the Second did not.


South Carolina:  No polls include Perry.

Nevada: There's not a strong average of the poll numbers in the Silver State, however, he does make a better showing in a single poll than the more established candidates.  One prediction I'm willing to float at present:  now that Perry is in the race it'll make the Nevada Caucus a little more irrelevant than it was before.  That's not to say that this particular caucus has done anything to sway the race one way or another (Romney won back in 2008 to no avail) but if Romney cannot establish moment in either Iowa or NH, any winning in NV would prove to be fruitless in the long haul.

Ricky Perry's political experience is completely isolated to the Texan stage.  He doesn't have experience in the national arena (a point that may be considered an advantage, after all not being in DC or being familiar with it is a "good" thing).  He's already started to make trails for the campaigning that he'll have to do in four states but he's going to have to play catch up with any number of candidates.  


There's going to be an initial novelty at his entrance to the race.  Even more established candidates are going to have to step aside from the behemoth of media attention.  However, at some point, we are going to have to look at everything he has said and done more closely.


Remember, back in 2008, amid a flurry of media speculation and attention, former Senator from Tennessee  Fred Thompson entered the race.  He polled well and then started talking.  Then, the novelty wore off and he exited before the first votes were cast for the nomination.  It's a footnote in the race but it does come into play here; we have another candidate who seems like he would do well and it's distinctly possible that nothing will come in the campaign in the long term.

Does anybody remember me?  

I cite that as a possibility.  As a politician, Perry has a lot more going for him than Thompson did in '08.  But when he has to account for statements that he's made in the past (I refer you to the beginning of the article), I would be so bold as to predict that he'll make a strong showing between now and when the first votes are cast, but whether the entire campaign survives is something else entirely.


--


You can follow me on twitter at @truthissoap


Also, feel free to click over to www.nuzcom.com for more new, commentary and this blog!

GOP Candidate Breakdown #2: Michele Bachmann (as featured on www.nuzcom.com)

Michele Bachmann.  Sigh.  Alright, let's get through this.

Age: 55, but probably made a pact with Lucifer to live forever.  This may drain on Social Security and Medicare.

Hometown:  Again, its a tricky one, but she was physically born in Waterloo, Iowa.  She represents a district in Minnesota in the House of Representatives.

Place in Republican Party:  She wears three hats.  First, she's most closely associated with the Tea Party movement (after all, she did found the Tea Party Caucus).  However, she's also an evangelical Christian and votes based on what the Bible tells her and what her church teaches as opposed to the reality of the situation and she's a vote in Congress that does everything that she can to retard the efforts of the Obama Administration.

Polls:  NH:  She's behind Romney (everyone is), and her chances here aren't that great.  The voters tend to go for the relatively sensible candidate.  John McCain in 2000 and 2008, George H.W. Bush in '88.  They were candidates who are capable of appealing to the center.  Bachmann doesn't have that savoir faire.

IA:  She's leading here (for now).  She's got two advantages.  She's originally from Iowa (her second announcement for president was in her hometown) so there's a perceived home court advantage, but also her religious zealotry has an appeal to core GOP voters.  Also, she's coming across as a candidate that would do well in caucus states and situations.  And you know who else was great in caucus votes?  Barack Obama.

SC:  Again, Romney leads the pack, but her Christianity can be played up here to great effect.  Also, if SC switches to a caucus this year, she stands a decent chance.

NV:  She shouldn't bother with this place.  It's so sewed up for Romney, it's not funny.  Also, there's Las Vegas.  Sin City.  And if Bachmann is going to scream and run away because of two lesbians wanting to ask her a question, her head's going to explode when she see's the Strip.

The first thing that I would like to point out is that no sitting Representative has lead a successful campaign to the White House.  Ever.  Your usual springboard positions are Vice-President, Senator, Governor and, on the occasion, a General.  So, statistics are against Bachmann from the beginning, but I'm sure she would ignore something like math.

To borrow a joke from Lewis Black, Michele Bachmann smiles so much, I don't believe that she has a central nervous system.  I have evidence to back this up.  There are three things that Bachmann is primarily known for:

1.  Saying stupid, stupid things.  The following are pulled from PolitiFact, a fact-checking website.  These are listed as "false" statements or "pants on fire" statements.  The latter signifies that the statement isn't just wrong, it's a lie.  I'm going to pull three at random:

Says the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home."  Pants on Fire.  And she instructed her constituents to not fill out the census, which I wish that they would have done because that meant that the GOP in MN would have erased her district.  After all, there's not that many people living there... all of a sudden...

In the 1970s, "the swine flu broke out . . . under another Democrat, President Jimmy Carter."  Pants on Fire.  It was Gerald Ford.  And I'm pretty sure that Swine Flu doesn't give a shit as to who is in the White House.

"Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table" of abandoning the dollar for a multinational currency.  False.  Just... just, wrong.  Who told her that?  Who tells her these things?

And it's not just that she's wrong.  She's allowed to be wrong.  But when she's told that she's wrong, she doubles down, a la George W. Bush.  

Take the issue of her statement that the Founding Fathers fought tirelessly to end slavery (spoiler alert: they didn't).  When this objective fact is pointed out to her, she says "Oh, no, YOU'RE wrong!  Because there is John Quincy Adams and he fought against slavery.  He worked hard during the Revolution and was certainly a Founding Father."

Now, generally speaking to be considered a Founding Father, you are someone who signed the Declaration of Independence or were present at the debates of the Constitutional Convention.  John Quincy Adams did neither.  BECAUSE HE WAS 9 WHEN THE DECLARATION WAS SIGNED.

So, if Mrs. Bachmann becomes President and is dealing in foreign affairs and she confuses India and Pakistan, is she going to correct the Indian Minister?  If she's talking with a group of scientists about global warming, if she's speaking with men and women that have made it their life's work to study climate change and the affects that humanity has on the weather, is she going to flat-out tell them that their wrong because God told her that she was right?  

2.  Intense and deplorable hatred of homosexuals and those that tolerate the homosexual lifestyle.   Her husband, Marcus Bachmann runs a "clinic" in MN that tells you to "pray the gay away".  It rhymes so it must be correct!  She's not a favorite among the gay community, probably because she has called the lifestyle "living in bondage" and akin to Satan, I think Fred Karger (the log cabin Republican that's running against Romney) should actually focus on Bachmann.  The whole thing is enough to make Jesus Christ shake his head and say "I'm positive I mentioned something about loving each other."

3.  She's allowed to be a bigot.  She's allowed to be ignorant.  She's allowed to be a powerful and ignorant bigot.  But she completely lacks any sort of intellectual curiosity.  That's what makes Obama refreshing from Bush.  If Obama doesn't know something, he's the kind of guy that would go look it up and then draw a conclusion.  Bachmann already has the conclusion, and is going to go find some facts that are going to support her ideas.  It's why she supports the teaching of Intelligent Design in the classroom (also says that there are several Nobel Prize winning scientists that back her up.  Guess what?  She can't name one.  Because they don't exist.)  She said, when she announced that she was running for president in Waterloo, IA (the second announcement she made that she was running for president), that everything that she ever learned was in Waterloo. 

This is a ridiculous notion.  The concept that the people in a small town can have the right plan to run a nation of 300 million or that they would be able to get along (or against) the rest of the billions of people on the planet is just silly.  The idea that the right way is somehow attained in Small Town USA and that the big cities and Washington DC are ignorant to this is just stupid and detrimental to the entire process.

Instead, the solutions come from open, honest dialogue.  This cannot happen in echo chambers in small towns or big cities. The real question that we should be asking ourselves is whether or not we are capable of having an honest dialogue at all.  

Now, watch Bachmann in an interview.  See how fast she answers questions and see how she never hesitates.  Thoughtful people hesitate.  Considerate people hesitate.  Blockheads do not hesitate.  They shoot first and ask questions later.

Bachmann is not a good choice for President, for the GOP or for anybody.  As a general observation, there's little doubt in my mind that Bachmann is going to appeal to hard-core conservatives, but the General Election is not about appealing to the base, it's convincing everyone else, the Independents and even the liberals and progressives.  She'll flounder and I doubt that she'll get the nomination.  She'll pick up some delegates, maybe even enough to bargain with at the convention.  But the GOP has to think about the long term not just the nomination.  

Candidates Against Change: Mitt Romney

This is going to be a series of meditations and profiles on the significant candidates in the 2012 GOP Primary Run (Sorry, Fred Karger, I couldn't care less about you running).  I'm also going to include info on the prospects in the primaries and caucuses and a serious hypothetical about this person running in the general election.  First up, Mitt Romney.



Age: 64.  But, damn, he doesn't look it!

Hometown:  This is a tricky one.  He was born in Detroit (his father George Romney was governor there), but he spent a great deal of time in Utah (he's Mormon.  You had to have already known that, but we'll talk more about that later), but his political experience is in Massachusetts (hereafter Mass).  I'm going to go with political birthplace and say Boston, MA.

Place in Republican Party:  He's well-respected, with no ties to the previous administration, which is a good thing and should have helped him with the nomination then.  He's changed positions which some don't care for and see as a liability.  Other's don't like him because... he's Mormon (again, more on that later.)

Polls:  NH - Very good.  He polls well with independents and does very well with the moderate wing of the Republican Party.  That's why he's doing well here and will have to do well in the primary (assuming he's there for the primary).

Iowa - Today, it was announced that a single poll has Michele Bachmann ahead in the state.  This shouldn't deter Romney because, honestly the Bachmann campaign may implode if she talks about how slavery was bad, sure, but what about the family staying together?  (Don't worry, that, unfortunately, won't be the nail in her campaign's coffin.) Romney should stick it out and coast along.  He'll be fine.

SC - The odds that he'll win here are so-so.  There is talk that the primary here may become a less costly caucus.  If so, it's believed that Romney will do better, but maybe not an outright win.  He should downplay any expectations in SC.

Nevada - This became a target in the last primary season and Romney's a shoe-in.  This may dampen the state's effect in future nominations (to include this one) but Romney polls well in states where there's a high Mormon population.  The more people know about the religion, the more likely that they are going to support a candidate who's Mormon. Think of SC as the complete opposite of SC.

Ah, Mitt Romney:  While I would not vote for him, Romney is probably the best candidate that the GOP has.  This was true in '08 and it remains to be true now.  Reason why he was ideal in /08 was because he didn't have strong connections to the Bush Administrations like other candidates I know (His name starts with a J and ends with ohn McCain.)  This time around, he has the stink of a loser, but he smiles and waves and moves like a winner.

His lead should be treated caution.  Both Rudy Giuliani and Hilary Clinton were polling as well in IA and NH at this point in the campaign last time around.  However, he should play it up and exploit it.  The major strength of the Romney campaign is fundraising.  He's always well-known for three things, herein to be discussed and analyzed:

1.  He stated and ran Bain Capital, a highly successful hedge fund that turned several businesses around.  This is true, he did turn them around.  Right after he and Bain Capital got paid, the businesses typically declared bankruptcies and laid off countless employees (I mean, you could count them, but it was still heartless and pointless business decision-making.  Romney's perceived strength (not actual strength) is on the economy.  And he's going to have a hard time pressing against Obama for not creating jobs when he himself destroyed jobs deliberately.

2.  Romney was  the Governor of Mass.  In a traditionally blue-state, he was elected as a Republican.  No small feat.  And everyone that I've ever talked to, Republican and Democrat from the Bay State, have more or less said the same thing "He might have been the best governor that we've ever had."  Now, either that's a common phrase in Boston or it's the truth.  He was, at one point in time, able to reach across the aisle and make compromises and get work done (RomneyCare or CommonwealthCare if you prefer real names of things).  It's going to hang over his head for the entire race, but this is a calculation that he's made and he couldn't have missed it.  This column will assume that Romney knows what he's doing in this regard.  Hopefully, its more than "Maybe people will ignore it."  Not a chance.



3.  Romney is a practicing Mormon (that's the difference between him and Huntsman).  most in the GOP say that they wouldn't vote for an LDS.  Romney, however, is still polling well and he's doing very well in states with significant Mormon population.  Familiarity, in this case, does not breed contempt.

It's a shame that in the 21st century, we still take where a man goes to on a Sunday morning into consideration.  We shouldn't .  Because a man might sleep in, he might wake up at 5am, but who cares?  As long as they are an effective leader, what difference does the rest of it make?  John Kennedy's Catholocism had nothing to do with the way that he ran the office of the White House.  None.  The only time the fact that he was Catholic was mentioned was when he gave a speech saying that he didn't take marching orders from the Vatican.  Romney has already said as much regarding Temple Square in SLC and he did that four years ago.

Especially when there are so many other things to criticize Romney for.  While the polling is in his favor now, Romney doesn't stand a good chance in the general election. It's going to be to easy for Democrats to portray him as a New England flip-flopper.

Joke liberally taken (get it?) from the Daily Show.

And that doesn't work.

www.nuzcom.com

Songs and Campaigns: How Politicians Never Learn to Listen

Tom Petty Tells Bachmann to Back Off "American Girl"

I like to think that this blog has documented very well the stupidity of Michele Bachmann.  But, I can't really blame her. All politicians have a stupid streak through them.  There's a quiet tragedy about how politicians never seem to actually listen to the song.

In the above link, there's an article that details Bachmann using the song "American Girl" and didn't get the permission of Tom Petty.  Below that, HuffPost lists the several examples of politicians that use songs without the artist's permission.  Even though its probably a biased list (most of the offenders are Republicans, though Obama is on the list), it seems that most frequent offender was John McCain, and specifically John McCain back in 2008.  It was like an intern just hooked up their iPod shuffle to the PA system and hit play.  Ridiculous.

Two things strike me as insanely odd in this:  First, why are there so many offenders?  I mean, surely the one mistake that would have been made would have been Ronald Reagan using "Born in the USA" and then all political campaigns after that would have hired a guy to ask all the artists whether or not they can use the songs.  You got a thousand people working for the most minor of campaigns.  All you have to do is google the record company and call them.

Bachmann Intern:  Hey, I'm So-And-So with the Michele Bachmann for President Campaign and we were wondering if we could get your permission to play "American Girl" during campaign rallies.

Tom Petty:  What?

Bachmann Intern:  Can we play "American Girl" during our campaign rallies.

Tom Petty:  Um... no.

SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS!?  It's a quiet action, your rejection isn't public and people wasting their time talking about how your campaign is ridiculous because you couldn't take the time for a five minute phone call. PS, I wish that calling Tom Petty was that easy.

Me:  So, when you were touring with Dylan in the 80's, you guys totally got high, right?

Tom Petty:  What?

Me:  You got blazed with Dylan?

Tom Petty:  Um... yeah, man, like all the time.

Me:  Awesome.

But this leads me to the other point:  Do the politicians actually listen to the songs that they are choosing to play at the rallies???  Reagan obviously never listened to "Born in the USA" before he started playing it or he would have known that the song is from the point of view of a homeless guy who was a veteran of Vietnam and was subsequently rejected from American society despite his service.  Charlie Crist played "Road to Nowhere", which is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea for a campaign song and Crist deserved to lose just based off of that.  Why not play "And She Was"?  The girl in the video was floating for Crist's sake (sorry for the pun, couldn't help myself), which suggests that we're going some where with Crist!

Then you have Bob Dole changing the lyrics from "I'm a Soul Man" to "I'm a Dole Man", which is like saying "Yeah, I'm fucking cool!" to "I work for a banana company and I'm here to see that all your banana needs are being met..."

And then we come back to Bachmann's use of "American Girl".  It's clearly a song about a girl that jumps off the balcony after losing something (or someone) that completed her.  I'll grant its appropriate in the sense that what made her American was the fact that she was going to try and die trying, if that's what it meant.  But maybe you shouldn't share with your followers that you don't have a problem with them imaging you jumping off the balcony.  Think about that.  But I suppose, if you did, you wouldn't be Michele Bachmann.

The Problem With Bachmann and the Modern Media

Michele Bachmann Doesn't Know How to Answer a Fucking Question

The question is simple and the answer is transparent.  Bachmann is asked very plainly, "Why did you say that Obama only issued one oil drilling permit when he released over 250?".

The response:  Obama hasn't released enough.

(All the articles that I have here go over to the Politifact website, my favorite news site on the web.  I like it because it's fair, even-minded and has a long, long memory.)

No where in the Bachmann lexicon is she capable of admitting that she was wrong.  Go ahead, try to find a statement that Bachmann's made that she's come back and said that she was wrong on.  Its not like she said "My favorite color is blue..." when all the Bachmann insiders have said that it's red.  I'm talking about the Treasury Secretary wants us to have a One World currency, or (my favorite) that Swine Flu can be attributed to Democrats being president, when it happened under a Republican.  Not just wrong, but insanely wrong, wrong that could only have been achieved by knowing what the correct answer was and then drawing the lines to the complete opposite facts.

I should point out that no congressman (or woman) has ever gone directly (which is the key word) from the House to the White House (though there are plenty who have tried.)  I think that Bachmann has about the same chance that Pat Robertson did back in '88.  The Evangelicals will be mobilized for a little bit but other elements of the party are going to resist the portion that insists upon the Christian religion (please see Hucakbee campaign) and want to focus on other aspects of the platform.

But in the meantime, this exchange makes two things quite clear:

FIRST:  If Michele Bachmann is incapable of saying something to the effect of "You know what, I was way off on the numbers, HOWEVER, the point about the Obama Administration's hostility towards off-shore drilling shows BLAH BLAH BLAH!", then what does this mean for her presidency?  I mean, if the US makes a mistake on the international stage (a novel concept, I know), is she going to redact it?  Is she going to acknowledge that we're flesh and blood humans capable of making a mistake?

And it's not a question of opinion that the last Swine Flu outbreak was during a Democrat.  It's an objective fact that it happened during the Ford Administration (one of the forgotten worst presidencies because Carter was so much worse ::eye roll::) Did she apologize and say "You know, what I was just trying to be snide."

I know that it's not politically-wise to apologize for cocking up and moving on, but you'll always gain the respect of the people whenever you admit that you were wrong.

Instead, all she could say was that Obama was messing something up about offshore drilling, like he was supposed to put the drill literally on his shoulder and swim to the bottom of the Gulf and get the oil up through a crazy straw... I assume Bachmann has a lot of crazy straws...  But this leads me to the second problem:

SECOND:  When she was obviously dodging the question, when she wouldn't apologize, when she wouldn't even admit that she had on several occasions said something that was not only wrong, but misleading (which is what makes it Pants on Fire), what did Schieffer do?  He said "I don't believe that you answered the question...", and then ended the segment.

There has to be a responsibility that the media has towards those that are LYING.  He wasn't even trying to pin her down in the report that she had been caught lying and just let it roll on by.  "Hope to see you down the trail."?  I'm not accusing Schieffer of favoritism with Bachmann or the GOP, but I am accusing him of laziness.  When you repeat a question, and they are giving you the same answer, ask "Why are dodging the question?" or "Why won't you answer the question directly?" or "Did you know that a decapitated monkey with Clinton bumper stickers stapled to its body has a better chance of becoming president than you?"

The unfortunate thing is that there's no recourse, there's no real chance to take a step back and to have an honest conversation about how we can't have an honest conversation.

Meghan McCain Is Completely Reasonable (Countdown to her being kicked out of GOP begins NOW!)

Meghan McCain's Advice to the GOP Hopefuls

Two of the things that I've always told myself if I ever started a political blog would be first, that my arguments would be weak and in an echo chamber AND, most importantly, about once a week I would talk about how I have a crush on Meghan McCain.

But whats secretly most appealing about her is that she's someone who is not just extremely beautiful but also very reasonable.  She's like the version of her father that got me interested in politics (a lifetime ago in 2000).  She's like a date-able, blonde George Will.  Don't get me wrong, George Will seems like a nice kind of guy, the kind that would insist on paying the bill and would end the first date with a hug after holding your hand on the walk.  He's classy, in a Gilded-Age "You're not a flapper are you" kind of way.

What was I talking about?  Oh, yeah, Meghan McCain.

I've already included the link where McCain the Younger lists the different things that the GOP Hopefuls will have to do in order to get the nomination.  I don't disagree with her by and large.  There are a couple of little things though:


"What the Republican Party needs is a candidate unafraid to put the president up against the wall and call him out on all the damage his administration has done, especially to the economy, in the last three years. "


And all that damage would include what?  De-regulation of banks?  Turning a blind eye and encouraging the regulators to turn the other way or even get in bed with the people who brought us into the financial mess in the first place?  It's phrasing like this that makes one think that the federal government is the reason why we're in the economic straits that we're in, when we all know that this is not the case.  Would Ms. McCain also be willing to blame the previous president for signing the $700 billion bailout or continue to ignore it and pretend that there was just $787 billion bailout by the current president?

However, McCain makes an open acknowledgement that not many in the GOP are willing to make right now.    The fact of the matter is that Obama is going to be extremely difficult to hit and bring down in 2012.  The sooner that R's begin to admit that, the closer to winning they'll get.

The best bit of advice was to "outlast Palin fever".  McCain manages to be diplomatic about Palin, but also, in a sense, derides the actual tenacity of the campaign.  The one comment of "... at some point she is going to have to do something other than come up with clever soundbites." seems to be a little off.  I remember that was a major critique of Clinton was all he came up with were soundbites and you know what that got him?  Two terms.

One last bit:  the "forget about Iowa" part.  In the section, she talks about how its less important than people might portray it to be and that the real gamble and the real stakes are established in New Hampshire.  She's not entirely correct.  Obama made his first strong showing in Iowa back in 2008, to the surprise (even shock) to many.  Granted, Hilary Clinton came back in the NH primary, but Iowa was supposed to be a cake walk for her and, instead, it marked the beginning of the end (or the seemingly endless Bataan death march to the Democratic nomination.)

Also would be fair to point out that in 2000, John McCain didn't get the nod in IA, he got it in NH and then proceeded to get the shit beat out of him by Bush II all over the rest of the USA.  I say this not with malice towards John McCain; after all, I was supporting him and wishing that the rest of the country would see reason and vote McCain in 2000.  But Iowa did figure into the overall political strategy and, the candidates can't completely ignore IA.  Why?

Well, assume that a plausible candidate like Romney, Johnson or Huntsman pull out of IA and then put everything down in NH?  Now imagine if Herman Cain or (worse?) Michelle Bachmann getting the nod in IA.  They went from being ridiculous and inane to being "legitimate" and "plausible".

I mean, generally speaking, the entire primary/caucus/nomination process (on both sides, but especially the GOP) has to be reformed.  The arbitrariness of random states holding a good deal of political sway in the process isn't good politics and it's detrimental to the entirety of the campaign.  I can go on and on about it (and probably will in a later post).  But, the way that everything is set up currently, the road has to go through IA.  A long, desolate, pointless road, but a road nonetheless.

Huntsman Is In! Countdown to Crazy Shit Happening...

I think that he's not a bad candidate, but like so many others (Gingrich, Romeny), he's going to be punished for at one point in time being reasonable.

What gets me is that he took that position as Ambassador to China under the Obama administration.  Why?  He would have done as well staying in Utah.

He hasn't thrown mud as of yet, but he might be measuring his targets a little more.

As a former Mormon (I left the church in 2008), I'm still kind of excited that two TBMs are running.  I wonder how this is going to affect the dynamic, especially with the potential of bigoted comments coming from the opponents.

I think the first one will come from Michelle Bachmann, but it wouldn't surprise me if Cain took it by a nose.

Also, everyone was talking about how cordial the debaters were with each other last night and how focus they were on Obama.  However, I give it two months before they really start throwing feces at each other.

Let the monkey parade begin!

The Score Sheet

I'm going to keep a running list of those that are running for president.  Officially running.  Which means I get to ignore Sarah Palin for as long as I can.  I'm also going to rank them in the order that I think that they would be good at beating Obama.  If you disagree, feel free to comment and let me know why I'm wrong.  Then, I'll tell you why you are wrong.

1.  Mitt Romney - He's more politically savvy than people give him credit for.  He has the business credentials that they want a prez candidate to have.  He's a good looking guy and what should be an asset has been played as a hindrance:  He's Mormon.  The GOP have the chance to nominate someone that would be the closest they've come to a diversity choice and make big in-roads in the religious plurality.

2.  Gary Johnson - I just like this guy.  He's consistent, well-spoken and has stayed under the radar, both intentionally and because his name isn't "Sarah Palin".  Keep an eye on him.  I think he's our spoiler.

3.  Newt Gingrich - Logistically, the campaign has been a nightmare, but you got to admit that it was ballsy that he came out against the Ryan Plan.  It was a quasi-reasonable statement from a guy that normally isn't.

4.  Tim Pawlenty - I think I've had breakfasts that I was more excited about that Tim Pawlenty.  He also falls into the category of the being reasonable, when he wants to be, but he's already moving further to the right in an unconscionable sense.

5.  Michelle Bachmann - I really wish that she was lower on this list, but first there are too many people that are more rotten than Bachmann.  Also, Bachmann has sense to play up her Xianity in Iowa (the same state that almost went for Pat Robertson back in the 80's), so she's trying to position herself as the Huckabee for 2012.  Or the Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone, I can't really tell the difference.

6.  Ron Paul - Paul reminds me that whenever you make an event on Facebook, everyone comes by and says "Oh, yeah! Imma TOTALLY be there!", so everyone's thinking "well, there must be like a THOUSAND people that are going to this party".  There's a lot of hype and a lot of buzz.  But no one shows up.  Which is a shame because, while I disagree with Paul by and large on a lot of things, he's principled.  And you have to respect that in a politician.  Though how he's still in office after 2008, I don't know...

7.  Rick Santorum - I was really surprised that he would throw his hat into the ring.  There's no one that has a middle of the road opinion of Santorum.  Either you hate 'em or you don't.  He's banking on the fact that people don't remember that when he was Senator from PA, he said homosexuality was the problem of the nation... Now if you were ask, let's say...

8.  Herman Cain - he'd say that the problem was Muslims.  Why?  Because he comes from the Glenn Beck School of Thought, which means that the best day in America was on September 12th, 2001, the ashes and rubble of the WTC and Pentagon and the field of PA smoldered and everyone was in lockstep with Bush II.  I respect the style of his speeches but I won't respect a man that can't appreciate that legislation takes more than three pages to get across.

I want my prez to be smarter than me. I want my prez to be better than me.  I don't want someone that I could fill in for...

9.  Fred Karger - I'm not even sure why I put him on the list.  I know I could be a better prez than him.  And he's really running just to spite Romney.  If you're gay and you're just out there spreading hate about a Mormon, you've become the enemy in the instant that you preach.

Stay tuned.

GOP Debate - Pick Romney and Cut the Fat

If the moment could be crystallized and maintained, it would seem that the GOP would be able to rectify the mistake that they made last prez election cycle by supporting Mitt Romney.  The fact of the matter is that he is the most sensible of the entire group, both in 2008 and now again in 2012.  Reports seem to indicate two things: first, he's the man to beat.  Second, that he would be the only chance at diversity that the GOP would have.

Michelle Bachmann also quietly announced that she was running for prez.  I can only imagine that she feels qualified because she took care of so many foster kids and, oh yeah, GOD told her to run for prez.  Because we will live in a country where when we tell others that a voice told them to do something, unless it was child rape or murder, we accept it.  Here's a woman who said that God told her to run for the House, but still had to raise the most money EVER for a House Campaign.  What, even with God on your side, you don't have the capital necessary?  I thought you just need the go ahead from the Big Guy Upstairs?

Also, on behalf of the state of Georgia, I would like to apologize for Herman Cain.  People are getting excited about him, but they also got excited about Alan Keyes (which nothing ever came of, I would remind the audience.)  The fact that the man hasn't apologized for the comments regarding Muslims and, in addition, hasn't resigned from the campaign entirely is ludicrous and shows that there are still bigots that can run for office and bigots that are going to support other bigots.

Even when given more than ample opportunity to redact the statement, he just doubled-down and said that he wouldn't hire those that were trying to kill him.  Well, what a brave fucking position!  Unlike Obama, who hired assassins and thugs to surround him... what President would hire people that are trying to kill him?  Even for the flourish and rhetoric, Cain is just a distraction.  If the GOP is smart, they'll ignore him and drop him like a bad habit.  But, as an Obama supporter, I hope he stays in the race through several primaries.

Back in 2008, the GOP had a very simple choice to make:  first, they had to find someone who was willing to run for president that didn't have strong or blatant ties to the previous administration.  They managed to cock that up relatively quickly.

Second, they had to find someone that appealed to the center more than Bush II.  They had (and have) that in Romney.  Romney managed to get elected Gov. of Mass. as a Republican!  And everyone that I've talked to from Boston that remembers the Romney years all said, "he was a great governor!"  Understanding of course that during the primaries and caucuses you have to appeal to the base, but the smart campaigner will be able to appeal to the base and convince them that they have to think about the general election now.

Having said all that, I will reiterate that I'm an ardent Obama supporter and will advocate for his re-election.