Posted in Election 2012, National Politics, Video

How weak is the 2012 Republican presidential field?

   May 16, 2011

Pretty weak, according to this video:


I’ve asked before but it bears asking again: is there a Republican presidential candidate who can beat President Obama in 2012? If so, who?

Share:

Related Articles

86 thoughts on “How weak is the 2012 Republican presidential field?”

  1. Both parties are equal, neither weak nor strong – Obama being the frontrunner in both. He’ll be both the Republican and Democrat candidates.
    Bloviating to please the Left (trying to), and governing to the please Right.

  2. My husband keeps saying, “Jeb Bush.” I always reply, “A third Bush?” Perhaps not a weak Dark Horse.

  3. Well, the Republicans are realizing that it’s “Hail Mary” time, and they’re looking for a miracle.

    Is it Chris Christie? I don’t think so.

    Christie has a truly terrible 38% “approve”-56% “disapprove” in SurveyUSA’s newest poll, which also includes some other amusing comparisons (Christie vs. Obama, Christie vs. Bush).

    Even if Christie was going to run, which he says isn’t going to happen, he’d lose.

    Wingnut wet dreams and “dream” candidates notwithstanding, remotely interested, theoretically viable Republican candidates just don’t want to get into the 2012 Republican circus clown car for fear of tainting themselves and losing anyway.

    They’re thinking about 2016. So should the Republican Party.

    Get used to saying President Obama until then, boys and girls.

  4. Per EJ Dionne. Jr. at The Washington Post:

    “Republicans are unhappy with their field of presidential candidates and yearn for someone who will come along to save them. But here’s what the GOP doesn’t want to confront: its problem lies not in its candidates but in itself.

    The candidates appear much smaller than they are because the party’s primary voters and core interest groups insist upon cutting them down to size. To win a Republican nomination, a candidate has to move right, recant absolutely any past position that violates the current conservative catechism and never dare to speak the truth that solving our deficit problem will require new revenue — a.k.a. taxes.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lincoln-would-weep-at-the-gops-field/2011/05/15/AFU48Q4G_story.html

  6. My favorite part of the video is the voter being shown 8 x 10 photos of the Republican candidates, and…he…can’t…recognize…ANY of them.

    “Weak” is too strong a word for the field. (*wink*)

    1. I kinda saw Trump’s “presidential run” for what it really was: a publicity stunt to drive up ratings for his show.

  9. Looks like glassy-eyed [“Dude, I never seen anybody take THAT much acid before” – tip of the hat to Tommy Chong in “Up In Smoke”], creationist Michelle (“The facts be damned, anything can come out of my mouth”) Bachmann is running. Yikes!!! (*laughing*)

    Per Chris Matthews on Hardball today, according to Jan Crawford of CBS News, sources close to Michelle Bachmann have told her that they see a real opening for Bachmann [now that Huckabee isn’t running], and they expect to see her get into the race as soon as June:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#43068753

    Would the Republican Party actually BE that stupid?! One can only hope. (*laughing*)

    1. There’s no denying Bachmann’s fundraising prowess, and while she’s a train wreck as far as the stupid things she says, her ability to raise money makes her a strong candidate.

  10. I would not say weak just not exciting. The biggest problem is we have the RINOS who want to be middle of the road, more like a conservative democrat, then we have the tea party who wants candidates that will not appeal to the masses and finally the old school who think we will just accept the way things are and they are really fooling themselves. We can no longer have business as usual, we cannot have unlimited spending, we cannot have open borders, we cannot have free flowing entitlement programs, there has to be changes but with two main parties in control and the established PACs and special interest groups controlling both America is just going to continue to crumble.

  11. Right now I am leaning towards Herman Cain. I will be honest and really don’t know a lot about him so I am researching him. But with the current field I just don’t see anyone lighting it up at the moment. Mitt Romney probably has the current momentum but I don’t know if he has the appeal for many fiscal conservative. Newt Gingrich, man really needs just to go away, I really do not see him making much noise this time and think he will be one of the early dropouts, at least I hope so. Ron Paul, I have never been a fan he has a very loyal core following but again just does not ever seem to appeal to the rest. Sarah Palin is just way to divisive for this country. I don’t think she would be as bad as the left says but this country does not need another polarizing president like we have with the current administration, we really need to find a way to bring this country back together, I am just fearful we may be too far gone for that. There are a few others but I really think it is very early and there are going to be more additions and some subtractions over the next few months.

    1. Herman Cain? You have to be joking. Where do people get the idea that a businessman can govern? It’s two very different things. Herman Cain, the Pizza President, will bring us together? Over a meat lovers slice with a large soda?

  12. I don’t understand Steve, are we only suppose to have lawyers, community organizers or professional politicians govern over us? I think that is the problem with this country today we don’t have enough regular joes representing us. Just look at the names being tossed around on both sides to replace Kohl, nothing but retreads no fresh or new ideas coming from either side. Just more of the same. I wish there could be a third or even fourth viable party in this country to challenge the established two, this would force the two parties to actually start listening to the people.

    1. What new ideas are you looking for, Notalib? Firing workers and closing stores to keep shareholders happy? That’s part of Herman Cains success story.

      Here’s a new idea, at least here in America. After the peasants of Bolivia elected the first indigenous president of the country, Evo Morales, he nationalized the oil and gas industry for the benefit of the people of Bolivia. It’s similar to what was done with North Sea oil in Norway back in the 1970’s.

      So when the current Koch owned legislature fast tracks a mine permitting bill so that Gogebic Taconite can tear up all of Iron County and haul the profits off to Wall Street, maybe the people of Wisconsin should say, wait a minute. We want more than just temporary jobs and a big ugly hole in the ground leaching contaminants into our groundwater when you’re gone.

      We want some of those profits to stay here, long term. It’s our iron ore, not yours. How’s that for a new idea?

      1. Lets see a company comes in will create 100’s of jobs in an area that could use employment oppurtunities and you are upset. So while they are providing which will most likely be pretty good paying jobs and will boost the economy for many businesses you are upset that they are going to take the profits they make from the mine for themseleves. They are spending thousands of dollars for exploration so using your logic the people of teh region should probably be helping them fund that explorations, after all you think they should be given profits should there not be an investement in order to get a return?

          1. The Berkeley Pit looks scenic…never mind the fact that the water is so polluted heavy metals can be mined directly from it!

            1. Butte is a bleak town, less than a shell of its former self. The mining companies walked off with twenty billion in profits and left the place for dead.

  13. Mitt Romney probably has the current momentum but I don’t know if he has the appeal for many fiscal conservative.

    Romney’s problem is not with fiscal conservatives, it’s with religious “conservatives.” No need to get into a whole thing on LDS – but at least to me, the fact that McCain beat him out last time has to tell you one thing this country – or at least the Republican primary voters – just aren’t ready for is a Mormon in the White House.

    Ron Paul is unelectable. He swings so wildly from making really thoughtful, logical points to just plain bat-shtuff crazy.

    1. I’d argue that Mitt Romney is unelectable, at least when it comes to the Republican presidential primaries. There’s no way Romney can effectively run away from the myriad of policy flip-flops he’s made over the years, especially his flip-flop on universal health care.

      Sure, Romney may be able to spend a lot of money to try and win the Republican nomination, but even if he did win the nomination, he’d be severely damaged goods heading into the general.

      1. We can debate whether it was that he was open to compromise on healthcare reform in MA, or it was the Mormon thing, or that it was just the Republicans doing what they usually do, giving it to the guy who’s “turn it is” – probably a combination of the three.

        But the really amusing thing to me – and either ironic, or fitting depending on where you sit – I think that had Romney won the Republican nomination, he likely would been in the White House now. When the economy blew up and became the biggest issue most people were looking to answer in their Presidential candidate, Romney was the candidate best suited to answer those questions.

        1. I disagree with your point about Romney being president right now if he had been the GOP nominee when the economy went to pot, simply because I think Obama handled that crisis about as well as you could expect a presidential candidate to handle it, and at a time when voters were questioning whether Obama had the necessary experience and makeup to serve as president, his handling of the economic meltdown did give voters some insight into how Obama might lead as president.

          1. As it was, Obama only had to out perform McCain in answering the economic questions. In other words, he won by default. With Romney he could have really hammered away at the business management and executive experience in finance and budgeting he had – which if you can be objective about it, absolutely blows away Obama’s. IF most Americans really were considering that their top priority, I believe he would have won – given that as weak of a candidate both in general, and on economic issues as McCain was actually able to do as well as he did. You don’t – and that’s fine – we can certainly agree to disagree on it.

            And just to be clear – I don’t think Romney would have won under most/any other circumstances. It was a perfect break for him as a candidate – but he was eliminated before he could benefit.

            1. “With Romney he could have really hammered away at the business management and executive experience in finance and budgeting he had”

              That’s a good point, but simply talking about your experience is different from demonstrating in clear terms that your experience also translates into real leadership. We don’t really know how Romney the Republican presidential nominee would have handled the economic meltdown in the heat of a presidential campaign, and I’m sure you’ll agree that just because Romney has a great business resume doesn’t mean he would have automatically handled things better than Obama.

              1. True enough – and certainly it’s all complete speculation on my part. No doubt, a resume doesn’t get the work done. One need only look at the highly experienced, but very disappointing & poorly performing cabinet Bush put together. The difference between talking about doing something and actually doing it are something I’ve very critical of with the current administration – and specifically President Obama.

                Maybe, candidate Obama would have been able to talk his way out of it – he was the least experienced Presidential candidate we’ve had since…I don’t even know, and yet it wasn’t enough to prevent him from defeating McCain – as well as a more formidable opponent in Hillary Clinton. And maybe Romney would have stumbled or said something stupid. But if I was running that campaign, I would have been constant and relentless on the “I’ve run companies and a state government, dealt with budget constraints and understand financials – he’s never done any of that.”

                As I said from the beginning though, for me, it’s also a bit of schadenfreud. The Republicans nominated a terrible (and I think, practically unelectable) candidate – they go what they deserved.

                1. Yeah, of all the candidates the GOP could have nominated, McCain certainly seemed like the worst. It almost seemed like he was just going through the motions.

  14. May 1991: President Bush looked unbeatable against a weak field of Democrat candidates. No one hardly ever heard of that “rube” governor from that little state of Arkansas.

    1. So who is the modern-day, Republican equivalent? Hell, who was the last Republican candidate who had Clinton’s charisma?

      1. Exactly….while I’ll acknowledge forgot’s point about Clinton as the extreme dark horse candidate, the big difference with Clinton and virtually every credible Republican presidential candidate is Clinton’s charisma, and more than that, his “people I.Q.” Clinton’s gift as a politician was his ability to understand how to make voters feel that he really understood their problems and was invested in helping them find a solution.

      2. Yeah, my point was that candidate may not have emerged yet, so it might not be anyone we are really thinking of, that may come to surpise us all. I’m not saying that will necessarily happen, or that there is a Republican equivalent. If we could name that person now, he wouldn’t be a dark horse. In May 1991 no one knew Clinton had that charisma, like in May 2011 we don’t that Candidate X has a particular skill that will resonate in 2012.

        1. Though to be fair, we’re in a different time now. Thanks to the internet we can “vet” candidates and determine which candidates have the “it” factor in a way that voters couldn’t in 1991.

          1. That’s a good point. It’s hard to believe how much things have changed since then. Not sure I would give “thanks” to the internet for the fast-paced speed of vetting candidates, when a candidate’s fortunes can make or break based on a “tweet”. Ugh.

  15. It would not have mattered who the Democrat candidate was or who the republican candidate was, people were voting against Bush the last election and there was no way a republican was going to get elected. As far as how Obama handled the crisis I think he did as best as he could. With little to no experience he was really just hoping and wishing that his ideas were going to work, so far we have had little return on what he did and he is now trying to change the focus to being an international president in hope people will pay less attention to the faltering economy.

  16. It’s getting weaker.

    The “pizza king” is in.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110521/ap_on_el_ge/us_cain2012

    “It’s time to get real, folks. Hope and change ain’t working,” Cain said in announcing his run. “Hope and change is not a solution.”

    BUT, apparently barely edible pizza marketed to people who don’t know any better is, huh?

    (*laughing*)

    Good luck, HERMAN. You’re gonna need it.

    WHO names their kid HERMAN, anyway?! Well, maybe his parents had an inkling that he was going to turn into the African-American version of yesterday’s Republican “frontrunner”, Tea Party favorite and resident blowhard, Donald Trump.

    Anyway, Mr. Cain better “hope” that the political winds “change” pretty soon. That R hanging around his neck is beginning to look a lot like a cross between a “Scarlet Letter” and an albatross.

    1. While Bachmann doesn’t have a serious chance of beating Obama, she’ll likely be a formidable candidate in the GOP primary, simply because she speaks the language of the Tea Party and she can raise bucketloads of money, as she proved during her House run in 2010.

  18. Well, Zach, you’re right that Bachmann will “likely be a formidable candidate in the GOP primary”. That is pretty much what Joan Walsh said in her article.

    She also said, in so many words that, while Bachmann isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, at least she is more of a genuine representation of the far right lurch of the Republican Party than the rest of the field. She’s an idiot and batsh*t crazy, but at least she isn’t faking it.

    That said, and as both you and Walsh point out, while it may get her nominated, largely because the Republican Party has done lost its mind and, like Bachmann, has gone batsh*t crazy itself, it will never get her elected. Furthermore, and thankfully, she will serve as a constant reminder of why people should never elect a Republican ever again for anything. So, personally, I wish her the best of luck. (*laughing*)

    Bachmann/West in 2012. . .”Yeahhhhhh, THAT’S the ticket.” [tip of the hat to Jon Lovitz]. . .

    Anyway, here’s “the meat” of what Walsh had to say:

    “OK, Bachmann doesn’t know in exactly which state American rebels fired “the shots heard round the world,” she believes the founders “worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery” though many owned slaves, and likes to refer to the Obama administration as “gangster government,” which is up there with Gingrich’s references to Detroit and food stamps as racial dog whistles pretty much everyone can hear. She’s a far-right demagogue — but in a race where even moderate candidates are running to the right, why not offer voters the real thing?

    Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty used to tell the truth about climate change — that it’s human made, and we can and must do something about it — but he’s now recanted. Mitt Romney passed decent healthcare reform in Massachusetts, but he’s tripping over his feet trying to run away from it. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels wisely tried to declare a “truce” on the social issues that are driving away independents from the GOP — and then defunded Planned Parenthood. Gingrich told the truth about the Ryan budget — it is “right-wing social engineering” — and then took it back. I think he had to buy Paul Ryan a big diamond ring, like Kobe Bryant bought his wife after he shamed her, to make up for it (maybe that’s the Tiffany’s bill). These guys know better, and they’re acting like craven know-nothings; maybe it’s an advantage to be the person in the race who isn’t acting.

    Then there’s Rick Santorum, claiming Sen. John McCain knows nothing about torture. That’s not even worth a full-blown story, just a sentence: Rick Santorum will never be president.

    I already said Sarah Palin won’t be president, and I don’t expect her to run, either. She seemed to share Bachmann’s regular-gal approach to campaigning, and a genuine zest for nasty attack politics, but Palin’s narcissism and talent for self-pity have made her a bad candidate: It’s all about her now, not the people she’s purporting to represent. Plus, she’s happy making a ton of money and pontificating on Fox. I think Bachmann could inherit the Palin role.

    Now, I also believe, maybe delusionally, that outside of a right-wing fringe, even most Republican voters care enough about their country to reject Bachmann’s divisive and uninformed political appeal. But since no Republican seems ready to test my hypothesis, Bachmann may as well go for it and be herself.”

    Since we’re talking about the WEAKNESS of the Republican presidential field here, ALL that really matters here is that none of them, especially Bachmann, has any “serious chance of beating [President] Obama” in 2012. So, I guess that we’re all in agreement.

    Before Bachmann enters the race, which I fully expect her to do in the very near future, I have a feeling that Herman Cain is going to temporarily surge to the top of the Republican polls, just as Trump did, for no better reason than the guy at least has a pulse, but I suspect that he will also experience a similar fall from grace.

    Republicans are desperate. Dr. House has been called in to figure out why they’re dying, and what they need so as, well, NOT to die. “Romney” is always a workable alternative course of treatment that House and the team look at when they don’t have any other ideas. “Pawlenty” won’t kill the “patient”, but it won’t cure them, either. Also, “Pawlenty” is just too generic an approach to keep House’s interest for very long. “Palin” never works, and was discredited as a treatment approach a long time ago. “Trump”, a wildly experimental treatment approach, is one of which Cuddy would never approve, so of course that crazy mofo House uses it without Cuddy’s approval, and nearly kills the patient with it. “Cain” is just a “Hail Mary” treatment approach that gets entertained by House and the team only because nothing else is working. “We haven’t tried pizza, yet. What about that”, 13 asks. Maybe you won’t be back for Season 9, House retorts. “Maybe we just need to get batsh*t crazy, think outside the box”, says Forman. “Bachmann” isn’t approved for use in this country, Cuddy interjects as she bursts through the door just in the nick of time to keep House from doing something stupid AGAIN. House then hears Hendrix playing “The Star Spangled Banner” at Woodstock in his head, transcends the intellectual constraints afflicting the other mere mortals in the room, and finally grasps, in that moment of clarity that we always expect him to experience, that there simply is no cure for the patient.

    Annnnnd, “scene”.

    1. Daniels actually would have been a strong contender.

      Ironically, the best candidate to beat President Obama (as I see it) in the GOP presidential field is Tim Pawlenty, who has all the charisma of a loaf of bread.

      1. He wishes he had THAT much charisma. . .

        You DO realize that you’re going to be getting a lot of angry mail now from the “bread loaf” community, don’t ya?

        (*laughing*)

        Pawlenty is Exhibit “A” for the perceived need of all Republican presidential candidates to tack far right in this election cycle in fealty to the new rightwing “litmus tests” and emerging Teapublican orthodoxy.

        “Cap and trade” and “individual mandates”, for example, were the products of “fertile” Republican minds originally, not that you could discern that now.

        If Obama says something, say the opposite, however nonsensical and hypocritical. If the Tea Party has an idea, embrace it. If the Koch brothers want something, just remember that they pay the bills, and promote it, the best interests of the American people be damned.

        The good news here is that the 2010 “wave” hypnotized Republicans into believing that their sh*t doesn’t stink, and they’ve revealed themselves to the American people for exactly who they are, and for exactly what they stand for, in a way that is truly remarkable.

        As a result, 2012 will see, not just a “wave”, but a progressive “tsunami” that won’t crest for years to come, if ever.

        Thank you, Republicans, from the bottom of my heart. And “Rest-In-Peace”. You, too, Tea Party (nice “rally” down in South Carolina, by the way – guess that you should have held it in a phone booth, instead, huh?)

        For the record, Zach, saying Pawlenty is “the best candidate to beat President Obama” is like saying that the Jacksonville Jabberwockies are the best minor league baseball team to beat the San Francisco Giants.

        1. “For the record, Zach, saying Pawlenty is “the best candidate to beat President Obama” is like saying that the Jacksonville Jabberwockies are the best minor league baseball team to beat the San Francisco Giants.”

          Zuma, I’m sure you knew it, but I wasn’t say Pawlenty could actually beat President Obama; I was simply expressing my opinion that he had the best chance of pulling off an upset against President Obama than any of the other GOP candidates.

          1. I really would not call Obama getting beat in 2012 and upset I would call it more expected. His numbers continue to fall, he has lost support with the majority of the independents who have left him, even a good number of his own party are disgusted by him being the worse president ever. His accomplishments have been few and for the most part have damaged America and it’s future. He has damaged our relationship with England, that will take a long time to repair once he is gone, he has attempted to destroy Israel, and was taken to the wood shed by Benjamin Netanyahu who told the president that he does not care want he wants. If he does get reelected all we get is 4 more years of incompetence, I really can’t see the majority of the American people being that stupid again.

            1. “I really would not call Obama getting beat in 2012 and upset I would call it more expected.”

              Uh huh. (*laughing*). You’re delusional.

              “His numbers continue to fall, he has lost support with the majority of the independents who have left him, even a good number of his own party are disgusted by him being the worse president ever.”

              Patently untrue.

              “[President Obama] has damaged our relationship with England, [sic] that [sic] will take a long time to repair once he is gone[.]”

              Proof?

              “[President Obama] has attempted to destroy Israel[.]

              Proof?

              “[President Obama] was taken to the wood shed by Benjamin Netanyahu who told the president [sic] that he does not care want he wants.”

              Poor Notalib, ever clueless, ever partisan, ever wrong.

              Every single one of the “facts” that Notalib cites is objectively wrong, and, as usual, he offers up his opinions devoid of any proof (which isn’t particularly surprising when one’s opinions are consistently fallacious).

              With respect to the Netanyahu matter, the “game” that the President “plays” on the international “stage” is chess, Notalib, not checkers.

              Netanyahu is just another “actor”, and one of his audiences is the Israeli electorate. Another might be the Palestinians. That said, Notalib, since you’re not privy to what goes on at the highest levels of government, whether American or Israeli, you really don’t have a clue as to how much of what you saw was stagecraft scripted in a certain way to shape the way events take place in the future to the liking of President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

              In a nutshell, Notalib, whether you’re talking about domestic considerations or international ones, you’re always “playing checkers” analytically and intellectually, and The President is playing chess.

              As usual, you are WAY outside your intellectual “pay grade”

              Notalib, if you would JUST take off those partisan blinders of yours for a second, you might actually see clearly for once, you might stop shooting your mouth off about things you don’t really understand and you might actually understand something about the world.

              1. “The 1967 borders” approach articulated by President Obama was nothing more than a restatement of long-standing U.S. policy.

                Moreover, it is, and has always been, understood to represent a starting off point for negotiations, not an endpoint.

                A decent synopsis of this and other relevant points can be found at:

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/22/obama-aipac-speech-2011-p_n_865198.html

                Take off the partisan, “I hate President Obama”, blinders, Notalib, and educate yourself before forming an opinion once in awhile, huh?

                I mean, don’t you ever get tired of being wrong and/or punked all of the time just because you don’t take the time to do a little reading?

                As they say, “A mind, [even yours], is a terrible thing to waste.”

          2. There’s a difference between “best chance” and “no chance”. . .

            Just sayin’. . .

            Anyway, Tim Paw[*head drifting toward desktop…*snorrrring*]. . .

      2. Maybe he wouldn’t have been in the “clown car”, and that’s certainly a plus, but I disagree with you about how strong a contender Daniels would have been.

        Daniels would have been haunted by his having presided over the transition that the country made on his watch from a budget surplus to an enormous budget deficit, not to mention by his personal life. He would have also had difficulty walking back his original advice to Republicans not to get sidetracked by social issues, now that he has been sidetracked by them himself (e.g. his recent signing of a stringent anti-abortion bill).

        Well, at least he has an impressive PHYSICAL presence, right?

        (*laughing*)

        Looks like a cartoon character. Vertically-challenged. WORST comb-over ever (post-hair transplant, at that).

        Okay, never mind…

        1. To quote Rachel Maddow:

          “Paw…[head drifts toward desktop…snorrrrrrrrrring]”.

          Steve, if T-Paw could ever get any traction as a candidate, and he won’t ever be able to, he would NEVER admit to having ever been for such a vile, socialistic thing. It’s going to stay right on the shelf, alongside his former, “mistaken” support for “cap and trade”.

          Anyway, to reiterate, “Paw…[head drifts toward desktop…snorrrrrrrrrring]”.

          By the way, Jeb wants to know if you’re giving odds. If so, he definitely wants a piece of the action.

          1. Zuma,

            You’ve spent a great deal of time on this blog debunking the chances of any republican to win the nomination. Surely you understand that the GOP will field a candidate in 2012? 🙂

            And if it’s T-Paw then we better not let him forget his drug re-importation efforts from long, long ago, just like we’re not letting Mitt Romney forget his universal health care law in Mass.

            And as long as you’re in contact with Jeb Bush, tell him he’s not fooling me, even though he seems to have duped you and Zach.

            1. Just getting the ball teed up, SC.

              And if I can discourage a few wingnuts in the process, well, that’s just cool. (*laughing*) Feel me, dawg?

              I conveyed your message to Jeb. He chuckled, and said something like, “Well, SOMEONE’S been ‘fooled’. Dang! After the last family member that we put in there, ain’t NOBODY wants to see another Bush in the White House.” Then he asked me to give you the following link. He said that it was self-explanatory:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM

              Anyway, message conveyed, so I guess I can say, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”, huh?

              Also, for no particular reason (*wink*), here’s a couple of other links to check out:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE

            2. As you will discover, the last two links are redundant, both cool, but redundant.

              I included the second one because what “the boys” did to the obelisk/monument is exactly what the Republicans have done, and have always done, to the country when given half a chance.

      4. Bread might not have charisma, but that doesn’t stop people from buying it week in and week out. Where has all this charism gotten us? Where is the hope and change?

        1. Spoken like a true Republican partisan.

          Maybe Zach should have used a different metaphor, like “bump on a log”.

          (*laughing*)

          “Where has all this charism[a] gotten us?”

          Pretty far, I’d say, but I’m being a little more objective than you. In any event, I guess it all depends upon who you ask.

          “Where’s all the hope and change?”

          As exciting and as fascinating as it is to hear this wingnut “hopey changey thing” canard ONE more time, let me just ask you to step outside the wingnut echo chamber inside your head for a minute, and take a look around. It’s all around you.

          That said, and on a more sarcastic note, “hope” no longer exists for the Republican field or for mindless rightwing partisans. “Change” is the watchword of Republican politics right now, don’tcha know, as Republicans hopelessly flail about for a candidate. Palin! No, no, Trump! Yeah, yeah, Trump! Uhhh, Bachmann! “Yeah, THAT’S the ticket!” Tim (“loaf of bread”/”bump on a log”)Paw[head drifts toward the desktop…snorrrring*]lenty, “He’s our ma…[*snorrrrring*]. Cain! No, Romney! BUT, Cain’s black and he’s knows a lot about pizza and stuff! Ron Paul, out of his mind, BUT sincere and gets love at CPAC.

          Now, THAT’S “change” you can believe in, right, Forgot[YourCommonSense]?

          President Obama has charisma, AND he’s got intelligence and vision. Just because you can’t “see” that doesn’t “change” anything. He’ll get us “there”. You should stop carping, and just come along for the ride.

          Maybe by the time that 2016 rolls around, Republicans will have traded in that “circus clown car” that all of their potential candidates are riding around in, but I kinda doubt that they will have by then, if they ever do.

          In the meantime, though, why not just drop the rightwing cynicism and Palinesque turns of phrase, and relax? Struggling against the regrettable and ultimately amusing constraints of the current crop of Republican candidates will just make reality all the more unbearable, not to mention humorous for progressives like me.

        2. forgot, just because you don’t agree with President Obama’s policies doesn’t mean he hasn’t accomplished a heck of a lot. Health care reform, killing Osama bin Laden, Wall Street reform, etc. etc….

          1. Zuma — “President Obama has charisma, AND he’s got intelligence and vision.” And again, I ask, where has all that gotten us? No, I’m not going to go along for the ride of bigger government and massive debt.

            Zach — I will give you killing ObL, but not on the domestic programs or health care debacle. Maybe the American people will say killing ObL warrants a second term, maybe they won’t. It was a great accomplishment, no denying that.

            But can’t help but wonder how high gas prices were all Bush’s fault, but when Libya + weak dollar = high gas prices then Obama has nothing to do with it. Must be great to have a friendly media on your side!

  20. Eugene Robinson over at the Washington Post on Newton Leroy Gingrich:

    “I want to make sure every House Republican is protected from some kind of dishonest Democratic ad. So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have publicly said those words were inaccurate and unfortunate.”

    A grateful nation thanks you, Newt Gingrich. The presidential campaign is just starting, and already you’ve given us a passage that will live in infamy — forever — in the annals of American political speech.”

    It doesn’t really matter anymore who is in it, the Republican field is nothing more than a “circus clown car” filled with disingenuous, cloying, hypocritical, “willing to say anything”, teabagger- and corporatist-pandering clowns.

Comments are closed.