On a lighter note, Stephen Colbert is shaking up things in his home state (again) by officially exploring a presidential run in South Carolina. He handed his super PAC over to Jon Stewart in this hilarious episode of The Colbert Nation to free him up for a run. It seems Colbert's main aim is to show how easy it is to exploit PACs and Super PACs, which David Axelrod estimated would spend as much as $500 million in ads against Obama this year.
Funny to see Palin come out in support of Gingrich, when the gal she worked so hard to get elected in SC, Nikki Haley, supports Romney,
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/palin-says-shed-vote-gingrich-sc-primary-031237152.html
I suppose this is the "Anyone Other than Romney" last stand.
I would vote for Colbert ; )
ReplyDeleteColbert lights things up on Morning Joe,
ReplyDeletehttp://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/stephen-colbert-talks-open-marriages-on-morning-joe.php
It is difficult to sort out the aftermath of South Carolina. You feel like yet another salvo has been fired in civil war with Newt once again thrust in front of the pack, perhaps the most divisive candidate of the lot.
ReplyDeleteThe primary seemed to turn on Mitt's aloofness, his refusal to release his tax returns, but a number of other factors seeped into this electoral upset, such as the religious bigotry that pervades the South.
Santorum would have been the more obvious alternative, given his fundamental views, but it seems like his Catholicism and Mitt's Mormonism were too much for these Bible thumpers to swallow. So, they go with a known adulterer who has no particular religious convictions, but has Southern roots.
If big government was the issue, Ron Paul would be the obvious choice, as his Libertarian views seem to square with that of the Tea Party, but he made the fatal flaw of questioning America's "Exceptionalism" in the debate, in a state that still prides itself on firing the first shot in the Civil War.
I don't imagine Newt has much staying power, nor is he on key ballots such as Virginia, and I don't imagine Republican big wigs will be pouring much money into his campaign, given he is loathed by the Republican hierarchy. But, here he is again front and center.
What an awful sight!
Newt's catholic now, too.
ReplyDeleteThe exit polls say it's "electability" that was the most important in the SC vote, and that a huge chunk of people made up their minds in the last few days (i.e., after the debates). They want someone who can humiliate Obama like Gingrich did to John King.
Seems like the right is as upset with the Obama administration as the left was with Bush. But I think there's a major distinction that drives votes for Gingrich. The left hated what GW did. The right hates what Obama _is_.
Plus, these are the same folks I would assume who attended Sarah Palin rallies. She would accuse Obama of "palling around with terrorists" to which they would shout back "lynch him!"
ReplyDeleteI actually wrote to the McCain campaign and complained. Not that I thought it would do any good, but to not do anything seemed to accept that sort of behavior and the results it potentially could bring.
"...Protests by Romans against the games were rare (Seneca, Letters 7.2-5), and complaints (at least by non-Christians) tended to focus on the low aspect of the entertainment rather than on the cruelty of the events. Far from being pitiful or horrifying, the image of an adult being thrown to the beasts was a reminder of an edifying entertainment. Roman scenes in different media show bloody attacks by lions and leopards against men propped up in the arms of animal-handlers, or tied to stakes in moveable carts. The image might have made a new, foreign slave wince as he cleaned the mosaic floor, and it might have caused him to think twice about running away. Nevertheless, it was clearly not intended to make those household slaves whose roles were well-established feel uncomfortably empathetic. Rather, it documented the brutal maintenance of social order and reinforced the solidarity of those who already belonged to that order...."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.archaeology.org/gladiators/arena.html
I suppose in their eyes, Newt humiliated John King, but he just came across as a pompous ass in those debates. Of course, Romney did too. I have no idea what drives this electorate. They seem confused and disoriented, turning each month to someone new, hoping that someone emerges to carry the conservative mantel the way they imagine Reagan did.
ReplyDeleteThey seem very poorly informed, voting against their own basic instinct when it comes to Newt, who represents everything they are supposedly against. He is the ultimate Washington insider, and I see Romney has sharpened his attacks in Florida.
Of course, it is a very poor choice of candidates. None of them seem to have much of a grip on current events, much less the economy, offering the same tired old bromides of campaigns past and painting Obama in the worst possible light, when in fact the economy is steadily improving.
You would think they would be saying that it was their 2010 electoral victories that spurred this turnaround, but instead they go on and on about how bad everything is, when most economists have stepped back from their earlier dire warnings of a second recession.
This is the world Fox News made. I fortunately missed the debate last night, but only because they didn't cover it in real time locally. I think I've heard enough.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, the Ryan Lizza piece in the New Yorker is making some news:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/01/the-summers-memo.html
What got me about Gingrich, was how he could come down so hard on John King (who gleefully reported the Republican House victories in 2010) when Newt was the one who led the impeachment hearings against Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Of course, he is playing to the audience, which he is very good at, but what a hypocrite!
ReplyDeletePS, thanks for the Summers memo.
There's a feature-length article by Lizza on the memos but I haven't read it yet. I just wish that the American public could/would read this sort of back story to understand how difficult the situation was in 2009. That's no excuse for not doing the too much rather than the not enough, but at least it would give some context for the situation.
ReplyDeleteOff to watch the state of the union, which from my limited perspective is still not very good.