2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

Yes--having not yet reached your level of political sophistication, Morbius, I live for them (not just merely find them entertaining). There's just nothing else going on.

FYI:

Going into the 1996 primary contest, Senate majority leader and former vice-presidential nominee Bob Dole was seen as the most likely winner. However, in the primaries and caucuses, social conservative Pat Buchanan received early victories in Alaska, Louisiana, a strong second place in the Iowa Caucus, and a surprising victory in the key New Hampshire primary, while Steve Forbes finished first in Delaware and Arizona.

this is like the vaporware version of the '96 primary

nah the difference is that even though they might have been crazyish human beings they were 'viable candidates'

whereas this has all been a big show

hated unacknowledged-corporatist "un-American" Democratic prez, etc.

Bob Dole was a viable candidate?

whereas this has all been a big show

dude....

for the republican nomination, yes

Forbes and Buchannan were most certainly NOT "viable candidates"

I mean steve forbes really wanted to be president vs trump and cain never ran presidential campaigns but were 'running for president'

Cain wouldn't have minded being President if it meant he could shift more books, at least up until his wife started beating his ass.

steve forbes was seen as a wide-eyed coot and buchannan nearly as fringe as ron paul

ron paul is not going to win any primaries, let alone multiple primaries

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/SteveForbesJun2009.jpg

"viable candidate"

crazy rich people have won plenty of big elections in american history, steve forbes shoulda just been a governor first

like I don't find the concept of steve forbes as president any weirder than b-movie film star ronald reagan as president

looking forward to President Ventura

you could cynically say that in earlier GOP (and uh dem too) contests, the out-there candidacies served the purpose of keeping the more extreme (and therefore more easily and inevitably disappointed) party constituencies interested in the process and committed to something after the outcome: ron paul, pat buchanan, steve forbes, etc are all partially-un-sanded-down versions of conservatism that are all crucial to the party but mutually exclusive to each other if held constant

i think this year the "airing out the extremes" dealio was both way dumber and much closer to slipping out of its appointed confines. we'll see tho, there have been of course no votes cast yet.

Dole was the closest thing to a viable nominee then, and Mittens is now! QED.

ron paul is not going to win any primaries

It's entirely possible he will win Iowa with something in the 20-25% range if enough support is distributed among the also-ran candidates. I still predict a Romney win in the 25-30% range. Either way, as long as Gingrich loses, Romney wins.

there's been a major structural change w/r/t party ideology since then and we're seeing that w/r/t 'extreme'

also romney and dole are coming from very different places within the gop, romney might be inevitable but he's not 'safe'

I said in the ILE thread that this year only looks bizarre because the Internet has finally caught up with the avarice of journalists who insist on covering "primary season" earlier and earlier.

also would look different if rick perry had half-decent handlers

like I don't find the concept of steve forbes as president any weirder than b-movie film star ronald reagan as president

I do. One nearly embodies the sort of relaxed jocularity Americans tend to like in their Presidents (assuming some minimal baseline of competence, as perceived by not necessarily well-educated), and one is spectacularly lacking in same.

and uh Reagan was a two-term governor and radio commentator.

right and forbes shoulda gone that route

Dole was the closest thing to a viable nominee then

Not necessarily. Unlike this year, there were several serious candidates in '96, though none with especially good political skills. Dole was chosen because he was the highest-ranking figure in a party that then respected its internal authority.

In '88 we had that sane, reasonable fellow Al Haig briefly enter the race. Also: Pat Robertson scared Poppy Bush for a few weeks.

there's no consensus for what you mean by "serious candidate"

I can see similarities between this year and '96--and Buchanan isn't a bad parallel for Gingrich, as a strident ghost from the past returned to centre stage (and with many more differences than similarities)--but '96 seemed much more the normal thing of occasional primaries being won by someone other than the eventual winner. This year has been crazy. Yes, in large part because of the internet and accelerated media cycle, but those are explanations why it's crazy--they don't negate that it's been crazy.

and uh Reagan was a two-term governor and radio commentator

Yes, like George W. Bush, he was nominally experienced, but he mostly fought culture wars while caretaking a state benefiting greatly from the tail end of the postwar economic boom, Southwestern migration, and the massive expansion of defense contracting. I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.

I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.

Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate. And he wasn't bright enough to lose that gruesome smile.

Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate.

Perhaps to the extent that it overrides likeability. Either way, it's like I said in the parenthetical that subsumed Reagan's governorship.

Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate. And he wasn't bright enough to lose that gruesome smile.

again, ask rick perry

about his gruesome smile?

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2cd51d335b/bad-lip-reading-rick-perry-s-strong-ad

I know that's a dumb site but this made me die

Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate

Somehow we haven't been free of Harvard or Yale (plus Columbia and Georgetown) through the last four. Near-last in his class at Annapolis got beat pretty bad.

lol "Somehow"

Such an outrage that Brown U. gets no prezidtnal respect among the ivies.

Bob Dole says Bob Dole likes Mitt Romney

Romney gains two percentage points in Kansas.

lol "Somehow"

last time, I didn't see millions of Americans choose:
NC State/UNC Law (Edwards)
U Delaware/Syracuse Law (Biden)
Providence College/Louisville Law (Dodd)
Tufts BS/MA (Richardson)
CWRU BA/MA (Kucinich)
Manhattan College/NYU Law (noun, verb, 9/11)
Memphis State/Vandy Law (guy who was on Law & Order)
Ouachita Baptist University (guy who hung out with Walker Texas Ranger)
Kansas State/UK Law (dropped out fast)
UW-Madison BA/JD (")
U Northern Colorado (")

this time, Stanford/BYU/HBS/HLS is likely to be nominated over:
Gettysburg College/Duke Med
Emory/Tulane PhD
Winona State/Oral Roberts JD/W&M LLM
Texas A&M
Penn State/Pitt JD
Penn
Morehouse/Purdue MS
U Minnesota BA/JD

maybe us news was right all along

I would say the pattern is more significant w/ the supreme court and if you asked people where most candidates went to college during the nomination process a fair small % would know the answer

whereas w/ the supreme court it's one dude trying to pick people who have 'legitimacy'/'the (ever narrowing definition of a) supreme court CV' and the harvard/yale/stanford stamp plays a role

fairly small*

if you asked people where most candidates went to college during the nomination process a fair small % would know the answer

I certainly don't think people are voting for school brand-names. But the evidence does suggest that intelligence/diligence are relevant criteria.

yeahhh that's evidence that counts dubya as someone w/ the 'intelligence/diligence' stamp

I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.

____________________________

Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate. And he wasn't bright enough to lose that gruesome smile.

― Lord Sotosyn, Monday, December 19, 2011

otm. appearance is key. stop being creepy, steve forbes. don't look so bumbling and faux-friendly, rick perry. don't look so f--g crazy, michelle backmann.

I'm not one for posting fb convos, but the source & direction of this one is jarring. This is among the responses to me posting Chait's "RP is crepey" NYmag bit.

Her: He's not racist. This is a smear campaign that's been brought up time & time again. It's the ONLY thing they can ever find on the guy & it's been refuted 100 million times. Evidently he hired bad ghost writers a long time ago or it's just a blatant fabricated smear campaign. You gotta listen to what he's saying. He's never said anything remotely racist. & Yeah, he seems crazy because he wants to do away with every single government bureaucracy but really, aren't they all just all totally corrupt and useless at this point anyway? Isn't it better to start fresh? Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of the wars, the drug laws, the endless spending (because we're completely insolvent you know), the Patriot Act, the TSA up our asses at the airport?? & give power to the STATES to make their own decisions. Ron Paul is everything I want in a president.

http://youtu.be/RKBlk1Vpeuw

http://youtu.be/OGhv3paNz6U

Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN
www.youtube.com
reason editor Matt Welch discusses the controversy surrounding Ron Paul on CNN's...
See More
about an hour ago · Like ·

Me: The newsletter bit is only a minor point, tho one must wonder about his powers of delegation & judgement to let the people he hired put out such hilariously racist shit in a thing that literally had his name on it for several years without actually saying, "yeah, you guys can stop doing that now."

Also, this is the guy who wants to end FEMA, the EPA, and anything even approaching sane reproductive laws.
about an hour ago · Like

Me: But again, moot point. Dude has a partial shot at winning maybe one primary, and that's it for the show. He'll wind up in a cush talking head spot like the rest of 'em.
58 minutes ago · Like

Her: He was a doctor delivering babies, running for office & doing like 9 million things at once. You can't catch everything. (Even SNL has horrible writers. Who let's that crap slide by? & they aren't even doing anything important except trying to make people laugh.) I've been hired to write letters and blogs for corporations before & these companies have no clue what I put out there either. Also, like I said- this could be a blatant smear. Someone could've made the whole thing up. You have to look at his overall character. He's obviously not a racist.

FEMA, EPA- I'm sorry but we can do better than all this. These are totally corrupt bureaucracies. I'd be glad to see them go. It's useless spending. It's money we don't have.

Abortion? Please, we have bigger fish to fry than caring that abortion would be a state's decision. He doesn't want to "end" abortion he just doesn't want the federal gov involved. Big deal, that makes sense to me. You want abortion? Well, move to California. You don't want abortion then move to Arkansas.

We've had wars that have killed thousands & thousands of innocent people for a decade here and our economy is totally screwed! Ron Paul might be the only person who can save us at this point. He wants to implement the Austrian school of economics vs. Keynesian which have completely failed us! Think about becoming a BLUE Republican!
38 minutes ago · Like

Me: Ah, well then.
22 minutes ago · Like

yeahhh that's evidence that counts dubya as someone w/ the 'intelligence/diligence' stamp

Yes, he sufficiently met the minimum standard demanded by his (arguably less-demanding) party (as measured against last-in-his-class at Annapolis, among others) that allowed him to go forward and win on "likability." I think it's fair to say that despite his great stubbornness, incuriousness, and anti-intellectualism, he compares favorably in the intelligence/diligence department to Perry, Cain, and perhaps/probably Bachmann.