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

Yup, was just looking that up.

Carter announced late '74, finished up his governorship in Jan. '75--I guess you're counting that as more or less holding office at the time?

audio clip of Obama speech is SICKENING. really, GOP nominee should be whoever can scare Matt Armstrong the most.

you have odd priorities

where's timellison?

ppl who take morbius bait on political threads are savages

i used to be a savage but i got better

Carter announced late '74, finished up his governorship in Jan. '75--I guess you're counting that as more or less holding office at the time?

Oh! I actually didn't realize that. I thought he was still governor in '76.

Nixon in '68

this may be the apt - and scary - analogue of Gingrich in '11. Nixon was down & out in 1962 when he famously said "you don't have Nixon to kick around anymore." When he ran for president in 68 he'd been out of office for eight years and was widely perceived as a loser and both republicans and democrats underrated him.

OTOH Nixon was smarter (and crazier) than Gingrich and I fully expect Newt to shoot himself in the foot.

There's a certain mindset that see analogies, and another mindset that sees differences. I'm of the former--I see them all the time in broad outline, and I think there are many similarities between Nixon and Gingrich, especially how much of their appeal was/is based on resentment. A couple of differences specific to this election cycle: 1) Nixon's handlers (led by Roger Ailes, I think) kept close watch on him in '68, and he was very disciplined through the campaign; not sure that Gingrich has anybody filling that role right now; 2) Nixon spent '62-'67 going around the country campaigning for other Republicans and collecting chits--seems like there's still a lot of ill will between Gingrich and other elected Republicans.

I'm reading this right now:

http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/6463312-L.jpg

On Stuart Symington, Republican candidate in '60:

As William S. White wrote in the July 1959 Harper's, Symington was "the most possible of all" nominees, but he was also a man lacking "any deep and abiding political philosophy, of the kind which at some point or another is found in most top politicians...His appeal is largely to the older-line professional politicians, and their hope is that the convention will find objections with each of the other candidates and agree on Symington."

I think I recognize that guy, for pete's sake.

What I mean to say: Nixon was handing out chits, to be collected later.

Fox's Kirsten Powers: "Newt’s fantastical repurposing of reality is amusing."

The fantastical repurposing of reality seems to bother many Republican media folks all of a sudden.

poor Symington, one of those figures contemporaries recognized and acclaimed but has become an also-ran

Yup, was just looking that up.

― jaymc, Tuesday, December 6, 2011 4:52 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Permalink

this kinda let me down

I knew Richard Nixon. I hated Richard Nixon. You, Mr Gingrich...

I don't get the sense than mr. gingrich is actually fueled by nixonian resentment - he might be able to channel it to get votes, sure - but this is a guy who fancies himself a college professor, smartest guy in the room and about as 'washington insider' as they come. he has too much self-confidence to be nixon-style bitter.

the public had a much shorter memory of Dick's bitterness than the media did, at least in '68.

Newt's lack of brains in tactics will likely undo him. Open convention for 19th century nostalgia!

i used to think this ^^^^ about gingrich, but he seems semi under-control (for now). and the timing is right (he caught fire in the shadow of crucial early caucuses and primaries, which might give him momentum).

lol he isn't going to be the nominee, probably but lol

i used to think this ^^^^ about gingrich, but he seems semi under-control (for now)

he's not. Did you see last night's pearls?

ew

lol

I meant that Nixon's/Gingrich's appeal is based on the resentment of voters that they're able to tap into--the sense of aggrievement. Palin, too. In terms of their own personalities, no, Gingrich doesn't seem to carry around the grudges/bitterness that consumed Nixon. (As I've said before, I don't think there's ever been a politician that could match Nixon in that department.)

he's not. Did you see last night's pearls?

i didn't! what did he say?

lately I've been waking up each day in eager anticipation of the gems that have dribbled from Newt's lips while I slept

it's the blood of poor children -- not gems -- that dribble from newt's lips.

you people and your effluvia.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-exclusive-republicans-disclose-private-call-too-dangerous-175828684.html

conservatives are pissed about this

Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.

"We're hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks" personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. "There's a lot of people who feel sorry for him."

Recent polling data indicates that while the president suffers from significantly low job approval ratings, voters still give "high approval" to Obama personally, Thompson said.

Voters "don't think he's an evil man who's out to change the United States" for the worse--even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should "exercise some caution" when talking about the president personally.

On the call--which Yahoo News was invited to attend because of a mistake by someone on the staff of the Republican National Committee

oh man this is classic. fuckin bozos.

conservatives are convinced that the whole of america (except for the tiny corrupt islands of urban leftism) shares their emotional makeup and outlook on the country. party elites who try to match their messaging and actions as much as possible with popular sentiments find that it's not quite so.

so who's wrong? the people in the bubble, or the people who professionally have to look outside it? depends who you ask:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285050/stupid-party-michael-walsh

that yahoo story has close to 16,000 comments. O_o

who do you even think you're expressing your opinion to at that point

I almost posted that Walsh thing yesterday...

one thing I've always thought curious was how few comments a lot of widely publicized economist-type articles get. considering that tens of thousands of people are gonna read what you write, it actually seems like a decent use of your time?

It's not Obama's policies that are the problem, it's Obama and everything he represents and stands for.

[Approved commenter] Teflon93
: 12/06/11 16:59

Voice in the wilderness, Michael, voice in the wilderness. You are manning the last bastion of conservatism at a once-great magazine.

"Don't attack Obama" is a RINO tic. Most of America can't stand that jugheaded, prissy, sonorous, stentorian, pedantic, phony, lying, mom-jeans-wearing can't-ride-a-bike-without-a-helmet throws-like-a-sissy little girly-man. He's played more golf this year than Tiger Woods and would have played more if only some tee boxes faced somewhere besides Mecca. The man couldn't lead a drunk to a bathroom, much less speak to children without teleprompters.

What precisely does Little Lord MittleRoy intend to attack him with then? His slightly greater embrace of abortion? That Obama didn't copy Romneycare quite closely enough? That Obama wanted a cap on carbon emissions slightly higher than Romney does (right now)? That Romney, architect of a Massachusetts economic miracle equivalent to Oral Roberts turning an able-bodied man into a cripple, will somehow be better for the economy? That Romney will oppose the gay marriages he enacted in the Bay State? That Romney will challenge Obama's quadrupling of the deficit by merely doubling it?

Attack the enemy. Forget the fifth column.

(emphasis added)

that jugheaded, prissy, sonorous, stentorian, pedantic, phony, lying, mom-jeans-wearing can't-ride-a-bike-without-a-helmet throws-like-a-sissy little girly-man

this is the greatest description of a president i have ever read.

John Galt : 12/06/11 16:38
You are dreaming. That only works if both sides adhere to those rules.
We already know the Democrats/MSM will personally attack any GOP candidate and do so without remorse. The only way to achieve parity is to fight back.
Look at McCain. He went out of his way to not personally attack Obama. Yet he himself was repeatedly labeled as mentally unstable and worse. Heck, the NY Times even fabricated a story claiming an extra-marital affair.
These people will stop at nothing to re-elect "their" guy. If you think "being reasonable" will beat their tactics, you will lose.

lol I had completely forgotten about that NY Times article

Look at McCain. He went out of his way to not personally attack Obama.

stunned by this, tho it was true -- to some extent -- in the immediate shadow of election day (when it was clear that mccain was in trouble and maybe looking for higher-ground upon which to be judged historically).

but still: lol/smh.

just trolled that post. we'll see how it goes. "trolling" = saying something halfway reasonable...

I've posted stupid derogatory things which get approved and intelligent ones that don't, so good luck!

<i>stunned by this, tho it was true -- to some extent -- in the immediate shadow of election day</i>

Yes--McCain turned gracious the last week, when it was pretty clear he was going to lose. There was at least a month before that of people shouting out disgusting stuff at rallies without any reaction from McCain or Palin, both of whom would excuse such stuff with a) Bush got just as bad, and b) it was only a tiny percentage of the people there--both true, and so what? The idea that he was this beacon of integrity all the way through is preposterous.

risible, even

there was a famous moment of a woman at a Q&A starting to say something about "that arab" and mccain grabbing the mic back and chiding her!

i have no idea what was in the man's heart but he did not ride that particular tiger very well, whether it was conscience or incompetence or some sense of strategy who knows.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_prsrr3FvvGA/TMm5lNy2MII/AAAAAAAAAA0/ccc67PLZlO0/s1600/Snagglepuss.jpg

"Risible even!"

How's this for a speculation: if Newt still leads after Super Tuesday, the very fact that he might be able to grab the most powerful job in the world will temporarily sober him enough that he'll curb his mouth until the election, allowing the powerful rightwing media machine to project a new public image for him that is more presidential and acceptable to MOR independents. He'll lay low, play along, keep on message like a good lad, and only blow up in January of 2013.

are you hard

I just can't see Newt being able to do that

there was a famous moment of a woman at a Q&A starting to say something about "that arab" and mccain grabbing the mic back and chiding her!

yeah this was in the last month of the campaign or so. woman said something about her not being sure if Obama was an American and maybe he was a muslim and McCain took the mic away from her and said "no, that's not true."