What's Different About the 2012 Election

As a blogger, I have never been as unhappy with the coverage of an upcoming presidential election as I am now. What's different? I finally figured it out.

Talkleft began in 2002. The first presidential election was 2004. There was the same old GW Bush, versus a Democratic challenger, John Kerry. Kerry/Edwards was news to write about. Defeating George Bush was important enough to warrant covering the election.

In 2008, there was Obama vs. McCain. Both were new candidates, and there was extensive coverage of both. Getting a Democrat back in the White House and keeping the supremely unqualified Sarah Palin out warranted blogging about the race.

The 2012 election has no new Democratic candidate. Since the Republican candidate is unknown and there is only a field of contenders, the media is obsessively focused on them.

I don't care about Republicans. I don't want to read about their quest for the nomination and I certainly don't want to write about them. I don't care which one is ahead, I don't want to follow their debates or their campaigning for the nomination. There's no race now. It's all about which Republican gets the nomination. Maybe once one is nominated, and the Democrats are back in the story, I'll write about the election. For now, it's of no interest to me and I'm not going to pretend I care.

< Rallying The Troops | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Supremely Unqualified (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by bocajeff on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    the use of the term of "supremely unqualified" is ridiculous. First of all, the only qualifications are that she be a natural citizen and be 35 years old. The fact that she didn't have a grasp on facts doesn't mean much after watching 2 1/2 years of the geniuses we have now.

    I'm more concerned with positions, who they will surround themselves with, and how much they are willing to fight for what they want. Their ability to win Final Jeopardy is of no use to me.

    it's one thing to hold idiotic positions (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:03:37 PM EST
    Sarah Palin does

    but here is Palin's experience in electoral politics prior to her presence on the 2008 Republican presidential ticket:

    Wasilla City Council: 4 years
    Mayor of Wasilla: 6 years
    Governor of Alaska: just over 1.5 years

    Total: 11.5 years
    Executive experience: just over 7.5 years

    & here is Barack Obama's exerience in electoral politics prior to his presence on the 2008 Democratic presidential ticket:

    Illinois State Senate: just under 8 years
    U.S. Senate: just under 4 years (3 of which were actually spent running for the U.S. presidency)

    Total: 12 years (charitably)
    Executive experience: 0 years

    i am no fan of Sarah Palin, but intellectual honesty demands recognition of the fact that she was better qualiied than Barack Obama to be president of the United States if the criteria are previous executive experience & time actually spent doing the work entailed in holding electoral office


    hardly (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:51:03 PM EST
    Obama has education -- a law degree and professor. He's intelligent. She's a bozo.

    How educated is he on (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by observed on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:57:41 PM EST
    policy? He was Senator Exelon/Ethanol in Illinois, as well as the go to guy for the insurance industry.
    He shows no understanding of his own on important economic issues, in my opinion, instead being the mouthpiece for the banking industry.
    Question: in his very, very brief and unmemorable stint in the US Senate, did he stand out as more intelligent, more thoughtful, more courageous than his colleagues? No, he was right in the middle of the pack of a very mediocre 100.

    I work with hundreds (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:25:50 AM EST
    of lawyers every year - having a law degree does not guarantee that an individual is really smart, savvy, or as someone said below, has any common sense.  It also does not guarantee that an individual can connect with people.

    George Bush had an MBA....


    Handing out MBAs (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    to individuals with zero common sense and few reality based skills?  Impossible!

    I only grew up with two future lawyers.  One was my roommate, and he had this old van behind the house we all rented and sometimes he would disappear and his office (his dad's office) would ring the phone off the hook looking for him.  Took me six months to figure out he was behind the house in the old van sleeping :)

    The other one I knew from high school.  He was my lawyer once, and he was very disappointing.  When more custody/visitation/child support fight showed up again my grandfather informed me that he would not be helping me pay for that buffoon :)


    Obama seems to be the type of (none / 0) (#35)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    lawyer who is pretty much useless in technical, scientific areas---anything having to do with numbers and hard, quantitative reasoning.
    That leaves his strength at negotiating, among other things.

    There is a joke among lawyers (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    That they all went to law school because they are bad at math (hence, leaving out things like medical school).

    Lawyers, like any other profession have their superstars, their run of the mill average folk, and the dummies who have no clue.  Now, Obama is no dummy, and I think he's a very intelligent guy, but using the argument that because he has a professional degree he is a clearly superior candidate, I refer you back to my original statement that George Bush had an MBA from Harvard University - one of the top business schools in the world.


    For example (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    We just got a memo yesterday telling us that we are only to use the bathrooms on our floor, and not on other floors because other tenants are complaining (there are about 200 people in a space that was really designed for about 50.  We are not crowded, but if there were actual offices here, instead of big open rooms with tables and many people sitting at them, then the numbers wouldn't be so bad).

    Anyway, I digress.  This large group of highly educated (all lawyers who have passed at least one bar exam), has had to be told this several times through email and verbally.  They have also been told through postings on the door, in the break room, and through multiple emails that they are not supposed to use their cell phones in the hall way because the other tenants are complaining. We have also had memos sent to people who don't understand the concept of what "Business Casual" means in an office setting (Woman who sits next door to me apparently thinks "hooker chic" is appropriate office wear).

    These are smart people, so either they a) don't think the rules apply to them and don't care, or b) are too stupid to realize the whats and why-fors of having rules.

    Don't tell me all lawyers are smart enough to run the country.


    I'm moderately convinced (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:55:44 AM EST
    that getting an MBA is just getting a degree in schmoozing.  I know there is more to it, in theory, but really that's what it is.

    Harvard is "one of the top business schools in the world" because it has the people you want to schmooze with.  Not because it's "hard".

    As for law degrees, I just know that right now that seems to be the "I have no idea what I'm doing with my life I should really go back to school" degree.  And it's not working out that well for a lot of people.

    Obviously I'm not talking about the andgardens of the world - who I'm pretty sure was born a lawyer - but I do know a number of people that fall into that category.

    I think for all these candidates it's about point of view and world view more than anything else.  And there is no way in hell I'd vote for anyone with Palin/Bachman/Perry/Bush/Pawlenty's point of view.  It really doesn't matter to me whether they are college dropouts, harvard educated, mayor of Wasilla, or governer of Texas.


    Because you don't like their positions (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:15:28 AM EST
    But that is very different than saying someone is not qualified to be president because they only have a BA as opposed to a law degree.

    You're right about law degrees - now.  In my case, the people I am currently working with are mostly experienced people who have been out of law school ranging from several to many years, and many of them had careers before that - we aren't talking 24 year olds who have never had a job before.

    And I don't know about now, but we didn't learn "schmoozing" in B-school.


    yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:27:56 PM EST
    because of their positions.

    I agree that the law degree thing is a recent phenomenon.  I blame the bad economy,  You have  a bunch of underemployed 20somethings who were taught their whole life that an education is their ticket to success.  When undergrad doesn't cut it, they look for another ticket.  A law degree seems like a safe bet, because it can have multiple applications.  But in this economy, with way too many 20somethings getting law degrees it just becomes another financial liability.

    And my dig on B-school was a bit in jest.  I know it's not just schmoozing.  But I think that's probably the real tangible benefit if you will to an MBA in a business career.  Especially when you talk about the difference between Harvard and a less "prestigious" school.


    There are people who are very (none / 0) (#42)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:22:42 AM EST
    intelligent in a verbal way, who are useless at quantitative reasoning. At best, Obama falls into that category, and I think that is not acceptable for his position.

    People who go to medical school (none / 0) (#65)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:56:30 PM EST
    are not that good in math either (compared to those who study physics or engineering).

    all you said (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:03:10 PM EST
    was that Palin was "supremely unqualified" - you didn't state your criteria

    constitutionally and experientially, she was at least as qualified as Obama - there is no constitutional requirement for any amount of education, a law degree or any particular level of intelligence

    it's true that i am no fan of either Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, nor am i blinded by hatred of Obama

    i can acknowledge his education, law degree & intelligence while maintaining that they have not been put to good use in his presidency


    Don't confuse (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 05:24:10 AM EST
    intelligence with common sense, something that neither have.

    I think Obama is the bozo (none / 0) (#29)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:57:21 AM EST
    How dumb was Obama to think he could be President?

     1. no overseas travel.
     2. knew nothing about the leaders of the other countries.
     3. He did not know any of the people he appointed.
     4. no executive experience.
     5. In the worst economic time in the country history(everyone knew how bad it was), he decide to run.
     6. no military experience.(we were in 2 wars)
     7. he has no clue about race relation.(obama lived in Hawaii until he was 22yrs old, with a white family)
     8. he knows nothing about the housing market.
     I could go on an on. A smart person would have realize, he was not ready for this job. Pre 911 maybe.
     Obama just wanted to be president. No love of country.  


    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    He lived overseas in Indonesia - it was Bush who had no overseas travel before he became president.

    not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    7 - no clue about race relations, because he grew up with his white Grandma?

    As opposed to every other president we've had?  Give me a break.


    Every president before Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    Has more experience than Obama. They grew up in the mainlands of the country. Whatever side they were on during the civil rights movement, they lived here. The changes in the countries toward race was fought on all sides.
     Bill Clinton grew up poor, in the limelight of the civil right movement (little rock school integration). LBJ,JFK,Nixon, helped push civil rights forward. The military desegregation, Eisenhower.
     Black America was apox. 11% of the population in the 60's.The outrage felt in the country was made loud and clear. This was unacceptable treatment towards americans. There were more white american involved in the civil rights movement, than blacks. Whites also died along side blacks.
     When Obama was born, Hawaii was a new state. A tribal state. Hardly any blacks. In the 60's when the civil rights movement was in full force, he lived in Indonesia. While the country was in a civil revolution,he was not a part of it. His wife Michelle understands things, he never will.

     When he came to mainland America in the 80's. The country had changed. Children of all races were going to school together. Black families were sending there children to college.Living together in the same neighborhoods.

     By the 80's most blacks knew ;If you worked hard you could be whatever you wanted to be. When you look at TV all the blacks you see are 1st or 2nd generations from the 60's, this includes military leaders,CEO,doctors,lawyers at.. All are results from a civil revolution in the 60's.

     Obama benefited from the 60's, but he was not a part of it  


    wow (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:51:34 PM EST
    You can not say with any seriuosness that things were good for black Americans in the 1980s.

    I could get into the rest of it, but that one statement just proved to me it is so not worth it.

    And FYI, he visited Kenya/Europe/Indonesia in the 80s.  So unless you think he was really planning ahead, he was not in campaign mode at that time.


    Better than the 70's 60's 50'sect.... (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:51:05 PM EST
    In the 80's I was in my thirties. College was cheap. The majority of my friends had degree or was working on them.
     My husband worked for the phone company. I was a nurse. We made a decent living. We own our own home. Money in the bank.
     Our children went to a mixed school. They had friends of all races. Friends still today.
     We taught our children they could be whatever they wanted to be. Race was never and issue in our home. Or and excuse. They were raised as american.
     My grandson is 16yrs.old,he wants to go to Stanford(he changed from Harvard). He working really hard. He's also involved in ROTC. Received his sailing license this summer. He never could of had these dreams in the sixty's
     Racist are a small group of ignorant people. Who thrives on the misery of others.The only power they have is the power given to them.
      I hope you are not just talking white racist, because there just as many black racist.
      Race is used as an excuse for not accomplishing something. Instead of working harder.

    And he had strong friendships (none / 0) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:07:10 PM EST
    with a lot of foreign students when he was in college. And he was speaking out against apartheid in S. Africa when he was a college student.....
    Ignorance is bliss for a lot of opnionated people in this blog.

    until he was eleven (none / 0) (#43)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    living in a foreign country (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:22:25 PM EST
    when you are a kid, up to 11, will absolutely make a difference in your world view.

    Not to mention, he visited his family in Indonesia and Africa as well as an adult, and traveled to Europe.  I mean he might not have hit up south america, australia, or antarctica along the way but 4 out of 7 continents is nothing to sneeze at.

    I just find this a very interesting critique, since it's a) not true in any way, and b) half this country is barely convinced he's a U.S. citizen and you think he isn't worldly enough.  Gotta love the irony on that one.


    while he was campaigning (none / 0) (#55)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:30:17 PM EST
    No love of country? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    That seems like a BS statement to me. Not to mention some of your other weak bullet points.

    Hawaii is a melting pot (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    of all kinds of people......It is a great place to learn about respecting people of different backgrounds....

    G.W. Bush had education (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    Graduated from Yale and received his MBA from Harvard Business School.

    Education and good policy decisions are not always the same thing.  


    Obama was A Senior Lecturer (none / 0) (#46)
    by samsguy18 on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    It aggravates me how the media fabricated his resume. Becoming a professor at the University of Chicago takes a lot of work.

    His position was obvoiusly a political (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    appointment--a sinecure to help a rising political star.

    I do not love Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:06:36 PM EST
    But, please. Let's not descend into outright silliness.  

    I'm not saying he wasn't qualified to (none / 0) (#69)
    by observed on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:26:47 AM EST
    teach some law classes, but do you think his appointment had nothing to do with him being  a state Senator? That stretches credulity.
    Also, UC was very dodgy  in their explanation of the nature of his position---i.e., he was clearly NOT a professor in the usual sense, but during the campaign they released a statement saying he could have been a professor, IIRC.
    Poppycock. A man with no publication record at all could never have been a professor at UC.

    And btw, Obama is just not that bright. (none / 0) (#70)
    by observed on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:05:29 AM EST
    Sure, he's a smart guy, but his modest gifts have been overpraised to a nauseating degree.
    He's like one of those people who get hot in the lit field from time to time, who charms everyone with his brilliance in person, while leaving no impression of what  he actually said later.

    Conservatives always seem to know (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    how many ethnic minorities are in the room.  They keep score.

    And, yes, that was a creepy thing about Palin being uncomfortable in Hawaii....It boggles the mind.....Hawaii is among the most comfortable places--especially  on issues of ethnicity imo.


    As someone who has made similar arguments (none / 0) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    to yours in the past, I will point out that Mayor of a town of about 8,000 people is likely less experience then a State Senator in a major area. But yeah, those who always argued that Palin was not qualified based on experience for the Vice Presidency while Obama was clearly qualified for the Presidency always looked a bit silly.

    Obama served (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    one district, #13



    Disagree strongly (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:36:39 AM EST
    The main difference between being mayor of a town of 8,000 and mayor of one of say a few hundred thousand is in the number of professional staff you have to keep things going.  The issues you have to deal with have pretty much the same range and the same importance to the community you're in charge of.  (Being mayor of a huge city of a million or so is more like being a governor.)

    Being a state senator is an important job, but it's not executive, not even remotely.  It mainly requires a lotta politicking, a great deal of study of a wide range of issues (if you take the job seriously), and then having an opinion on them.

    An executive elected job requires a much more thoughtful balancing act.

    The problem with Palin is Palin, not the experience she's had.

    Same with Obama, IMO.


    But... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:27:41 PM EST
    For now, it (the election) is of no interest to me and I'm not going to pretend I care.

    I simply cannot ignore this tidbit from the campaign trail relayed by Maureen Dowd.

    Obama spent Tuesday here in Peosta squirreled away in rural economic forums; he said afterward that they talked about such things as cows grazing next to solar panels and "helping farms manage manure in creative ways."

    Creative management of manure.

    Electoral politics at its best.

    Maybe it's that Republicans have (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:54:50 PM EST
    choices - even if we think they're crazy - and we already know who the Democratic candidate will be - barring a primary challenge, which, as far as I'm concerned, is sorely needed.

    There is another differnce this year (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:05:57 PM EST
    The California Democratic Party just refused to renew the charter of the largest caucus in the party, the Progressive Caucus, after they passed a resolution calling for a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. link

    ugh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sj on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:11:57 AM EST
    And this is why I have stopped beating my head against the "reform the Democratic Party" wall.  At least this is overt and you can see it.  You better believe there is even more undermining going on in the background.

    Hmmm, was that a change in the rules (none / 0) (#10)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:21:06 PM EST

    The Republican race to the bottom (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:20:39 PM EST
    It's not just how quickly they get there, but how creatively they forge new depths of lunacy, and the jubilant pride they display their ignorance and insanity.  It's a craft with them, it really is.

    Sometimes I can watch with a kind of (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:29:35 PM EST
    awestruck amusement, but mostly it just depresses me to think of how many of my fellow citizens agree with the BS. I want to be open minded and accepting of my fellow man, but I just can't do it.

    It should get more interesting (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 05:08:16 AM EST
    the closer we get to an election campaign for the presidency offering a choice between a republican and a republican, again.

    There is not going to be a Democrat in the (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    general election either so I guess we will see you in 2016.

    digby on Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:23:54 AM EST
    "little woman" stump speech.

    I hate the family metaphor anyway, but this iteration of it -- arguing over whether the little woman gets to buy shoes and dresses or not --- takes the absurdity to a new level. Evidently the president thinks that these drastic cuts in discretionary spending --- most of which hit the most vulnerable people in the nation --- are comparable to a fashionista having to cut back on her trips to Bloomingdales. And worse, the problem with all this is when hubbie won't give up golfing in exchange.

    I think somebody's been watching a little too much Mad Men lately. (Or I Love Lucy.) Who talks this way in America today other than rich Beverly Hills throwbacks with a trophy wife and a bad divorce? And the president is bizarrely identifying himself with these rich people.

    On Obama's so called "balanced approach."

    Where to begin. First of all, once again, he's not actually talking about a "balanced approach." If he were he'd be proposing to tax the living h&ll out of corporations and wealthy individuals, not asking for some token tip money in exchange for cutting a big hole in the safety net. It's not "shared sacrifice" to ask wealthy people to give up money they will not even miss in exchange for asking 65 year olds to wait an additional two years before qualifying for Medicare. In some cases, that's going to be the difference between life and death.

    Digby (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    says it a lot better than I ever could. I agree 100% with her.

    He may have a law degree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by smott on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    But I guess he skipped that day on Constitutional law.

    He's basically wiped his butt with the Constitution when it's suited him, as Greenwald has so eloquently pointed out on numerous occasions.

    He was the lightest resume in 150 years to try for the WH.

    But, he was bright and shiny!

    He also (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    missed the class where they teach KISS (keep it simple stupid)

    I really dislike it (none / 0) (#49)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    when he takes that "lecturing" tone.  I want a President, not a high school principal, running this country.

    Me (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    too. He talks to people like they are children who need to be scolded.

    I think we're watching the freakshow (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:37:49 PM EST
    play out on the Republican side this time--with the encouragement of the useless media, of course.

    Freakshow... (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:35:42 PM EST
    is exactly what I was thinking.

    State election (none / 0) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    I have no interest in the Presidency and it all drags out for too long but I'll be interested once referendums and state candidates are prepped.  Many times I don't do my research until a few weeks before the election so it's easy to ignore.

    I'm with you J (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:12:48 PM EST
    The media coverage of the GOP for the next year is going to be unbearable.  One candidate is loonier than the next.  I'm tuning out the horse-race aspect of politics until the local races shape up.

    I see two interesting things (none / 0) (#19)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 11:53:53 PM EST
    to watch in this campaign.  One is the entry of Perry and how far to the right the GOP will venture in order to insist on ideological purity.  The other is whether O will decide to go bolder and stand stronger for traditional Dem values or whether he will continue along his preferred small ball path that blurs distinctions between the two parties.

    I will also be interested to track the parallels between 2012 and both 1964 when the GOP nominated its most conservative candidate in generations, and 1864 when the incumbent whom Obama often evokes in some respects seemed doomed to become a one term failure but who managed a late successful comeback owing to external events he himself was responsible for putting into place.

    It's also relevant to note that we're still only on the dog days of summer of the year preceding election year.  Way too soon to get either too depressed or too hyped about what is unfolding now.  And while I know O is pacing himself as to attacking the opposition, I recommend he pick up the pace on the jobs program front, else even an extremist and secessionist-sympathizer like Perry could beat him.

    Perry may be angling for VP slot (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:51:23 PM EST
    He got to be governor by fist being Lt. Governor.

    He is not stupid enough to think his winger mongering will play to Independents....

    He will secure the wingers.....He runs way behind Romney in trial heats versus Obama....The Republicans will nominate the one who does best in polls--that is what they have done before and I think they will do so again.

    By securing the Right Flank, Perry will make it impossible for Romney to pick anyone else as VP.....


    Nah, I think Perry's looking for the top spot (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    With the Tea Party in the ascendancy this cycle and with only the one term office holder moderate Mormon Mitt and backbench light bulb legislator Bachmann standing in his way, all against the backdrop of this bad economy, I can see why he wanted to jump in.

    And  it likely will be his nom to lose if only he can manage to stumble a little less often than his fellow stumblers and bumblers.

    VP would be the consolation prize only.  Bachmann however strikes me as someone probably angling for VP given that House members tend not to be strong contenders for a party nom but are traditionally chosen for Veep.


    Not so fast (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    Tea Party polls lower than Muslims and Atheists with American electorate.

    And this is a trend poll - not necessarily a snapshot poll. Of course, it's just one poll, but you know what?  The Republican leadership reads polls too.

    Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

    Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about -- lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like "atheists" and "Muslims." Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

    As an Agnostic (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    with Athiest parents and a Muslim sister - I really don't know how I feel about them being lumped in the "should be hated more" group.  I know that's not really what you're saying, but it's kind of what you're saying.

    The tea party should poll much lower.  Athiests and Muslims aren't trying to take over our political system with stupid policies.

    Here's the other problem with this poll - I think the Republican leadership is showing it's cracks with their ability to "control" the base.  At the end of the day it comes down to who shows up to vote.  And it's possible, although I'm not willing to say probable yet, that the tea party has that kind of influence in the Republican primary.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 04:18:15 PM EST
    they are saying they "should be hated" group, rather than what is "Don't like / don't know about / don't trust" - it's not necessarily a nice thing, but that's the reality of it.

    And I agree - Atheists and Muslims aren't trying to take over our political system with stupid policies (although some also believe that).

    I don't know if it's showing it's cracks - I think the Tea Party is playing a role for the Republicans right now.  They are whipping up interest and money, but the party leadership will pull in the reins at the appropriate time.  They too can always show the voters that the mainstream of the party is much more "real American" than the Tea Party.  

    And the Tea Partiers will fall in line behind the nominee - after all, they too, have "nowhere else to go."


    Fortunately for the TPers and xtian fundies (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    they are only being judged this round by a far narrower slice of the electorate -- those overwhelmingly Repub voters who bother to show up in their primary states and then probably only those voters of that group voting by Super Tuesday.

    I think after the somewhat distrusted McCain the rock ribbed conservatives of the GOP are going to insist that this is their turn to go up against Obama.


    McCain (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    was owed by the party.  It was "his turn" after the despicable things that were done to him by the Bush camp in 2000.

    I can't argue with you, J (none / 0) (#20)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:06:31 AM EST
    at this point the GOP race is meaningless.  Perry, supposed savior of the GOP primary, is getting in trouble with Rove for not taking the Fed seriously enough.  Rove vs. Perry.  That's an interesting matchup.  Maybe he's not the GOP's chosen one after all.  But what should Dems have to say about that (other than snickering)?  Apparently Perry has been neither willing nor advised to tone down his jack*ssedness.  When voting happens, things will change.  I wasn't glued to my seat vis-a-vis Dems in 2007 either.

    Just enjoy the rest of the summer, I say.  I for one like reading about your cookout recipes.

    Rove and all the Bushies (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:41:20 AM EST
    have a long-standing dislike of Perry, so I wouldn't take his criticism as indicative of anything.

    More interesting is that Rick Santorum has come down fairly hard on Perry for this, but he may just be trying to get somebody in the media to talk to him about something, anything.


    I grow increasingly critical (none / 0) (#68)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:11:39 PM EST
    of Obama by the day but I always find it amazing how so many commenters here, from 2008 forward, have allowed their hatred for Obama to rise to such predominance that they defend Palin as a legitimate political figure.

    There is no sane measure by which Sarah Palin is anything but "supremely unqualified" for the Presidency.  Good Lord.  Her blithe dismissal of half the country as "unAmerican" or "not real Americans" is enough to disqualify her. Qualifications means more than "experience." A helluva lot more.

    You (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 06:52:46 AM EST
    are confusing ideology with experience.

    Experience is a pretty clear cut thing.

    You are saying that she's not qualified based on ideology. That's different than using experience as a measure.


    I am saying both actually (none / 0) (#72)
    by glanton on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    I am not confusing experience with ideology.  I do think being a community organizer, in principle as well as practice, is very legitimate experience to have in public service, and I would hazard that community organizers such as Obama on balance do far more to help more people than Sarah Palin ever freakin dreamed of doing as Mayor or as Governor.

    I tire of this "executive experience" label, in large part, because overwhelmingly the people who fit that bill have proven themselves no more competent to do anything worthwhile in office than anyoen else.

    She was Mayor of Wasilla?  Who cares?  I grew up in a small town very like Wasilla.  i remember who the mayor was the whole time I grew up there.  What a joke to count it as some sort of hallowed "exectuvie experience."  I mean please.

    The Palin defense is a non starter by any rational measurement.  There is no measure by which she is more qualified to be President than Obama.  That some need this pointed out to them on this blog is sad.


    Sorry for the spelling errors. (none / 0) (#73)
    by glanton on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:09:22 PM EST
    Holding a baby while typing.