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

right but your point was 'wow look at what the ivy league does for you' not 'these are some human beings with the minimum standard of intelligence demanded by the GOP

My point was that a perceived problem-solving capacity, whether as a matter of raw intelligence (as perceived by a voting population a substantial portion of which is not college-educated) or hard work, has been for at least the last 20 years a relevant (not determinative) criterion in Presidential politics. George W. Bush was certainly dumb in many respects, but smarter than a great many of the people who voted for him and also smart enough on paper for people who may have recognized a problem in that department to overlook it. And many other people who went to the schools he did both go in and come out fairly smart.

B*r*ck Ob*m* is certainly a killer, there's enough evidence to tell me that he is, even if the case is 'arguable'

While he's certainly the highest decision-maker in the land, his decisions are constrained by many other current and previous political actors as well as by the public he represents. In some sense, virtually everyone in America no matter the nature of their political participation, yourself included, is a "killer" of present and future people, many of them non-American, and Obama is merely the guy who appends his signature to the political decisions that are adjunct to our economic and other social activity.

My point was that a perceived problem-solving capacity, whether as a matter of raw intelligence (as perceived by a voting population a substantial portion of which is not college-educated) or hard work, has been for at least the last 20 years a relevant (not determinative) criterion in Presidential politics. George W. Bush was certainly dumb in many respects, but smarter than a great many of the people who voted for him and also smart enough on paper for people who may have recognized a problem in that department to overlook it. And many other people who went to the schools he did both go in and come out fairly smart.

like who

are we really having this conversation...again

"In some sense," again, the President can be seen as the guy who tries to kill the fewest people. Obama's performance in this regard has not necessarily been great, but has probably been better than any available alternative would have been.

What matters to voters is the mysterious way in which they end up liking a candidate, which inspires them to look for ways to defend their choice: he writes good books, is a terrific speaker, looks good on a parasail, etc.

unlikely to apologize after shooting friend in the face

wouldn't execute man who raped/murdered wife

willing to buy children adorable puppy

unrepentant receiver of blowjobs

It was the "Keynes"/blue republican bits that kinda thru me off at the end. This again, this is the same chick who's posted anti-vaxxer stuff on my wall before.

What matters to voters is the mysterious way in which they end up liking a candidate

There is no single relevant criterion. "Likability" may well be the closest, but I could argue that trustworthiness (to protect the individual/state and their interests) is closer. Intelligence is certainly relevant to the latter capacity, for better and for worse (Mitt Romney's problem). Another important factor on both scores may be simple cultural appeal - which candidate is most like the individual voter (as a matter of regional/ethnic/historical cultural patterns). This too is a problem for Romney within the GOP, and one he will seek to overcome on the competence(/intelligence) factor.

Are we supposed to believe that 40-50(-70)% of the GOP favor Romney and Paul (and Gingrich) simply because of their personalities?

lol kingfish for some reason I've always assumed Paultards/libertarians are male

xp

Are we supposed to believe that 40-50(-70)% of the GOP favor Romney and Paul (and Gingrich) simply because of their personalities?

well, romney's rough 25% support among GOP voters is probably committed to his policies (of the moment) and his appearing stable, coherent, and electable. beyond that, his strategy is to watch the conservative candidates stab each other with kitchen knives, and stay out of the way.

smart strategy, btw. a lot of the GOP base is going to wake up one morning and say, "damn, we failed to unite behind one conservative candidate and we're stuck with romney?"

fwiw, romney's next move will be to tap marco rubio as VP nominee, in an effort to appeal to the base (and to win florida).

tho i've heard kim jong-un is also on romney's short-list.

unrepentant receiver of blowjobs

i don't want this as a DN but if no-one else will take it on i will make sure it is not lost to time

http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711

http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711
http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711http://www.buddy-icons.info/img/icon/33237.gifhttp://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711
http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711http://i1.nyt.com/projects/assets/election_2012/images/projections/heads/newt-gingrich.png?1324071711

What matters to voters is the mysterious way in which they end up liking a candidate, which inspires them to look for ways to defend their choice: he writes good books, is a terrific speaker, looks good on a parasail, etc.

I say this all the time (without the parasail part--I don't what that is). I use the common parlance of living-room test. Same thing.

http://testmedia.theonion.com/images/articles/article/6318/Kerry-Windsurfing-R.jpg

Funny...I had a feeling you meant Kerry but wasn't sure; I think of it as windsurfing, but I guess it's one and the same.

action sport that most resembles just being on a stairlift

protip for presidential candidates: do not look french, do not speak french, do not engage in french-y-ish non-violent sports (e.g., windsurfing).

Americans who flex about how anti-French they are etc are literally the worst people in the fucking world & know less than nothing about France & don't deserve to live in the same world where France is

they're assholes, is what I'm saying here

paris looks spectacular this time of year, BTW.

and i will kick myself forever for not getting to the south of france when i had the chance.

aero otm

We thumbed our nose at the British king from across an ocean. The French stormed the Bastille and executed their aristocracy. They also eat 1000X better than Norte Americanos.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/12/why_do_we_mock_mitt_romney_for_speaking_french_.html

I still think "French" in 2004 was code for not just boarding school/Forbes/Louisburg Square (and as with all things Rove it was based on a kernel of truth - he'd spent time on a family estate in Brittany as a kid and a cousin ran for President of France), but also Czech/Jewish on one side (and perhaps Catholic), like "muslim"/etc. is code for black.

ehhh that's a stretch

if anyone on the right is talking about france w/r/t Jews these days it's 'gee that place is filled with Muslims and anti-semetic'

I'm not suggesting that "French" means Jewish, but rather that it means "Other" (in addition to "elite"). Kerry's "other"-ness was a product of his Austro-Hungarian (Jewish) heritage, whether that was understood by voters or not, as well as, perhaps for some (evangelical?) voters, his Catholicism.

And yes, of course it means "weak" or whatever.

kerry was jewish, or just his ancestors?

if kerry was jewish, i somehow missed that piece of information.

eh if there was an 'otherness' about kerry it was the waspy new england shit, which in 2008 was more foreign to your average american than 'has a relative from eastern europe'.

he just didn't seem "rough 'n tough," in an era where that's what people wanted (maybe people always want that).

eh if there was an 'otherness' about kerry it was the waspy new england shit, which in 2008 was more foreign to your average american than 'has a relative from eastern europe'.

Bush is not a wasp? Kerry isn't a Catholic? Your average American was unaware of Kerry's ancestry, but they knew what he looks like, and the particular accusation was that he "looks" French. What he looks like, of course, is a product of his ethnic heritage. Most of the rival political coalitions in America are a product of distinct ethnic lineages and the cultures they created in the different regions of the country. So yes, it's accurate to say that calling him a New England guy is calling him a WASP in the "elite" sense, but it's also referencing that region's cultural pluralism, and specifically Irish/Italian/Jewish/other ethnicity.

he just didn't seem "rough 'n tough," in an era where that's what people wanted (maybe people always want that).

Well, sure, at least that's how BushCo sought to sell him. but while Bush had the tougher rhetoric and perhaps body language, Kerry was the slightly bigger (ok, perhaps just taller) guy and arguably physically tougher, which became apparent when they first shared a debate stage together. But that was not all that was signified by the phrase.

it means literally nothing, since most of the people reacting against purportedly "French" or "European" traits know less about Europe than I know about dropping a transmission. it means "here's your target, now haul out some insults you leaned from cartoons." one of the really aggravating Rumsfeld moments among many:

Now, you're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east. And there are a lot of new members. And if you just take the list of all the members of NATO and all of those who have been invited in recently -- what is it? Twenty-six, something like that? -- you're right. Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem.

also, this is the greatest thing ever

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/perrys-latest-oops-kim-jong-second/46394/

Lol.

You have to be fucking kidding me.

Mitt, unsurprisingly, is a great line-reader on Letterman. I kind of hate myself for liking the guy at times.

i wonder if there was that PR conversation in which someone had to tell romney, "just play down the french thing, okay", keep your ability to speak another language on the down-low. it would be such a humiliating litmus test of how shitty the contest you were voluntarily participating in was.

there's nothing wrong with liking a guy that you wouldn't vote for imo

I kind of hate myself for liking the guy at times.

Had the same reaction Sunday, watching his Chris Wallace interview. When he takes a for-Pete's-sake defensive stance at the debates, he's at his worst; in a more relaxed setting, I don't mind him. Maybe that's true of everybody to an extent, but I don't know--I haven't liked Huntsman in any setting. That's why I say "living-room test" (as in, can you stand to have this person in your living room almost every night for the next four years?) rather than likability. I think with some people--Romney, George H.W.--voters are able to reach a point of not not-liking them, without ever necessarily warming to them.

guys, that Perry gaffe is literally a repeat of W, but keep keeping yr mind off Obama's worse-than-Bush police-state shit.

there's nothing wrong with liking a guy that you wouldn't vote for imo

Well, it would be one thing if he were just a nice, but misguided guy. But Romney's a starchy, coldly insensitive, often highly patronizing jerk, from and of a wealthy class seeking to preserve its privileges, who is willing to contribute to public perception that we don't face a serious climate change problem (which in passing disrespects science and its practitioners), one of a number of signs that he may subsume his purported objective orientation in the ideology that best serves the wealthy (and himself). While it's possible that he's just playing politics on that score and knows there's a problem, I'm not sure he really cares much about it either way, and in fact he takes reasonably hard-right positions across the board. While he takes less about some social issues on which he'd previously shown some moderate/liberal tendencies, his religion may in fact make him at least some form of social conservative. And of course in office he'd be driven by an even harder-right party (so while I acknowledge the argument that it would take a Republican to get done a (probably wishy-washy) "left"-leaning initiative like a climate bill, I would never want to take such long odds).

What I like about him is that he's a highly intelligent, and at least marginally data-driven (to the extent it serves his profit motive, at least; not sure about in other respects), Northeasterner with some humanist/cosmopolitan tendencies (at least to the extent they once served his political interests in MA), and a real, if rather old-fashioned/corny (though I'm a fan of corn, to an extent), sense of humor that isn't mean. I also like that he's a little awkward, and secretly probably a little of his paternalism, at least to the extent it's directed rightward.

"takes" should be talks