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

ok now you guys be telling me how old romney actually is, not disproving the theory that he is a genuine robot

zero smoking and drinking and having sex only 5 times in your life does wonders

that 'other mccain' blog and it's discussion of intellectuals led me to this dude:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/

who wrote this:

The names of the postmodern vanguard are now familiar:
Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, and
Richard Rorty. They are its leading strategists. They set the
direction of the movement and provide it with its most potent tools.
The vanguard is aided by other familiar and often infamous names:
Stanley Fish and Frank Lentricchia in literary and legal criticism,
Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin in feminist legal
criticism, Jacques Lacan in psychology, Robert Venturi and Andreas
Huyssen in architectural criticism, and Luce Irigaray in the criticism
of science.
Members of this elite group set the direction and tone for the
postmodern intellectual world.

wtfffffff

madisonian : 12/01/11 11:33
No, Mona, I do not, especially not the musicians who had the good sense to listen to the Delta and Chicago blues men, and gave their interpretation back to us. (I just wish the band named for a blimp had the virtue to credit those from whom they actually stole, so the blues artists could reap the benefits of their good writing.)

Beyond music, I'm glad we have the example of the 60's to forever serve as living proof of the mayhem and misery that hedonism causes.

That is an invaluable living example of the evils of socialist thought.

I would not trade it in for a thing.

What I wish for, though, is for the 60's generation to either embrace what this country stands for, leave for other places if they cannot, or to hurry up and chunk into the clay already.

i'm stealing "chunk into the clay"

"zeppelin rules. kill the longhairs."

interesting polling about romney and gingrich and 'electability' and the primaries.

newt's short-term numbers and long-term numbers are not gonna be the same thing

well, i think i agree. but there's a decent possibility that he'll hold this together, for five reasons: (a) there isn't much time, for him to screw-up or for the anti-romney crowd to back someone else; (b) the anti-romney crowd probably now sees there are no other viable choices (the others have now all disqualified themselves or have no chance); (c) gingrich has "angry, resentful white" dog-whistle messaging down to a near-science; (d) gingrich's flaws are pretty well-known; (e) gingrich can speak coherently and discuss policy; (e) romney's numbers aren't going in the right direction, and the heat will continue being turned up on him, too.

also: newt is much more fun than romney.

I'm not saying that w/r/t him not getting the nom (it's also true w/r/t that) but rather 'he might be more nationally electable if the election were held today, but prob not even gonna be the case a month from now and absolutely not the case nov 2012.

when I think about newt I'm reminded of that simpsons episode whwere mr. burns survives because he has every disease known to man and they all cancel each other out in some equilibrium. that's newt and scandals. where do you even start?

oh, i wouldn't be so happy over newt if i thought that he would be a more formidable adversary in the general-election.

on the other hand, i also see that romney's not very good at retail politics or one-on-one interviews. they bring out -- and reinforce -- all his worst qualities.

I'm glad we have the example of the 60's to forever serve as living proof of the mayhem and misery that hedonism causes.

Ha ha, this is such an empty, strawman trope. We ARE the 60's now and hedonism and socialism aren't all that related imho.

Man, can you imagine Newt as President? Foreign leaders would be staying away in dorves to avoid getting lectured, probably about their own countries.

droves, rather

Wow--that electability poll (even though I agree it's very much a case of illusion vs. reality; in the long run, surely Romney's more electable) could really present problems for Romeny. Like Sullivan says, at this point it's like his last argument to Republican voters. Saying he'd govern more rationally probably wouldn't get him very far.

xp: thought you meant dwarves

I'd take that poll cum grano salis. If Newt ends up candidate he very much risks talking down to a large portion of the electorate and alienating them.

yeah any 'electability' poll at this point means nothing

xp: thought you meant dwarves

Old spelling of Dover, maybe? Quiet town and if Newt shows up you can slip over to France.

i'm not usually one to rest on the common wisdom of the american people, but newt gingrich is a haphazard knowitall blowhard self-aggrandizing asshole and this is clear with any exposure to him. it's basically his supposed strength, even. the whole country knew it a decade ago and they will un-forget real quick.

i don't think it's possible for him to sustain an actual campaign. i'm not even talking about his relationship to potential voters or the public (though that star will fade too), i'm talking about, like, being on a bus with people for weeks at a stretch. he can't do it and won't. yeah yeah romney is a creepy robot or whatever, but newt gingrich is a fucking jerk with a bejewelled skeksi for a wife. there is just no way. come on.

i give this another two weeks before it starts to fall apart. i should head to intrade...

newt gingrich is a fucking jerk with a bejewelled skeksi for a wife

this is fucking beautiful

Also on Sullivan today:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2015393d91226970b-popup

As a Canadian, I'm very proud. But I'm also mystified as to how Chile was left off.

This map:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/the-world-according-to-herman-cain.html

"If you're on the DNC/Obama email lists, you notice that the other team doesn't bother attacking Newt. This isn't complicated. They worry about Romney. They don't worry about facing Gingrich."

It's possible that Democrats overestimate Romney and underestimate Gingrich for various reasons.

- Dems remember Gingrich as a washed-up liberal nemesis from the '90s, and specifically a nemesis who was soundly thrashed by Bill Clinton. This makes him seem weak to them. But sometimes politicians learn from a defeat and come back stronger, cf. Nixon. Also, Obama may be a less wily adversary than Clinton was.

- Romney looks like the kind of candidate who Dems like to nominate for themselves - ie., a moderate, well-educated, well-spoken, technocratic Northeasterner - so he looks electable to them. They forget that the rest of the country doesn't always like these kinds of candidates so much.

okay, mitt romney is TERRIBLE at retail politics.

i'm sort of torn on this. on the one hand, i think i'd hate doing this as much as romney obviously does. on the other hand, if he just relaxed -- i.e., if he wasn't looking for the sharp or witty line (which doesn't work in these settings), or so quick to deliver a false greeting (and it shows), or so gifted as ruining the possibility of conversation (see virtually every effort to engage a voter here) -- he'd be okay.

so basically you are saying if Mitt Romney was a little less like Mitt Romney, he'd be okay

no.

i am saying if mitt romney were a lot less like mitt romney, he'd be okay.

maybe he should just be himself. walk up to voters and say, "man, i hate this hand-shaking and hob-knobbing with the 'people.' so distasteful and unclean. but for pete's sake, i'm running for president! can i count on your vote?"

- Dems remember Gingrich as a washed-up liberal nemesis from the '90s, and specifically a nemesis who was soundly thrashed by Bill Clinton. This makes him seem weak to them. But sometimes politicians learn from a defeat and come back stronger, cf. Nixon. Also, Obama may be a less wily adversary than Clinton was.

I think it's important to remember that Gingrich was chased out of DC not by the Democrats but by HIS OWN PARTY. Dude burned tons of bridges in the GOP, stabbed colleagues in the back to get the speakership, and has been out of office for over a decade for a reason. the party doesn't want to back him.

DemocratMachine -- Newt is up by 21. Anybody got any dirt on this man? Affairs? Shady business dealings? A long career in politics? Anything? #stumped #p2

lol

you've got to be kidding

Watching GOP poll numbers is like watching a serial cattle stampede.

I think o. nate's post above is quite good. IMaybe there's a Nixon/Gingrich parallel--that after years in the wilderness (Nixon in '62 was more or less as disgraced as Gingrich in '98), you come back a lot cagier, i.e., even more lethally cynical than before. A surprisingly human immigration stance from Gingrich may be his equivalent of the teenager Nixon planted in the audience with the phony "Bring us together" sign.

nixon did not divorce his wife cause she had cancer

I think it's important to remember that Gingrich was chased out of DC not by the Democrats but by HIS OWN PARTY

Sure, but the reason they chased him out was because the Republicans over-all did poorly in the '98 midterms, partly related to blow-back from the Clinton impeachment, even though Newt himself was re-elected. And they didn't really chase him out anyway, he resigned on his own. Maybe they didn't want him as speaker any more, but it was his own choice to leave the House. Whatever enemies he made among fellow Republicans in those days are probably not in a position of influence to impede his progress today.

right, the only thing that can impede him is people talking about basically anything he's ever done in his life

<i>nixon did not divorce his wife cause she had cancer</i>

One of the most moving defenses of Nixon I've ever encountered.

McCain divorced his wife while she was recovering from a bad car accident, didn't he? And that didn't stop him from securing the nomination last time.

Read that as 'screwing the nomination'

mccain had been in the spotlight for decades, 'maverick', warhero, whatever. gingrich's bio isn't established in the same way.

it's a Rasmussen poll.

And they didn't really chase him out anyway, he resigned on his own. Maybe they didn't want him as speaker any more, but it was his own choice to leave the House. Whatever enemies he made among fellow Republicans in those days are probably not in a position of influence to impede his progress today.

These people would disagree.

One point Sullivan keeps making--I have no idea if this is true--is that Rasmussen polls are narrowly reliable when trying to figure out what Republicans are thinking.

And then you've got:

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/11/resist-we-much-%E2%80%A6-mr-gingrich-for-he%E2%80%99s-character-assassination-for-conservatism.html

Rasmussen leans right, yeah.

And back and forth and...

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/30/latest-gingrich-oppo-dump/

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284569/if-newt-criticism-makes-one-rino-i-guess-steyn-too

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/12/01/on-newt-and-gnomes/

I'll check in on Palin's Facebook page now and again. Her true believers are understandably befuddled and distraught at the moment.