That was fun. Seriously…we had a terrific turnout with lots of new faces last night at the Montlake Alehouse. And the contest itself was quite amusing. So here are the thoughts that I came away with.
- Mitt wins by the slimmest of margins—eight fucking votes! Eight votes!
- I couldn’t really hear Santorum’s victory speech. Based on how long it went on, I assume he was just filibustering or trying to put people to sleep before Mitt’s victory speech.
- My favorite (straight) MSM post-game quote (so far) comes from CBS, “Santorum pulled off a stunning come from behind performance in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses….”
- How much of a fucking loser must Mitt Romney feel like now? Four years of nearly continuous campaigning since the 2008 Iowa caucus…Mitt goes from 30,021 votes in 2008 down to 30,015 in 2012.
- In the mid-December debate open thread I wrote :
And how ’bout that Ron Paul at 18%!?! Most of the other nutberger candidates have had their fling with the pole position…Ron Paul should get his shot, too. And to top the whole thing off like a layer of creamy chocolate frosting, we should get Rick Santorum [the] next week.
So…the MSM meme that the Santorum surge was totally unexpected isn’t quite right.
- This is almost pathetically sad:
Michele Bachmann told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she’s staying in the presidential race as the only true conservative who can defeat the sitting president, despite a bleak showing in the Iowa caucuses.
This borders on delusional—Bachmann currently polls worse against Obama than even Rick Perry.
And either she was “misunderinforming” people or needed time to sober up or chat with God. Because this morning she surrenders.
- Rick Perry, either more sober or with God on speed dial, surrendered last night.
- The real winner last night: Barack Obama. Really, he won both caucuses.
More fun next Tuesday!
Bachmann Suspends Campaign
Add Michelle Bachmann to the list that includes Herman Cain (sans smoking ad — at least Cain was entertaining!). Bachmann announced at a press conference this morning that she’s ending her campaign for lack of voter interest in her candidacy.
If God told Michelle to run, why didn’t she get more votes? Isn’t God omnipotent? Or at least powerful enough to fix a small election in a small state?
“•Mitt wins by the slimmest of margins—eight fucking votes! Eight votes!”
Speaking of fixing elections, this smells an awful lot like Florida-2000 and Ohio-2004. I mean, it’s funny how the GOP insider candidate ends up with just enough votes to “win,” isn’t it? But should we be surprised by that?
Maybe Michelle’s poor showing is the big story here. She’s a lunatic, and Iowa’s close-to-the-earth Republican voters had enough sense not to vote for a lunatic; perhaps there’s a hidden meaning tucked away somewhere in there.
Bachman name checked Benjamin Franklin and “fighting for the founding father’s vision and their hatred of “socialism” and Obamacare.” (or words to that effect…)
Uhm…if you’re planning on making the claim that the founding fathers were against socialized medicine medicine, you probably shouldn’t go with the guy who founded the United States’ first taxpayer funded hospital for the poor. It’s now the U.Penn medical center.
Or have a staff member google Ben Franklin healthcare. Or maybe just not be an anti-intellectual who can’t be bothered to ponder the historical claims you’re making.
@2 Michelle Bachman (and all people who say “god told me…”) are insane. Clinically nuts. They think the creator of 5,881,237,277,166 galaxies (EACH with hundreds of millions to billions of star systems) wants THEM personally to be President because they’re SO important and no one else can ‘save us’? You’re either bat shit crazy, or just cynically trying to manipulate the dumbest of our population if you believe that.
Let ‘Em Sling Mud Dep’t
“Rep. Ron Paul said Wednesday that rival Newt Gingrich was a ‘chickenhawk’ for voting to send American troops into war while never having served in the military himself. Paul was responding to a question … about Gingrich’s assertion that the Texas congressman would be a ‘dangerous’ candidate.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....hpt=hp_bn3
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Bu-uhk bu-uhk-uhk! Don’t you love to watch Republicans eat each other? Fun-fun-fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsktNLgpCs8
@5 If Obama is a socialist, why did Wall Street pour hundreds of millions into his 2008 campaign? I thought those one-percenters didn’t like socialists?
Well, I’m not a socialist, I’m a dirty fucking capitalist! I own Lockheed, Chevron, and Peabody Coal stock! I figure as long as anti-environment corporate warmongers are running things, I might as well make money off them. Why should government-tit-sucking Iowa farmers get all the money?
Speaking of which, my Peabody Coal stock, which I bought on Friday and was up 9.5% yesterday, is up another 1/2% today, despite a slightly down market today.
I love rolling in dirty Republican money! After all, dirty Republican money spends just as good as clean Democratic money!
But this wingnut stupidity of calling Obama — a Wall Street lackey if re ever was one — a “socialist” is something I just don’t get. That’s silly. Of all the stupid shit that wingnuts have ever made up, that’s about the silliest.
“Santorum surge”
Hmm, there’s something rather disgusting about that word pairing.
@9 Not really worse than the news constantly talking about Santorum coming from behind” (go Google ‘santorum’)
@8 Keep in mind, the term “socialist” only applies if you do anything to help the average poor schmuck common citizen (us). If you shovel trillions at for-profit corporations to bail them out or prop them up (auto industry, TARP, S&Ls, oil subsidies, ag subsidies, etc) that’s called “capitalism” now a days. Tricky I know. ;-)
CNN says Perry is returning to Texas to “reassess” his campaign, which almost surely means that his poor showing in Iowa will force him to drop out, too.
It really is like the MSM is in on the Santorum joke as well as the pundits.
“Speaking of fixing elections, this smells an awful lot like Florida-2000 and Ohio-2004.”
Or like the election for governor here in WA back in 2004?
@2 That God wanted Bachmann to run, didn’t necessarily mean God intended for her to win.
So idiot Rabbbit, who claims to know how to smell, I mean spell, can’t even spell Bachmann’s name? And he wants us to believe his idiot claim that he knows more economics than we do?
Rabbbit is an idiot. A fecal moron. Let’s wipe him, flush him, and MoveOn.
Obama will win in 2012, but he’ll have to deal with a House of Representatives that’s run by the Reps and a Senate that’s about 50-50, Dems and Reps.
Not a bad outcome, when you think about it a bit.
I’d like to see whoever gets elected in 2012 (in whatever office) work toward ending the Afghan War and removing our military forces from all the countries around the world. That also means witdrawing from the war between the Israelis and Palestinians because it’s none of our business. Isreal isn’t one of our states, folks, and it’s time to treat them as such. It’s up to Israel to ensure whether or not Israel survives.
Also, let’s work on ending the War on Drugs and establishing a sane policy towards cannabis.
Idiot Rabbbit is the santorum surge we’ve been waiting for.
Gingrich’s speech last night was pretty scary. He’s practically got egg on his pants at the prospect of having an excuse to turn Iran into a sheet of radioactive glass. His stated reasoning was that “because some Muslims strap explosives on their bodies and kill themselves to blow up innocent people, then any Muslim with a nuclear weapon is sure to use it.” Newt’s a neocon through and through, as much a believer as Cheney and Rumsfeld in the beauty of endless war.
@18 I agree, crazy. There are over 1 BILLION Muslims. Pure random chance with that kind of number says there will be thousands are who fanatical or crazy. Just like the Christians have the KKK and Neo-Nazis, there are radical Jewish sects (MUCH smaller in number, not near as many Jews) and radical Hindu’s too (who have attacked Muslims in northern India). If most, no, if 10% of Muslims were evil and hated America, that’s 100,000,000. I think we’d all be dead by now.
“…the media appear to be in on the joke re santorum”
Which speaks volumes: It’s been the top Google result for about eight years now…
OH, another Santorum speech about protecting us from “gays wanting special rights”. As with most conservative beliefs, magical and the exact opposite of reality.
No, straight people have the special rights. Want an specific example? My partners boss from his last company was gay, he and his partner got married in Canada. If they were straight, they would automatically married in the U.S. too, but because they’re gay, they aren’t (special right for straights only). Further, his partner was a Swiss citizen who lived in the U.S. (on a work visa). But that got too difficult. If it was a straight marriage, the “spouse” would automatically be eligible to be a U.S. citizen too (special right for straights only), but because they’re gay, they’re just “friends” as far as the Feds are concerned. So it was either split up, or leave the country. So they left (moved to Buenos Aires now). Guess what happens if your partner’s name is on the mortgage and he dies and your state doesn’t have gay marriage or unions and you don’t have a will yet? The partners family can legally come in and take the house if they want, since the legal closest “surviving relative” is his parents, siblings, etc. Legally you’re just a “roommate” and have no legal standing as any kind of “relative”. If you’re straight, you inherit your spouses property if they die, even if no will (which many/most people don’t have), think of custody of children, same thing! Special straights only rights. If you’re gay, you’re just a “friend” not a legal relative. So I get SO tired of how gays want “special” rights. There are over 1,000 legal rights you get in the Federal government (many many more in state/city) that apply only to your spouse if you’re “legally” married. Not even bringing up power of attorney, medical decision making, hell you can’t even make funeral arrangements unless the state allows it or the funeral home is “nice” since you’re just legally “friends” and you can’t decide on things like burial vs cremation, only the “family” can. The nutbag religious crazies can go on about “gays want protection from firing” or something as special rights. I disagree with that, but even if you DO think that’s a special right, fine…it’s STILL 1,235 to 1 in terms of special rights for STRAIGHTS currently in the law. So until that’s 50/50, there is NO rational argument that gays are getting some special advantage.
Hmm, Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for quite a few years now, and they haven’t used theirs yet. And last I checked, they were a Muslim nation, weren’t they?
As a matter of fact, the only nation to use nuclear weapons to date remains to be the United States of America.
Re: Michelle Bachman’s “message from God”:
Those who think they hear from God should be careful. Often people only hear what they want to hear, and are therefore subject to deceiving spirits. From I Kings Chapter 22 (NIV):
An interesting article on how rural Iowa went for Frothy and Mittens took the urban vote.
So, Perry “won” by eight votes. At about $6,000 per vote, that’s the best $48,000 he ever invested, on an incremental basis.
But if we were to use the Bain Capital method of analyizing businesses, Romney’s campaign would be a “dog”, since it’s dropped slighly in value after considerable investment of time and resources over a four-year period. Additional investment doesn’t promise any better results. As an investing professional, Romney should cut his losses and get out, eschewing any emotional attachment to the investment.
Hmm… Rural counties accounted for 41 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses. So much for manly man from the heartland driving his big green tractor… He’s just as likely to an accountant for McGraw Hill or Maytag.
Santorum’s big advance in the polls came right after he received the public endorsement of a very influental Iowa Evangelical pastor. Although the board of his organization refused to make an endorsement, his personal endorsement moved Santorum from the low single-digits into the low 20’s almost overnight.
In an interview, this same pastor (who’s name escapes me at the moment) discussed some of the other candidates. I missed some of the discussion, but I remember his discussion of Gingrich, who was the temporary front-runner at the time. He said Gingrich had a lot of “baggage”, but he was willing to forgive him, but that he should repeat his “first works” again – serving in a church in a “service” capacity (i.e., not in a leadership position), and running for a lower office (such as the House of Rep.) and serving two or three terms without showing the ethics problems that characterized his earlier terms of office.
Of course, Gingrich isn’t going to do that. He’s about 68 right now, and he’s not going to wait another six years or more to run for President. Besides, he still doesn’t think he did anything wrong.
Repeating a comment I posted on an earlier thread:
Did I hear right that the total votes in the Iowa Republican Caucus were about 120,000????
We spent the last year listening to some seven Republican campaings cris-crossing the state, and network pundits all telling us how important Iowa is in choosing the next President????
The Romney campaing alone spent millions in Iowa just to pull off a tie, and I can’t even guess the total amount spent between all the campaigns and the TV, radio, and print media, not to mention pollsters.
Let’s face it – we’ve been duped by the people of Dubuque. This is all a scam by some savy Iowa con-artists who sat around the local diner one day, and said to themselves:
I wonder if Marcus Bachmann pines for Santorum’s santorum.
re 13: Can you spell ‘canard’? I knew you could!
re 16: I don’t see how the electoral scenario that you described would help move your agenda forward.
Boo-Fucking-Hoo
President Obama today made a recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new federal consumer protection action.
“‘This is a very grave decision by this heavy-handed, autocratic White House,’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. ‘Circumventing the Senate and tossing out decades of precedent to appoint an unaccountable czar to appease its liberal base is beneath the Office of the President.'”
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.co.....r-watchdog
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Oh, give it a rest, Orrin. Your Republican preznit did it all the time. Goose and gander, dude.
@32
What a pile of crap.
Republicans have been trying to block the implementation of the Congress-passed law creating the agency to protect consumers from rapacious banks and credit providers by refusing to confirm anyone to run it. It wouldn’t matter whether the nominee was Cordray or the Pope, they’re determined to shut the agency down, period. So Obama used a maneuver that was prolifically employed by his Republican predecessors; and now Repubicans — who had it coming — are crying like a bunch of fucking babies.
Michele Bachmann’s out!
@33 You said it. But Orrin did clarify one thing for us: Protecting consumers from rapacious banks and lenders makes you a “liberal” — and to Republicans like him, that’s a bad thing. Now you know who not to vote for, unless you’re a bankster or payday lender.
@15 “So idiot Rabbbit, who claims to know how to smell, I mean spell, can’t even spell Bachmann’s name?”
Wtf are you babbling about?
It appears the knee-jerk numbskull @15 is confusing me with another poster.
We need better trolls.
32
Nice to see the president grow some balls and give the fucking Rs a taste of their own medicine. Hopefully, more is on the way. In the meantime, Orrin Hatch can serve himself a steaming, heaping platter of go fuck yourself.
So… are there any Washington Republican leaning blogs covering the Republican primary? Or have they waved the white flag already?
Does the Washington State Republican Party give a sh*t about the nomination?
I mean, we know they suck and all, but how the f*ck does the WSRP explain its 2012 Presidential Straw Poll & Survey? Is there some Washington Republican contest to see which sucks more, the 2012 GOP Presidential field or WA Republicans?
MBS,
Appears the WSRP took down your link. Must have been damning.
@40 It isn’t just Orrin Hatch; all the GOP mouthpieces and affinity groups (e.g., U.S. Chamber of Commerce) are bleating about how awful this recess appointment is.
I hope the Dems are taping their denunciations and saving the tapes to use against them the next time a GOP preznit tries to make a recess appointment.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Obama Set To Dump Two-War Strategy
We’re about to get a test of how serious Republican budget hawks are about cutting spending and reducing deficits. The White House signaled today it’s seriously considering revising the Pentagon’s current strategy of being able to fight two major ground wars at the same time (e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan) to one ground war plus deter the other guys — essentially a one-and-a-half strategy. But weapons programs would be spared major cuts.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/.....?hpt=hp_t3
Roger Rabbit Commentary: You save gigantic bucks by reducing headcount in the military services — not only on current pay, but also on future military pensions, veterans benefits, and retiree/veteran health care.
I’m not a professional military strategist. I do study military history and strategy on an amateur level; and from that perspective, here are my thoughts.
The U.S. fought and won World War 2 with a low-tech conscript army that was raised, trained, and deployed on short notice. With today’s high-tech weaponry, the force in being is the force you’ll have to fight a war that may last only weeks or days. You simply won’t have the time to raise, train, and deploy the force you need once the conflict starts.
If this policy is based on the assumption that air power and high-tech weaponry can replace grunts with rifles, it’s probably misguided. After World War 2, the Russians spared no expense to build an armored army backed by substantial air and missile forces. When this strategy was finally tested in Afghanistan, they got their balls handed to them by a bunch of peasants armed with AK-47s and RPG-7s. The same thing happened to us in Vietnam. The “lessons learned” in both cases is that you can’t take and hold ground without ground troops.
In World War 2, the U.S. used air power to bomb Germany and Japan into rubble. It didn’t make them stop fighting. In fact, Germany’s war production peaked in 1944, at the height of the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The “lesson learned” is that you can’t bomb people into submission — it simply doesn’t work. Air power is an essential ingredient of a campaign against a conventional force, but is next to useless against irregulars, especially an urban guerilla force intermingled with a civilian population you’re trying to protect (or at least spare).
I don’t know if we really need to be able to fight two major ground wars simultaneously. There’s no Soviet Union left to invade western Europe. Who is China going to invade, Vietnam? If they do, let them have it — if they can take it. (The last time the Chinese tried this the Vietnamese won.) We didn’t really need to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time; Iraq was a recreational adventure. We’re not going to invade Cuba or Venezuela (at least, no Democratic president will; if someone like Bachmann gets into the White House, you probably don’t want her to have an army in the first place).
Which brings me to a certain tendency of human nature: People who have guns tend to want to shoot them; and people who have armies tend to want to use them. A smaller military might rein in those tendencies if we get another aggressive leader like Chumpface. (And, it goes without saying, aggressiveness, hubris, and stupidity are a bad combination in a commander in chief.)
I think I probably support this, as long as everyone understands that fancy airplanes costing $100 million each can’t do what an infantry division can do. You can bombard the shit out of a shithole country, but you can’t make a dent in their attitudes unless you have the means to capture and occupy their villages, and it takes boots on the ground to do that. Always has, always will.
This was GREAT!
Thom Hartmann: Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....squCopESig
Uploaded by TheBigPictureRT on Jan 4, 2012
Surging Republican candidate – and Internet meme – Rick Santorum added another radical position to his long list of radical positions. In an interview with ABC News yesterday – Santorum pushed back against a nearly fifty year old Supreme Court ruling – and said that states should have the right to arrest you for having or using a condom, even if you’re married and using it in your own home. That’s right – if Rick Santorum were dictator – he’d let states ban contaceptives.
No more condoms in Kentucky!
No more birth control in Alabama!
@45. that states should have the right to arrest you for having or using a condom,
And no more safe sex for gay men.
Course with Santorum as a frothy dictator, that would probably be the least of gay people’s problems.
@45 He’s just being practical. Hispanics eventually will be the majority unless something is done to stop whites from practicing birth control.
@44 So it appears what you’re saying, Roger, is that replacing soldiers with computers is even dumber than replacing teachers with computers–and I’m with you on that one.
However, the way WWII ended might leave room to argue another of your points. It’s certainly true that Germany didn’t truly give up until Hitler committed suicide with the allied forces literally yards from the entrance to his bunker. On the other hand, Japan gave up after Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed the perhaps even more horrendous firebombing of Tokyo. This was of course after their army was decimated and their navy destroyed, but it might be evidence that victory may be had via air power if it’s applied with sufficient brute force. The problem going forward is that if we reduce our ground forces to what might be sufficient for only a single campaign, it might provide even more of an incentive for some future President with a mindset like Cheney or Gingrich to decide to solve some “problem” by dropping a nuke or a huge amount of napalm on some country’s capitol. Maybe while gleefully listening to Randy Newman’s “Let’s Drop The Big One”…
# 45:
And the difference would be….?????
Santorum may have won