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

why did newtmania die? did america remember who he is?

If there's any un-Newtening, it's marginal (margarine/shortening, etc.). That poll had fewer than 300 respondents, and is probably worthless.

why did newtmania die? did america remember who he is?

relentless drumbeat of negativity from pundits/press probably didn't help but who knows

seems pretty clear the GOP "establishment" made the call to flex some media muscle against li'l Newtie

From the NY mag article linked above:

Ron Paul has decided, for reasons known only to Ron Paul, to unleash his moneybomb in the form of a brutal advertising assault on Gingrich, also in Iowa.

It's clear to me that Paul expects to become the next anti-Mitt darling and hopes to veer the stampede towards himself at the strategic moment, just before the caucuses and several days before Iowans experience their fifth or sixth case of buyer's remorse.

yep yep

kinda doubt that's gonna work tho

I can see why Ron Paul would think that though, because the rise of Cain and Gingrich have been improbable.

can't imagine why any evangelical would give Paul the time of day

Because he is not Mitt. Nor is he Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Newt. Oh, and he's not a mormon.

Paul's chock full of the non-gredients voters are yearning for.

evangelicals need more specific commitments tho, like "hates sex/homos"

Ron Paul has decided, for reasons known only to Ron Paul, to unleash his moneybomb in the form of a brutal advertising assault on Gingrich, also in Iowa.

reasons known to a lot of people! ron paul has hated newt gingrich ever since newt campaigned for a democrat-turned-republican against paul in the 90s. newt had these crazy dreams about a permanent GOP majority (led by him) and wanted to signal to democrats that he'd protect them if they switched party-affiliations. this one did, and ran against ron paul, so newt felt compelled to support him. ron paul was not happy. not happy. and now is the moment of revenge that Mister Mxyzptlk was waited for.

-Paul is rabidly pro-life, and most likely isn't above signing some kind of fucknut "pledge" proving it

-also thinks there's no basis for a "rigid separation between church and state" in the Constitution or the writings of the founders.

-and at one of the earlier debates he intimated that churches should provide health care (haha what?), like in the good ol days

-he doesn't have mistresses and ex-wives

so really the only mark against him is his ZOMG ANTI-ISRAEL stance and the fact that he sees little benefit in blowing up brown people wearing turbans. which is admittedly a pretty big mark with evangelicals i guess.

no, the marks against him are many. see, e.g., what his newsletters from the 90s said about black people. it's outrageous.

i meant wrt evangelicals. evangelicals (around here anyway) would most likely have very little problem with some of those newsletters.

oh, i didn't realize that was the limit of yr comment. still, i doubt evangelicals would approve of those type of comments (at least openly?).

paul gets by because he has a longstanding and committed small base of support, and a variation of his critique of gov't has become fashionable for the modern GOP (in response to obama's approach to the ecnomic crisis). but that would all be obliterated in an instant if his opponents decided to attack him.

I don't think that newsletter stuff has gotten widespread exposure tbh. the first place I saw it was actually here on ILX, where people were berating Morbius for voting for Paul at one point.

the story has kicked around some. if paul were a more serious candidate, it would get more attention.

i think the official Paultard line is that he didn't write the objectionable stuff in those newsletters, that they were put out without his knowledge, etc. not sure how well that would sell if he became the front-runner though.

Josh Marshall seems to think that Newt's position is strong, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/12/entrails_1.php";>at least half of the way</a>.

Kind of surprised to see no-one working the "Well he says that he's faithful now because he's found proper religion. And if you can't trust a Catholic in power, then where are we?" angle

Again, with smarts:

Josh Marshall seems to think that Newt's position is strong, at least half of the way.

Kind of surprised to see no-one working the "Well he says that he's faithful now because he's found proper religion. And if you can't trust a Catholic in power, then where are we?" angle

i think the official Paultard line is that he didn't write the objectionable stuff in those newsletters, that they were put out without his knowledge, etc.

yeah, that has -- at one point -- been his position. it is total nonsense. also, eventually, he took responsibility for what's in the newsletters.

i think the official Paultard line is that he didn't write the objectionable stuff in those newsletters, that they were put out without his knowledge, etc. not sure how well that would sell if he became the front-runner though.

― (will), Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:49 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

what's so great is that the newsletter was literally called, IIRC, "The Ron Paul Report"

the level of denial with Paul fanatics is... something

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/438015/thumbs/r-GINGRICH-large570.jpg
http://www.cinemotions.com/data/films/0705/81/2/photo-Thunderbirds-et-l-odyssee-du-cosmos-Thunderbirds-Are-GO-1966-2.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTCcCWSxkE

pro-life AND pro-choice!

How common are targeted non-endorsements?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285787/winnowing-field-editors

Key line:

We will render further judgments in the weeks to come as the candidates continue to make their cases and are, just perhaps, joined by new candidates.

Keep wishing.

Jeb Bush

There's a new site up, similar to The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, where you can check your own personal non-Romney number. Being Canadian, mine's high: I'm 251,737,819th in line.

Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.

rip k-lo

Ann Romney, fundraising in Iowa today, talked about how her husband had supported her when she was first diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, including comforting her when she worried about what she would still be able to do. “He said, ‘And I really don’t care that you can’t cook dinner anymore — I really could eat toast and cereal for the rest of my life,’” Romney recounted, reported the Washington Examiner. She also talked about the couple’s early dating years: their first date was watching The Sound of Music.

So I wonder who that's directed at? Also: the Romneys will not be chiming in on the Pauline Kael thread.

if she said their first date was watching faster pussycat, kill! kill!, i might have voted for him.

so valiant! 'i'll bet you 10k i could eat toast and cereal for the rest of my life'

Could anything be more wholeseome?

Ann Romney really ought to look more like Sally Field, just to keep up with Mitt.

Jeb Bush

Now, funny you should say that...

"So a writer I follow who lives in New Hampshire just tweeted:

@publicroad: I live in NH & just got a robocall polling me about what I think about Romney vs. Gingrich vs. *Jeb Bush*.

Other folks are reporting the same polling is taking place in New Hampshire."

Other folks are indeed reporting that. Erick Erickson’s heard from three sources about it and the mayor of a town in New Hampshire claimed on Facebook that he was “just phone-surveyed about Jeb Bush for President.” Doesn’t mean that Jeb Bush is behind it — it could very well be (and probably is) an outfit like PPP trying to gauge how the frontrunners would fare in a hypothetical match-up — but times are sufficiently desperate right now that any murmur about a deus ex machina is worth blogging.

And speaking of Erickson, this is most entertaining.

yeah, that has -- at one point -- been his position. it is total nonsense. also, eventually, he took responsibility for what's in the newsletters.

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, December 14, 2011 6:30 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink

is it nonsense? not that i don't think he's a senile and doddering troll, but as i've heard it he "took responsibility" in the sense that one takes responsibility for things with ones own name on the masthead, buck stopping there and all that. lew rockwell--an even crazier rightist who paul definitely continues to roll with--has taken credit for the most ~engaging~ bullshit in those newsletters.

just fact checking

gingrich's stock slid pretty hard on intrade today

mitt spending some dough?

hoos u crazy cap'n save a libertarian

haha

i'll dig down into this later, but for now:

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”...

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of hisInvestment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

as to paul's defense, bear in mind that these newsletters have been published for decades (and under ron paul's name) with the same views bobbing to the surface routinely:

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

again, more on this later, if i find time.

Feeling very nostalgic about Newtmania.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNEcQS4tXgQ

Is there any actual movement back to Romney, though? For the sake of argument, let's say Paul wins Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire, and Gingrich hangs on in South Carolina and Florida? What happens then?

yes romney is going to win every state, then select marco rubio as his running mate, they will instantly pivot to the center and win 44 -- 46 states in november 2012.

as soon as they are elected, they will repeal the affordable care act and all financial regulation, and re-invade iraq.

We have a sincere if addled GOP candidate.

xpost

I've never found Perry all that addled.