well, that’s fair, but at 30 years now, i think we can say this has been a long rightward drift, with some bursts of progressivism along the way.
Sully’s all hard at the though of his wee Eddie Burke’s apposite aphorism
but at 30 years now
I think it’s fair to say that the WASPs have moved farther to the right as their predominance has waned but they’re losing more and more battles and as they get older, they’re more and more dogmatic though less in a principled way than a mostly nostalgic emotional one.
As to economics, we conceivably know more than we did 30 years ago but then so do the masters of the universe wrt to evading controls/exerting political influence
Our system is intrinsically conservative; it’s designed to occlude all but the faintest of seismic shifts. That’s how the Framers intended it.
“Conservative” in this sense has nothing to do with left- or right-wing.
^^^ OTM
that’s also true, but doesn’t detract from my point.
You know, for all the knob-slobbering this country engages in wrt the founding fathers and the way they rigged our republic up to not fall prey to the demagoguery and dictatorships of past republics, the conservative nature of our government (in Milord Sotosyn’s sense) may have prevented the wild slides and coups of many other modern republics (Africa and the rest of the Americas come to mind) but perhaps the coup has just been a long, slow one. From a part Libertarian, part Liberal perspective, Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex alongside some other important industries like high finance have essentially taken over. Is that different than the industrial barons and the slaveholding plantation owners of the 19th century? I’m not sure.
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.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, December 7, 2011 4:27 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink
Without the judicial coup in 2000 it could easily have been 16 of the last 30 for the Dems. Maybe 20.
probably 20, actually.
CNN polls today:
Iowa — 33–20, Gingrich
New Hampshire (Romney’s bulwark) — now 35–26, Romney
South Carolina — 43–20, Gingrich
Florida — 48–25, Gingrich
This is no dream, etc. (I hope—may as well enjoy the moment, in any event.)
lol
i think the real debate now is whether it would be worth having president gingrich in return for how awesome it would be to have nominee gingrich, & to this i say yes, yes it would, for real it so would
YES HE CAN
i want to hear gingrich general-election campaign slogans
“Fundamentally, Newt’s the One!”
David Frum had an interesting point tonight (when asked how he’d advise Romney at this point): ask Republican voters if they want 2012 to be a referendum on the Clinton presidency. A subtle point that probably wouldn’t get Mitt very far.
i want to hear gingrich general-election campaign slogans
GettINGRICH
Did Frum intend a defense of the Clinton presidency? About time — it was the most successful Republican presidency of the last thirty years.
“On my first day in office,” he said, “I will move our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.” Massive applause. “And I will ask John Bolton to serve as secretary of state.” Even bigger applause — standing ovation, biggest applause he’s gotten.
the whole john bolton thing is so weird
Blolton
heh, larison pointed out that its technically illegal to promise appointments
gawker should demand that justice be served
I think Frum’s point was simply that instead of the election being about Obama’s fragile presidency, Newt would symbolically shift voter’s thoughts to what is generally viewed as Clinton’s successful one.
I love how Newt’s not even in office yet and he’s already violating rules/breaking laws
It’s Signal Sending, guys.
more like Cunnilingus For Certain Interest Groups, amirite?
if newt really want to send signals, why doesn’t he propose alberto gonzalez for attorney general; donald rumsfeld for sect. of defense; and dick cheney for sect. of state.
A RETURN TO SIMPLER, MORE SENSIBLE TIMES.
Because Bolton and his mustache encompass multitudes.
I want to post this EVERYWHERE
that’s such a classic clip
pls make that one gif
it’s not mine, it’s a tumblr thing going around
and unfortunately putting it together into one gif is way more of an effort than it should be (involves breaking each gif into it’s individual frames, arranging them into a single consolidated image, lining up timing, etc), and i’m drunk
fuck i thought u assembled them with like...magic
i do, but i’m only lev 7. perry gif is like lev 17
tumblr is killing the long-form gif with their stupid image size rules
i believe that out of the 7 billion people on earth, i may be in the top 3 of the people who most strongly believe that!
also, facebook is killing the gif, period, by not supporting it
also, facebook is killing the gif, period, by not supporting it
― Z S, Thursday, 8 December 2011 06:16 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink
how the shit this is still true bemuses me. even google+, rip, could do this right!
I’m counting on this to be awesome:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70060.html
When Romney starts attacking—I can’t see that he has much choice at this point—part of me wants the crowd to turn on him mercilessly, which would probably inhibit him the rest of the way, and part wants the two of them to tear each other to shreds. I expect many cutaways to the rest of the candidates looking bored and/or disgusted, or waving their hands “I’m here too, you know”-style.
I had no idea that Michelle Bachmann was my mom:
BACHMANN: People do find out [in my book] that I did not get asked to my senior prom.
HANNITY: Well, neither did I. And nobody would go with me.
BACHMANN: Well, in my time, girls didn’t ask boys to prom. If you didn’t get asked, you didn’t go.
HANNITY: Yeah, well let me tell you, I have a 13-year-old son. Those days have changed big time.
BACHMANN: And our girls are not allowed to do that in our house. They have to wait for the boy to call.
Hannity has a thirteen year old kid, eh? I hope the rest of his teenage years consist of giving his dad the world’s worst ulcer.
BACHMANN: People do find out [in my book] that I did not get asked to my senior prom.
HANNITY: Well, neither did I. And nobody would go with me.
TAKE THE HINT
gop nominee for 2044: the child of hannity & bachmann jrs
eh, depending on how the teen years go, that child could be the nominee for the Green Party
Re the “referendum on Clinton” crack: a fun poll of the general electorate would be to name a job Newt has previously held. You sports fans always forget that politics of the past is all a blur to the majority.
yeah sometimes I wonder what % of people can even tell you what the speaker of the house is
“is that a subwoofer”
kinda
The fantastical repurposing of reality:
tpm finds a reason to run this photo
why is perry always smiling so much? that’s not his appeal, when he had any appeal. he needs to grimmace, like he’s ready to jump into a car full of commies and tear off their shoulderblades.
He looks less...medicated, for sure.
nice man ring
Josten’s, I assume
He looks like he’s in the midst of rhyming off three great truths, and as he reveals the first one, he’s very focused.
Breaking news:
I expect damn few of them look like the one pictured there.
kobe — howard — paul
v.
bron — wade — bosh — battier
advantage heat, obv., since we also have EDDY CURRY
they’d make a hell of a cabinet.
oh, i see what i did there.
to be fair, kobe, paul, howard, wade, bron, and bosh would make a better, smarter slate of presidential candidates than what the GOP has now.
I just figured Newt Fever had finally caused you to flip out.
“He seemed fine till Newt caught up in New Hampshire, then he just rambled on about basketball for the rest of the campaign.”
Root for Newt
Newtonium: Enriching America
newt is actually being traded to the hoston rockets as part of this chris paul-to-la lakers deal, so . . .
Frum agrees with me re: Gingrich’s biggest problem being his inability to work within his own party
The most important thing to remember about Newt Gingrich is that his colleagues in the House of Representatives effectively fired him as their leader even before the impeachment crisis, shifting power instead into the more competent hands of Tom DeLay. It was Tom DeLay who ran the caucus while Newt Gingrich was traveling the country giving speeches about Total Quality Management and the Struggle for Western Civilization.
Gingrich was not pushed aside by his caucus for any of the offenses listed above. He was pushed aside because he plunged the caucus into chaos, because he lost fights that he himself had chosen, because he could not control his mouth, because he wanted to be a star more than he wanted to get things done. There’s a reason Gingrich is fascinated by management gurus: he needs the help.
Basically, I don’t disagree with anything negative that’s being said about Gingrich right now—I’m quite sure it’s all true, and a lot worse than that. I’m just not sure anymore if it’s going to matter in terms of the nomination. Something has propelled him to where he is right now, and I don’t think you can just say that he’s an anti-Romney vessel anymore; there’s more to it than that. Of the explanations offered upthread, the one that makes the most sense to me is that he’s the guy who (in the eyes of Republicans) is finally going to put Obama in his place—who’s going to talk circles around him in the debates, who’ll hiss the proper amount of contempt, who’ll (fundamentally) put him in his place. Republican voters don’t know Morbius, so they’re going with Newt. He may implode, he may not.
what’s propelled him is that the other non-romney’s are stupid, embarrassing clowns.
and as Morbz would say, no votes have been cast. there’s a lot more to getting a nomination than being out front in polls.
Well, sure. But leading in three of the first four states is a good place to be on Dec. 8.
<i>what’s propelled him is that the other non-romney’s are stupid, embarrassing clowns.</i>
I don’t think it’s that straightforward. That gave him an opening, sure, but none of the previous non-Romneys got close to where he is today. I think there’s something deeper that’s come to the surface, like there was with Palin or Nixon.
Gingrich / Paul 2012: Drop the Newt-Ron bomb!
Quayle yesterday, John Sununu (Sr.) today—Romney’s really raiding the Crossfire-era closet for surrogates. Expecting Liddy Dole, Ralph Reed, Richard Thornburgh, and Al D’Amato any day now.
politico ran a story this evening that newt’s rise has really taken romney off-guard, and forced him to go on offense at a time (and in a way) he didn’t want to.
What Romney really wanted was stroll through the primaries, with no serious challengers.
Next episode begins tomorrow!
It’s going to be a tricky debate for both of them. Romney has to snap out of his slumber and attack; Gingrich will likely be forced to step down from Mount Buddha and actually say less than complimentary things about Romney—and may even get pushed enough that he turns nasty.
How come there are never any debates at like 3 PM on Sunday? (I know: football.) I’d like to watch one in real time one of these days.
newt doesn’t have to do that at all! in fact, he should keep being somewhat generous toward his GOP opponents, as he has been in these debates, and take only sly, veiled attacks at romney (unless things get out of hand). he is good at those types of attacks, actually, and he gets a lot out of them in terms of silent signaling to his constituency.
Maybe, maybe not. Allowing yourself to be attacked unchecked is a risk. Ask John Kerry.
Good post/links from Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/does-romney-have-time-to-go-negative.html
The gist being that Romney will be running the much greater risk.
The resistance to Romney among his party’s activists is so strong that in my view, he’s cooked. Once they converge on their preferred anti-Romney choice, which appears to be His Newtness atm, they’ll wipe Romney out of the picture.
But it really doesn’t matter who they choose as their anti-Romney, as long as they choose someone. Newt’s big recent surge makes it odds on that the activists have finally stopped dithering and wistfully yearning for Palin as their paladin, and he has inherited the nutty Cain coalition.
Meanwhile the conservative pundits have united in their loathing for Newt.
I’m not as convinced as Klein is that the pundits hold such sway over the nomination process though.
really curious to see how this whole this plays out; i’m not mr. historian but i believe we are in unknown territory in a lot of ways in this election.
the last democratic contest got very heated; underlying this was the fact that its two lasting candidates were both well respected and loved in the party, and normally could draw big constituencies within it.
if the gop contest shakes down to just romney and gingrich, it would be nearly the opposite situation. neither one of them has a majority (or even very large) support base within the party, each has huge negatives at either the elite or base level. how nasty can it get if nobody likes either enough to fight? i wonder if it will turn out to be sort of... dull.
If Gingrich does amass an early lead against Romney, I would not be too surprised to see a late-entrant whom establishment Republicans could rally behind.
i would, that person doesn’t exist
^^^
It’d be too late. Delegates promise themselves to candidates months in advance; it’d take a lot of scrambling to get them to swtich.
also that person has no route to securing the number of delegates required
xpp
Those are all serious difficulties, true, but I think the need to have someone who could stop Newt would be so great that otherwise improbable things could become possible, as Klein put it.
lol Rove in total damage control mode
there is no way a long primary benefits the GOP—it drains money for one thing
yes he explained that twaddle to George Stephanopoulus this morning
Kristol had something yesterday on the white-horse idea:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gop-s-valentine-s-day-option_611730.html
Really seems delusional to me.
I mean I love that he equates the state of the current GOP with the state of the Dems in 2008 but it’s just demonstrably untrue—as I think Nate Silver pointed out about 2008, the Dems would have unified behind either frontrunner. The GOP shows no such eagerness to unify.
xp