2012 Elections

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:12 pm

Defiant wrote:Colbert reenacts Revere's ride, and causes people to vandalize Wiki's Bell page forcing them to revert it.

It also makes me wonder if potentially the edits to Revere's page might have been satire, rather than the work of Palin fans.

If people were actually trying to add stuff about Tinkerbell and Batman... ya think? What's the more reasonable explanation here?

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:19 pm

Holman wrote:And, too, Dan Savage's column deals with topics like orgy etiquette and safe fisting and which kinds of nipple-clips won't leave painful abrasions. I don't know if he ever expected his coinage to go national the way it has.

Ah, yes, the informed perspective.

"Santorum" was most certainly intended to take off as much as possible. I'd say Fed's assessment of the justification is reasonable.

Plenty of Savage's column deals with questions where the people asking don't know who else to turn to, like gay teens who want to know if there's any hope for them at all. It's not all outrageous all the time.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:23 pm

silverjon wrote:
Holman wrote:And, too, Dan Savage's column deals with topics like orgy etiquette and safe fisting and which kinds of nipple-clips won't leave painful abrasions. I don't know if he ever expected his coinage to go national the way it has.
Ah, yes, the informed perspective.

"Santorum" was most certainly intended to take off as much as possible. I'd say Fed's assessment of the justification is reasonable.

Plenty of Savage's column deals with questions where the people asking don't know who else to turn to, like gay teens who want to know if there's any hope for them at all. It's not all outrageous all the time.

Of course, Santorum and his ilk would say that it is outrageous to tell teens that it's OK to be gay.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:32 pm

silverjon wrote:
Defiant wrote:Colbert reenacts Revere's ride, and causes people to vandalize Wiki's Bell page forcing them to revert it.

It also makes me wonder if potentially the edits to Revere's page might have been satire, rather than the work of Palin fans.
If people were actually trying to add stuff about Tinkerbell and Batman... ya think? What's the more reasonable explanation here?

*Digs deeper*

This is the user who made an edit of the Paul Revere page. He had this in an earlier version of his user page:

I quote reliable sources such as the LA Times, CNN, when they tell me that Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere used bells to warn colonists during his midnight ride. An enquiring mind such as mine wants to find out exactly how this was accomplished.

File:Paul Revere warning colonists via bell according to Sarah Palin.jpg
Church bells are too heavy to carry on horseback, so Revere may have used a lighter weight bell similar to a bicycle bell (see figure). Two (2) problems: (1) bicycle bells weren't invented yet (2) would they scare the horse?

And then later removed it with the message:

(cur | prev) 21:30, 6 June 2011 Tomwsulcer (talk | contribs) (22,281 bytes) (/* removing Palin and Revere -- fun's over but it was good while it lasted) (undo)

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:00 pm

Boston Globe poll: NH Primary

Use the link to see the whole poll in graphic form.

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:04 pm

Mitt Romney can't remember where he lives:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/did ... oter-fraud" target="_blank

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:52 pm

The Official GOP Debate drinking game:

1. Drink every time the name “Sarah Palin” comes up.

2. If Herman Cain mentions “Herman Cain,” eat a slice of pizza.

3. When Michele Bachmann refers to anything along the lines of “principles our nation was founded on,” take a shot.

4. If Newt Gingrich modifies anything with the words “shockingly” or “fundamentally,” take two shots.

5. If Herman Cain defers policy decisions to his “experts” drink as much as your nearest “expert” tells you to.

6. If Mitt Romney brings up health care on his own, drink 1 gallon of milk.

7. Every time the word “Mormon” is mentioned, drink a venti.

8. When Rick Santorum talks about defeating Democrats in the ’90s, drink 2 Yuengling.

9. If Santorum tells you to google “Rick Santorum,” take 2 shots.

10. Whenever Ron Paul references the constitution or says “it’s not in the constitution,” take a drink.

11. When Tim Pawlenty says he won’t be “entertainer in chief” or any variation thereof, down a beer. (If he says, “Obamneycare,” down 2 tequila shooters.)

12. Whenever Michele Bachmann makes a mistake with basic history, drink 1 Pabst Blue Ribbon.

13. When Herman Cain discusses Muslims, drink as much as you like, with the understanding that Sharia law will be applied for as long as he is speaking.

14. When Newt Gingrich says “Callista,” ask your wife if it’s ok for you to take a drink. (If you are single and watching at a pub, kiss a waitress.)

15. Every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned, take a drink.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:05 pm

Pyperkub wrote:The Official GOP Debate drinking game:

15. Every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned, take a drink.

Clearly this game is designed to kill all the participants.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:41 pm

Pyperkub wrote:The Official GOP Debate drinking game:
2. If Herman Cain mentions “Herman Cain,” eat a slice of pizza.

As noted, it's Romney. Everyone else at the debate was running for Veep, as was evident in their deference to him.

At this point, it sort of looks like a Romney/Pawlenty ticket. Of course, Rick Perry could stir things up.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:34 am

I'll be relieved if they nominate Romney because it would be a nod to sanity, which is in short supply in the Republican field. Not that I'd vote for him again; apart from healthcare he was a lousy governor.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:51 am

He's actually serious with this shit

Pawlenty defended his economic plan introduced this week that was based on 5% annual growth, which has rarely been achieved in modern U.S. history.

"This idea that we can't have 5% growth in America is hogwash," Pawlenty said. "It's a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5% growth and Brazil can have 5% growth, then the United States of America can have 5% growth. And I don't accept this notion that we're going to be average or anemic. So my proposal has a 5% growth target."

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:26 pm

dude is a charlatan. why anyone would take him seriously, i do not know...

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:52 pm

The all exceeded my expectations, and yet I was underwhelmed.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:11 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:The all exceeded my expectations, and yet I was underwhelmed.

Most of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking I've read today pegs Romney as the predictable winner and Bachmann as the strong upstart contender.

A field with Bachmann as the second-best candidate is a scary thing.

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:02 pm

The one thing which i have to give props to is the fact that she has had 23 foster kids in her house...not that i am going to vote for her any time soon, but that was an interesting tidbit i only then learned about...humanizes here a lot more...and maybe thats why she said it on several occasions. If so...good messaging on her campaign team.

One thing which Gergen said on CNN post debate...is what struck him was how conservative the field was...which it is....the other thing to take into this as well...is i've been reading some tidbits that huntsman is going to try to position him to the left of the field there....should be interesting what he does.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:11 pm

A friend of mine grew up in foster care. He spent time with one family that had a lot of foster kids. They ran a farm and used the foster kids for cheap labor.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:07 pm

Exodor wrote:A field with Bachmann as the second-best candidate is a scary thing.

However <insert adjective here> the Republican candidates may seem right now, if the unemployment figures and economy do not turn around significantly by November next year, chances are that the Republican nominee will be the next POTUS. How's that for a scary thing?

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:22 pm

Newcastle wrote:The one thing which i have to give props to is the fact that she has had 23 foster kids in her house...

Plus, she's a tax lawyer, like Zarathud. That humanizes her, too.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:27 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Newcastle wrote:The one thing which i have to give props to is the fact that she has had 23 foster kids in her house...
Plus, she's a tax lawyer, like Zarathud. That humanizes her, too.

I love you too, Grund.

But let's remember that Michelle Bachman worked for the U.S. Government as an IRS agent for only 5 years, so she never had enough experience to make senior-level decisions. I have almost three times her experience in tax law fighting for private taxpayers, and it is my belief is that Mrs. Bachman misunderstands the realities of fiscal policy and economics.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:08 am

Zarathud wrote:I have almost three times her experience in tax law fighting for private taxpayers, and it is my belief is that Mrs. Bachman misunderstands reality.

Honestified

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:30 am

I was off of work yesterday and got to hear the bobble heads at a different few minutes of the day. Based on their AAR and the callers I think Obama has a fair chance despite the unemployment and economy acting as an anchor around his neck. The host and all the callers I heard were complaining Romney was too moderate and applauded the debates for all of them bashing Obama. Since these are most likely the base of the Rep. party they will likely be picking the candidate, and they don't seem to get not everyone will just vote against Obama, some people want a candidate to vote for. Thoroughly frustrating.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:19 am

I just learned that apparently Bachmann's sister-in-law is a lesbian. Not surprisingly, they don't appear to be on fantastic terms.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:36 am

Ignoring the harm your policies do to the gay people in your family, while mouthing hollow platitudes about "loving" them as people, is a modern day Republican right of passage (outside of the few northeastern states where they still have plenty of sane Republicans).

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:39 am

At least she has the courage of her convictions, I suppose. Her awful, bigoted opinions.

Cheney is for same-sex marriage, partly influenced by his daughter, right? That's the one thing I like about him.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:38 pm

Yes, the Cheneys are "for" gay marriage, and bravely did nothing during his eight years in office to combat the Bush Administration's targeting, scapegoating and vilification of gay Americans. They lack the courage of their convictions, even if they have the right convictions.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:56 pm

Oh yeah, he hasn't exactly been helpful on the issue by any means. But at least he beats Bachmann.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:59 pm

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:32 pm

El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, he hasn't exactly been helpful on the issue by any means. But at least he beats Bachmann.

Which is like admitting that the taste of dirt is preferable to gravel, to be honest.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:21 am

OK, so technically the NY-26 election happened in 2011 and is over - but many consider it to be the first skirmish in the larger 2012 war.

Anyway, that's my lame excuse to link the issues page posted by the Green Party candidate in that race.

Scattered among the lefty ranting about big business and big government:

Adorable Puppies

I am pro-adorable puppies. When I’m elected to Congress, and if you’re good, I might get you one.

That Annoying Guy at Work

What’s that guy’s name? You know, the one who chews with his mouth open and steals your yogurt…Chuck? Chip? Chaz? Whatever, that’s not important. I hate that guy, and when I’m elected to Congress, he will feel my wrath!

I would have voted for him.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:09 pm

/opens door

"Oh! Excuse me... I mistakenly interrupted this Democratic party caucus. Pardon me for the intrusion"

/closes door

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:18 pm

It's too coherent and well organized to be a Dem party caucus. Where are the PUMAs?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:51 pm

Romney: US out of Afghanistan!

Honestly, I'm starting to think this guy's already running for President. His newest incarnation as middle-of-the-road-Mitt plays pretty good with independents, but it's not sitting very well with his party's noisemakers.

When asked Monday whether it was time to bring combat troops home from Afghanistan, Romney said, “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes from our generals.’’

“We’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation,’’ he added. “Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.’’

The comments illustrate a potential shift within a Republican Party that has long placed an emphasis on national security issues. They are also spurring intraparty disagreements over the direction of not only the war effort, but of the role of the United States in international conflicts.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, took issue with Romney’s comments, saying he was taking Republicans in the wrong direction.

“I was incredibly disappointed,’’ Graham told the Wall Street Journal, referring to the debate. “No one seemed to have a passion for the idea that we’re fighting radical Islam and the center of that battle is Afghanistan.’’

Regarding Romney’s comment that only Afghans can “win Afghanistan’s independence,’’ according to the Hill newspaper Graham retorted, “This is not a war of independence. This is a war to protect America’s national vital security interests.’’ Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, was even more critical. “I’ve really lost faith in Mitt Romney,’’ he said in an interview. “Something happens to someone when they become the front-runner . . . For him to make a statement like that questions whether or not we should be there, and that we should get out — it’s not going to work. To me, that statement was a killer for his nomination bid.’’

...

Political observers say that Romney appears to be carefully calibrating his position to try to appease both those who are growing uneasy about the ongoing war and those who want to see him as strong on national security issues.

“It does strike me that he’s backing away from the unconditional support he had in January, there’s no question in my mind,’’ said Richard Eichenberg, a political science professor at Tufts University. “The care with which he phrased his comments in the debate suggests that, on the one hand he’s adapting to the growing disenchantment within the Republican Party over the war, while at the same time taking great care not to suggest he’s weak on the war.’’

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:30 pm

Kraken wrote:Romney: US out of Afghanistan!

Honestly, I'm starting to think this guy's already running for President. His newest incarnation as middle-of-the-road-Mitt plays pretty good with independents, but it's not sitting very well with his party's noisemakers.

[/quote]

Calculated. He can afford to do so.

1. The social conservatives are split 5 ways from Sunday due to all the candidates
2. The moderate Republicans will move toward Romney, securing the nomination
3. He can use 'out of Afghanistan' to woo moderates while touting it as a way to save billions and reduce the deficit. The air cover is there now that Bin Laden is dead.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:55 pm

msduncan wrote:
Kraken wrote:Romney: US out of Afghanistan!

Honestly, I'm starting to think this guy's already running for President. His newest incarnation as middle-of-the-road-Mitt plays pretty good with independents, but it's not sitting very well with his party's noisemakers.

Calculated. He can afford to do so.

1. The social conservatives are split 5 ways from Sunday due to all the candidates
2. The moderate Republicans will move toward Romney, securing the nomination
3. He can use 'out of Afghanistan' to woo moderates while touting it as a way to save billions and reduce the deficit. The air cover is there now that Bin Laden is dead.[/quote]

Agreed. Plus two other factors that probably make withdrawal the right political position:

(1) Afghanistan is the war that Obama was arguing for during the campaign (his "Iraq was the wrong war, we should've focused on Afghanistan" argument), so that plus his 'surge' there has served to identify Afghanistan as more Obama's war, which has to make it less popular on the right as time goes on; and
(2) War fatigue. Especially with bin Laden dead, this is increasingly start to dominate over the GOP's traditional pro-victory stance.

Classifying it as "Afghanistan's war of independence" against the Taliban is a bit batty, but what can you do.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:17 am

I don't think "U.S. Out of Afghanistan!" is going to carry Romney very far. War weariness or not, it will rub many Republicans the wrong way. Why does Romney hate the troops?

Plus, by Fall 2012 Obama will probably be announcing the end of large-scale Afghanistan involvement and the transition to an advisory role. He'll deliver an Oval Office address with Bin Laden's head displayed prominently on his desk.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:39 am

Plus, to some extent, he's already tainted as a flip flopper in attempts to switch from a "liberal" republican govenor to an acceptable "conservative" presidential candidate in 2008, though it helps him that it's been a while.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:54 am

msduncan wrote: 1. The social conservatives are split 5 ways from Sunday due to all the candidates
2. The moderate Republicans will move toward Romney, securing the nomination

Interesting. So the sheer number of politicians pandering to the wingnuts removes them from consideration despite their numbers and enthusiasm? Might they coalesce around one of the fringe players like Bachmann, or are they just too fragmented to do that?

Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:07 am

Kraken wrote:
msduncan wrote: 1. The social conservatives are split 5 ways from Sunday due to all the candidates
2. The moderate Republicans will move toward Romney, securing the nomination
Interesting. So the sheer number of politicians pandering to the wingnuts removes them from consideration despite their numbers and enthusiasm? Might they coalesce around one of the fringe players like Bachmann, or are they just too fragmented to do that?

Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.

House and Senate Republican leadership called for more candidates a couple months ago. Remember that? Now that I look back on it, I have to wonder if it was their plan to try to water down the social conservative vote by creating a deluge of candidates, thereby making it more likely that a social moderate would win the nomination (and thus giving the Republcians a better shot in the general election).

Major strategery, I know.... but not impossible.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:14 am

Kraken wrote: Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.

Didn't Romney take a middle-of-the-road (i.e. reasonable) approach when asked about Evolution? I have no doubt (if I'm recalling his opinion correctly) this will be a problem.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:17 am

Smoove_B wrote:
Kraken wrote: Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.
Didn't Romney take a middle-of-the-road (i.e. reasonable) approach when asked about Evolution? I have no doubt (if I'm recalling his opinion correctly) this will be a problem.

Only if the other Republican primary candidates hammer him on it. The Democrats are unlikely to. So far the in-party candidates have been playing nice and going by the Reagan edict of 'thou shalt speak no evil of a fellow Republican".