Honestly, not much. There’s a lot to remember when it comes to Ron Paul’s sudden spurt in the numbers:
- The delegate split right now is so far it’s comical. Like, Romney is creeping up on four digits and Paul is creeping up on three.
- There’s a reason he only started making a dent after everyone else dropped out: he’s riding the “anyone but Romney” wave now.
- Paul’s wins are in states like Maine, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which went for Obama in 2008, one for Kerry in 2004 (and the other two were within 1%), two of ’em for Gore in 2000. We’re not talking red states. His support simply is not the Republican base.
- The media doesn’t take Paul seriously, which is a big problem. Remember how they stole the Tea Party from him.
- Seriously, Paul would have to hit the equivalent of throwing a bowling ball down the lane so hard each pin flies into the adjacent lanes and knocks down those pins.
I think it’s evident that Paul’s focus is less on actually winning the nomination and more about keeping the “rEVOLution” (ugh) going, and keeping the fight right up to the RNC floor is just another piece of that for him.
More power to the guy, and naturally I like ‘im better than the other GOP fellas, but uh… he’s not gonna beat Mittens.
Kind of a neat little rundown here.
What sticks out the most for me is that the names that crop up most are Rubio, Ryan, Pawlenty and the like. Paul Ryan might be well known in the blogosphere for his lunatic budget proposals, but one thing that we’re not seeing is any kind of a reach to pull a Palin again. No out of nowhere names whose prime qualification is a pretty face with a side order of “aw shucks”. Instead we have actual established legislators with heads on their shoulders.
Again, this is looking to be an interesting race, in a sense. Rolling Stone has a fantastic piece declaring this to be the most boring election ever, but that’s honestly what I like about it. We’re not distracted by cowboy presidents and yapping about gay marriage, terrorism screeching and dual wars, airheaded Barbie dolls and “where’s the birth certificate??” What it looks like we might have is… gasp… a race of politics. Four boring dudes up on podiums talking about policy.
For once, the presidential race could be something that isn’t theater.
Okay, so, at the RNC this year, water guns are banned and concealed handguns are allowed. Bad enough, but what’s really awful is the justification.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott said this week that banning handguns from downtown Tampa during the convention, as the city’s Mayor Bob Buckhorn requested, “would surely violate the Second Amendment.”
No. No no no. No. Shut up. No. Dammit.
The 2nd amendment is likely the most contentious in the lot thanks to its incredibly vague wording, because this interpretation is rooted in the clear belief that not only can’t the government bar you from owning handguns, but can’t stop you from having them on you wherever you want.
This is absolute bullshit. Go to any government building and try to walk in with a weapon. Most places like county courthouses won’t even let you walk in with a pocket knife or a box cutter, let along a goddamn Smith & Wesson. That’s a federal law, mind. The reason you can’t take guns on an airplane isn’t because of Jet Blue or Delta telling you that you can’t, it’s more legislation. You can’t carry weapons in all kinds of places as per federal law. And not allowing handguns at a convention isn’t a violation of your right to bear arms either; you can keep your gun, just don’t go to the damn convention.
What we’re seeing is pure pandering of the most craven variety. It’s nothing but the GOP putting effing LIVES at risk so they can keep on courtin’ the Ted Nugent NRA wackadoodle vote. I would hope that most reasonable gun owners would realize that it’s a good idea to keep a big-ass political convention firearm-free.
This one just… I don’t… how can… bluh?
At a campaign stop today in Portsmouth, NH, Mitt Romney portrayed President Obama as a foe — and himself a champion — of the poor, noting the “greater and greater gap between those that have the most and those that have the least” and accusing President Obama of being “focused on taking away from those that have the least.”
“I want to help everybody, particularly those that are being left behind,” said Romney, who memorably told CNN he’s “not concerned about the very poor” in February. “I want to help the poor. I want to help the middle class get the kinds of jobs that raise their income. Let’s focus on helping the people who need the help the most.”
I’m kinda curious which policies Mitt is referring to of his that are so kind to the poor, and which of Obama’s coddle the wealthy. And doesn’t this kinda go against the normal talking point that Democrats are all about punishing success in order to pour money into low-productivity wallets?
I think we all misunderstood the etch-a-sketch comment. Everyone interpreted it like someone drawing a fine picture on one, and then shaking it to draw a new one. Maybe it’s more like how real people use the things: you try a couple lines, it looks fucking terrible, so you shake it up and try again, repeat.
Undoubtedly, one of Obama’s strongest feathers in his cap is that Bin Laden was killed under his term, and by his order. For the most part, everyone’s been on board with this, even Dick Gaw-damn Cheney patted Obama on the back for it.
But now we’ve got “Veterans for a Strong America” running loads of ads tearing into Obama for “taking credit” for the action. I could list off the thousand reasons why this is mindblowingly asinine, and question whether they expect any president would have refrained from taking credit for the action they ordered as Commander in Chief killing the world’s most notorious terrorist (I’m pretty sure Bush would have put it on a t-shirt), but for now I’ll just say this: we’ve only just started, folks, more is coming.
As far as whoppers go, this is a good one.
But top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom is also giving credit to his candidate for the auto industry’s success. At a Saturday forum hosted by the Washington Post, Fehrnstrom said that Obama’s auto industry rescue was successful because it was exactly what Romney himself proposed.
“[Romney’s] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed,” Fehrnstrom said. “He said, ‘If you want to save the auto industry, just don’t write them a check. That will seal their doom. What they need to do is go through a managed bankruptcy process.’”
“Consider that the crown jewel,” Fehrnstrom said. “The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice.”
Of course, that’s also a rather… peculiar tactic to take. Saying that the president (as in, your opponent) is doing what you also would have done raises the question of why we’d want to elect you instead. Makes Santorum’s observation all the more appropriate.
But the thing is, Romney was markedly quiet for most of the bailout season, piping up once or twice rather quietly after taking a moment to feel where the wind was blowing and making comments that would prevent him from alienating potential voters. Then, as the primaries heated up and he needed to court the Teabaggers, he hardened his stance and came down hard on the bailout (which, I might remind everyone, was not especially popular by the right, as evidenced by their constant attempts to erase the fact that Bush was down with it as well). Now he’s backtracking on his former backtracking.
Romney is going to have a helluva time juggling what he said in 2008 versus what he said in 2011 in terms of what he’s saying he’ll do in 2013.
He actually says a lot of smart stuff here, although it does raise a question…
“I think of all the Republican candidates who are prominent, I think Romney would be the one I would rather see have a slight possibility to be president,” on MSNBC’s “Jansing & Co” in an interview that aired Wednesday.
When pressed on whether he would be “comfortable” with a Romney presidency, Carter responded, “I would rather have a Democrat, but I would be comfortable.”
“I think Romney has shown in his past, in his previous years as a moderate, a progressive that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics. As you know, he has a good solid family,” Carter said.
I’ve said in the past that I find Romney fairly unoffensive, if almost… robotically awkward in most social situations. However, while some might see this as a problem for Obama, in that having a famed bleeding-heart liberal say that the opponent is okay might cause people who are wavering to lean toward Romney. Reader Rechan on the other hand, brings up a good counter-argument. Many, many of the hard-right conservatives (the Teabag types, not the sane ones) almost seem to revel in pissing liberals off. Having a candidate they already dislike get an OK from Jimmy Fother-mucking Carter could turn them off from voting for him at all, or go third party.
Think of it like the 2004 Rove trick of having fake gay-rights activists parading around in blue-dog areas chanting that a vote for John Kerry means a vote for gay marriage (which he was against), or in the South Park episode where Ned and Jimbo dress up as the KKK to get them to support an issue knowing that people will automatically be against anything the KKK supports.
Or maybe Jimmy Carter is old and no one cares.