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:
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.
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.
“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.”
I just can’t see Newt being able to do that
yeah. I mean what are you basing this scenario on—when megalomaniacs get a taste of power they get MORE megalomaniacal, not less
Snagglepuss A+
I love that American and Muslim are mutually exclusive to that oaf.
um no we all love Snagglepuss
Re: newt. When the toad feels the arrival of spring, he cannot help but engorge himself with air and croak, eh?
Three months after Super Tuesday, and a week before the Republican convention, Newt’s handlers allow him to conduct a three-minute press conference:
various reiterations of mccain’s laziness at turning righteous itt are v otm—it frustrates me to occasionally hear him lauded for his good conduct when he let that shit run on for a long time, & corrected the woman in the crowd when it had got ridiculous & was a sensible political move to stand up against.
offering to suspend the campaign didn’t get the traction he wanted and then the economy went haywire and his base just totally lost their shit and he was as clueless as anyone on what to say to them.
It reminds me of Alfred’s statement to his parents about Huckabee
later that same day, mccain sternly disabused an elderly woman of her notion that barack obama was made of titanium, with a robot brain controlled by the ghost of joseph stalin.
a sensible response!
mccain didn’t say shit himself cause he had sarah fucking palin ffs
I’m still w/Sullivan in thinking that not adequately vetting his Veep basically cancelled any seriousness he might have claimed. It was a really dumb move.
He was never serious, just old.
sarah fucking palin
“that’s my name, don’t wear it out”
It’s okay for Sully to believe it because he’s a nominal conservative.
she signs it that way, like ice motherfucking cube
xp
I dont get the ‘no personal attacks on obama in 2008’. what was all that bullshit about his pastor we had to hear about for like 6 fucking months?
The equivalent of swift-boating, grandson to red-baiting.
what is up with that guy?
gay+drunk
there’s something wrong with this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate christmas
omg
he’s at .7% on intrade right now...that’s a pretty decent gamble.
... who said our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas
I mean, the stores certainly seem to be encouraging the celebration of everything
It’s the War On Christmas all over again! Will this horror never end?
but our kids can’t openly celebrate christmas
LOL, this reminds me of ppl who misrepresent the 1st Amendment
Sully linked to this:
Rick Perry opposes the swift and meaningful U.S. responses to human rights abuses of LGBT persons abroad. And he would never ever engage International Organizations in the fight against LGBT discrimination. Again, Perry sympathies with the abuser, not the victim.
Ideologically, it’s difficult to conceptualize a greater enemy to gay people. Santorum, perhaps. But never has there ever been in modern times a President who held the level of personal animosity that Rick Perry has for you. Not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Johnson, not Reagan, and neither Bush. It is inconceivable that Perry could have the personal gay friendships of Reagan, the gay appointments of the Bushes, and certainly not the supportive views of Carter, Clinton, Ford, or Obama. None of the other credible GOP candidates, Romney, Gingrich, or even Bachmann would be worse.
We very seldom use the term “hate” to categorize a politicians views. It seldom is accurate. But I concur with Jim completely: Rick Perry hates you. Deeply.
re: that video, man what a prick
Apt metaphor.
I think open celebration of Christmas is appalling. I would, perhaps, sign on to a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy with regards to the celebration of Christmas.
just how awful do you want to be while you stroll up a hill in a jacket we can all relate to, what an asshole. i feel like the particular field of misrepresenting positions in ads & debates is its own little corridor of human awfulness
the day after he’s sworn in for his second term, pres. obama will sign two executive order, banning christmas celebrations — anywhere — and outlawing christianity — everywhere. it is written in the stars.
Sad Erick Erickson is sad. (Keep in mind that for all his apparently heartfelt blather this is a guy who seems to use his Christianity as a get-out-of-jail-free/‘we’re all bad and I confess this every week at church!’ card when he calls people goatfuckers on Twitter so if anything he should be sympathetic to Newt, really.)
And by the way DARK HORSE.
In all honesty and candor and recognizing we all fall short of the glory of God, I do not know that I can support a man who is on his third wife having cheated on his two prior wives. It is very much more the adultery than the marriages. Many of my friends have marriages that do not work out.
lol @ the pining for Jeb Bush btw
The chatter about potential new entrants include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, businessman Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.
lol strong candidates here.
but i like the jeb bush idea!
the idea that the nation as a whole is not completely soured on the Bush family is hilarious
what about mark sanford? he only cheated on one wife
but Romney cheated on a movement!
I dunno, Shakey. I think Neil might have fit in nicely with some of the recent Pres candidates.
the nation as a whole is soured on the Bush family
oh i know
Maybe I’m wrong, but are they not past the point of no return as far as getting in now goes?
Remember: the nation as a whole soured on the GOP in 2009, heralding a new rebirth of liberalism.
that Snagglepuss image is the first decent thing on these GOPobsessive hen party threads.
Attacking Rev Wright (that was his name?) was not PERSONAL, cuz as Bill Maher pointed out Obama is too smart to REALLY be a Christian. /mattarmstrong
pfffff, u.s. is a hard-right nation in all but the broadest sense, and nothing in 2009 changed that. it’s basically GOP-controlled except when there’s a severe recession (bush I or II) or some huge nat’l disgrace (watergate)
The U.S. isn’t left, right, or anything nation other than what socioeconomic forces dictate at that moment.
GOP has controlled the presidency for 20 of the last 30 years, with the only breaks being, as i say, post watergate and during recessions.
or, put it a different way: when times are good, we say “hands off, gov’t.” when times are bad, we say, “help us!, gov’t.”
It’s cyclical — Democrats controlled every branch of government from 1932 through the eighties.
I won’t take credit for this Burke quote: “Every political question I have ever known has had so much of the pro and con in it that nothing but the success could decide which proposition was to have been adopted.”