In the span of 24 hours, Mike Flynn, Dan McLaughlin (and much [of] the staff of RedState) and Ace all endorsed Rick Perry. Yet, Gov. Haley, Rep. Rohrabacher and other politicians endorsed Mitt Romney. Am I the only one who finds that curious?
And it begs the bigger questions – which endorsement is more important? The millions of dollars with the establishment, or the millions of followers with the bloggers?
This is an important question — various dismissals of its usefulness aside — because it begins, through its very posing, to address the trajectory and influence of an opinion matrix I pointed to yesterday (offending some with my use of the word “incestuous,” though it strikes me from my recent attendance at BlogCon that the networking that goes on there is intended to bring about just such relationships, which doesn’t make the relationships inherently bad — but does describe figuratively the way opinion is often disseminated through a hierarchy of sorts); that is to say, many of us talk openly about a GOP Establishment, whose messaging, as many have noted, has infiltrated a number of traditionally movement conservative outlets (both the Washington Examiner and the National Review, eg., have written editorials endorsing Mitt Romney, one of the least conservative candidates, while FOX News, the WSJ editorial writers, and The Weekly Standard joined John McCain to attack and ridicule TEA Party and movement conservatives who warned that a “compromise” on spending cuts and the debt ceiling debates would lead to credit downgrades, etc), but very few of us seem willing (or, if you prefer, interested enough) to talk about the way the opinion is galvanized, adopted, packaged, and then disseminated through new media outlets whose primary operations are entirely online and whose voices didn’t first appear in old media venues.
Raising the question, is there a conservative blogosphere equivalent of the GOP Establishment, and if so, what animates it, motivates it, allows it to operate and influence us, and in what ways?
I was mocked for raising the question yesterday — the mockery, ironically!, was packaged and sent in a Tweet to at least one “big” conservative name who hadn’t been a part of the earlier back and forth, making my point for me — but then, the mockery was itself designed to marginalize the larger points of my post, which I still maintain are worth discussing: namely, why is it that we continue to take counsel from new media outlets (and I’m speaking broadly and generally here) whose past advice has proven so shortsighted, or outright wrong? How is it that these outlets are able to maintain their influence? And what does that maintenance mean for a conservative movement?
As was the case with Joy McCann’s article yesterday, Katz sets his article up such that the GOP establishment is pitted against the big and influential conservative narrative being developed in the blogosphere:
Certainly, Flynn, McLaughlin and Ace can read polls. And certainly, Flynn, McLaughlin and Ace know the story on Perry – great at retail politics, but those debate performances can not be over looked. Perry took it on the chin regarding his decision to “force” HPV inoculations on young girls. His line about not having a “heart” regarding immigration still has conservatives in a state of apoplectic shock. His fading in the latter parts of debates brought fear to the base, and his 53 seconds of torture was quite literally torture for those watching, and fodder for the Obama camp in a general.
But when BigGovenment.com, RedState and Ace Of Spades HQ speak, people listen. Flynn, McLaughlin and Ace are not reactionary men, which can not be said for those politicos who back expediency and opportunity over conviction and substance.
[my emphasis]
First, let me say this: I don’t disagree with Katz’s assessment: when such well-trafficked and influential conservative sites band together (even if only coincidentally and independent of one another), they can naturally create a powerful narrative — in this case, the narrative intimated in Katz’s headline, “Politicos for Romney, Bloggers for Perry” — particularly once posts framing the narratives are widely linked and thereby reinforced.
Again, that this happens is not some loaded indictment of well-trafficked blogs and their influence in driving an opinion feedback loop; but I do think it worth exploring the ways of such memetics, because it is worth asking if we are being influenced more by the selection of the messenger than by the message itself — just as it is worth exploring how it is that those messengers who’ve in the past steered us wrong are able to maintain their outsized influence.
We’ve done this type of analysis ad nauseum with regard to legacy media players — from Brooks to Frum to Will to Noonan to Jen Rubin; and so it’s worth asking how much of the dynamic we’ve criticized as “establishment” or Beltway-insiderism we’re ignoring because it is happening (potentially) in “our” amateur space.
The proliferation of conferences and gatherings and organizations and mailing lists bringing together once largely isolated right-wing voices creates the conditions for its own kind of cliques. And while there is nothing about such gatherings that necessarily or intentionally creates a kind of hierarchical hive mind in the conservative new media, there is also no disputing that the conditions for such an inadvertent hive mind to develop exists, and can be quite alluring.
My position — and it’s been this way since the rise of Obama and the McCain postmortem — is that, just as we need to understand how it is the GOP Establishment is able to play kingmaker and convince the conservative base to dance to whatever election-season tunes it calls (they were caught off guard in 2010, and I believe much of their attention since then has been on simultaneously marginalizing and coopting the TEA Party), we need to examine how it is the Army of Davids has become regimented and, to a great extent, how the blogosphere itself (the word is so embarrassingly amateurish that it is generally spoken today only with knowing irony) has become a kind of pixelated, three-dimensional tournament of Stratego.
None of which makes me one of the most popular guys in the room. Still, I think the questions are worth asking, and the machinations of influence worth exploring.
Because frankly, there’s a reason we find ourselves where we do — having dismissed a number of candidates who represent our interests before a single vote is cast.
Discuss.
****
update: On Twitter, the discussion begins this way: “So attempting to rally consensus is to be condemned as ‘group think’? Really? I thought this was a primary.”
Something doesn’t cohere here.
Ernst
What you said.
Plus, what annoys me right now is what the hell is this rush to endorse anyone prior to even the first primary?
Is this now just Kabuki theater where those with the biggest audience (bloggers or Establishment) pick the candidate and everyone shuffles into the primary voting booth and follows the edict?
Back in the old days of Party conventions, it was smoke-filled backrooms that decided who would run. Now the process takes place in the [digital] lobby? With eCigarettes?
From my not-as-cozy-as-it-could-be seat in the hobbit sized bordello here in Dunland’s version of Agua Verde, the old world is passing away and the two towers of opportunism and pragmatism vying to cover the land in a new darkness. Who the hell wants to live with that? It’s time to get Angel.
Romney pretty much made Nikki Haley his bitch the old fashioned way
Who is “we”?
The people who kiss establishment ass get favorable nods from the establishment. That gets them notice, and the notice makes them seem influential. Look at the idiotic OWS — the press gives them hummers, and suddenly they’re the single most important political movement since Revere’s ride.
Their “influence” will stop the moment they stop kissing ass. I bet Insty has more — and wider — influence than Ass of Spades, but he doesn’t kiss ass, so he’s not given credit for it.
made Nikki Haley his bitch
oh sheesh, again with the misogyny. STFU
Here’s a Jamie Weinstein piece at Daily Caller addressing the Washington vs. non-Washington-voices-heard version of the Establishment question, In Search of the ‘Republican Establishment’, which goes to a slightly different but parallel set of questions influencing the blog’s arguments.
At one point Weinstein says “they’re talking past each other”, and while that appears to be right in a limited sense, doesn’t go the the central point, i.e., that coupled with a sloppiness or accident in the simple choice of naming — the Establishment — there are interests demanding the two parties to the dispute “talk past each other”. Those interests, and the questions they raise, are none other than the trace of the division over the central core of the political questions raised by the United States as such: will it be an exercise in self-government unique among the nations of the world, or will it be either a soft or hard tyranny of the sort commonplace in the annals of mankind?
It’s a slap-fight for advertising dollars. Who ever can convince the political consultants they’re “more influential” will rake in campaign bucks.
You’ve noticed that, too, Darleen?
[…] was it Katz? In any event, it can really be done. It’s done all the time, even if the cats turned out in retrespect to have […]
Joy wrote: “For, lo—all who oppose Michelle Bachmann necessarily didn’t support Sarah Palin. Including those who did.
“q.e.d.”
This was linked to my post. Not sure what it means. It’s quite cryptic — and it doesn’t really address what I was trying to get at. I don’t think.
Who knows at this point. We’re not to criticize other rightside bloggers, ever, and certain questions about what we do — inasmuch as they turn our attention to the brush strokes — are (by a certain consensus) not to be asked, and when asked, dismissed as naval gazing.
— Which is just another way of saying that what interests me may not interest others. And that I believe I’ve lost a great deal of my previous connection to the “right wing blogosphere,” such as it is.
I’m not a journalist. I believe I’ve even put that in all caps.
So it goes.
I like Joy, but I think she too quick to retreat to snark when substantive disagreements arise over things she doesn’t find substantive.
Jeff, try not let happen at your family get-together.
All of the above. And then some.
Deciding ‘who’ we are talking about is paramount. A regimented Army is no longer comprised of all Davids – ie. most have been demoted to sub-David level.
Which ties in with Crawford’s point that, at least for some, this has little to do with principle, and much more to do with eyeballs.
Which brings me to the question/point that what certainly must matter in this discussion is consideration of any given blog (or other pundit, really) and how they relate to their specific audience. Are they truly representative? Do their acts indicate any degree of responsiveness to their commenters. Which also brings up the entirely problematic issue of blogs that do not have comment, or that (presumably) large portion of the readership who do not comment much (if at all.)
Because without the proven ability to ‘bring the eyeballs’ what do most any of these people really have as a measure of authority or credibility?
I think hf has a misogyny plug-in just for you, Darleen.
God rest ye merry commenters let nothing you dismay!
What’s his name Slart, maybe we can send him a card?
Either that or he’s got the perpetual eggnog-wine buzz on. Hard to tell the difference, really.
How far has primary season become just another (and simple) opportunity to carry on that great human urge to gossip, as opposed to thinking about politics at a more generalized horizon, that is, in contradistinction to ginning disputations over individual personalities? It’s not for nothing that the scheme of the Declaration and Constitution didn’t come along two, three or four thousand years earlier: the abstract complexity of that circumstance is surely easier to abandon than to keep.
Last I checked, dollars don’t vote — not even when corporations get to, like, have speech and rights and stuff.
I figured it out. It means your a
sexistpolitical misandrist. And quite possibly an androphobe to bootWhat is really strange in this is that the most establishment of the Republican establishment set out in August of 2010 to attempt to make the primaries be a race that did not knock out candidates early but kept them all competitive well into at least April-May.
This was a reaction to the 2008 primaries which saw McCain getting 17% of the caucus vote and 47% of the primary vote but 66% of the delegates and the race seemingly being over before many if not most States had primary votes.
It might be that forces other than the establishment Republican are the ones truly pushing for an early, even pre-vote, end to the primary race.
Comments like yours are invariably met with “you think you’re better than us?” barbs, sdferr.
Trust me.
My prediction is that you will be further marginalized for daring to raise the question, which is inherently ironic.
I think the biggest danger for an “opinion leader” is starting to believe in your own bullshit. I’m not saying that’s happening anywhere now with any of the leading bloggers, I’m saying it’s a concern borne of human frailties.
I think the blogosphere is no longer independent for a lot of the big players. There is too much at stake for them defend people like, for instance, Herman Cain, who was marginalized purely on the basis of accusations of impropriety.
I tend to discount their political opinions these days, since they seem to mostly be a reflection of the GOP statist position.
Well, maybe, ‘cept to the extent I’m constantly demonstrating I aren’t, which tends to take that question off the table before it’s even asked.
And too, I shouldn’t want to appear to fault people generally for following human nature anyhow, since human nature, I have to admit, and admit cheerfully, contains many aspects, not all of which can possibly command any given human being all at one and the same time.
I tend to discount their current positions (as with the Cain hit jobs) because they run strongly counter to their historical positions.
Flexible is one thing, fungible is another.
What makes you think that it was ever anything but?
I guess something like a vague awareness that Americans would stand and listen to the likes of Lincoln and Douglas for hours on end Ernst, even if only as a form of local entertainment in lieu of other forms. Politics, it seems, was a thing once upon a time.
Mass communication and marketing are where it is at doncha know. It’s all about how it makes you feel about yourself.
Politics was kinda like the parlor piano in that sense wasn’t it? Stuff people did for themselves when there weren’t ready to hand musics to put on the turntable, or slip into the CD box? Or leftist’s reasonings to take down off the University shelf?
Still is a thing, sdferr. How high or low a thing depends on where you (and it) stand in relation to the gutter. Sometimes politics is as high as the curb, and sometimes it’s as low as the sewer.
From standing on a soap box to being packaged inside one.
OT: but heavy suitcase lifts with the opposite hand free — using a ring as the handle — are really good strength-training exercises. Really have to keep your entire core tight to do them right.
I hold for time.
Now. Back to you all!
One aside staring at the latest poll numbers, Mitt Romney doesn’t have to win, he only has to not lose. In a brokered convention the establishment will get whomever it wants.
Charles that is probably one of the aspects I find most maddening about the whole fiasco. Romney has been playing at nothing more than not losing for the whole damn time. Had he ever displayed the least bit of aggressive, positive campaigning he could probably have already picked up enough strays from the other camps (Cain, Gingrich, Perry, etc.) to get his numbers sufficiently above 30% so as to make himself truly mister inevitable.
Not that that would have in any way made me happy, but at least we wouldn’t have this particular type and level of ongoing fratricide.
He knows this, but her also knew he did not need to take any chances, with the establishment around to see him through.
Hence my desire to see him shot down in flames, and the roof pulled down on the establishment.
As someone who is not on your side, I don’t see any way that you guys are getting anyone except Romney at this point. Newt Gingrich seems to have been defeated by the fact that people remembered that he was Newt Gingrich. I think Newt’s original plan was to run using the name “Newman Granger” while wearing glasses and a fake mustache, but he was found out early on by the liberal media. Perry could have had it in a cake walk if he hasn’t botched it so badly. Your best bet would of course have been Christie-Palin, but they just didn’t want it bad enough and you can’t want it for them. As for poor Herman Cain, he won’t even get the VP slot now.
FTFY.
Friends, lovers, and allies will lie to you. Only your enemies will deign to tell you the truth.
The only reason I do posts like this is because I’m all pissy that Ace gets linked. I know this because that’s what I’ve been told. All my talk about memetics and “narrative” is “just dressing.”
They’ve found me out. I feel so exposed.
I sorta figured the long time period where your blog only said you’ve gone fishing would have been a tip off the other way.
Or the time you had no problem with me making rather unpopular “Dennett is a super awesome atheist” posts. Or the fact that this happened when I was a 200 visitor a day ex-blogger being invited here to post alongside some big names just because you personally got a kick out of my stuff.
Or the fact that… ehhh, forget it. It’s either as clear as day or somehow not.
Enemies will only tell you that which will move your thoughts and actions in the direction they want them to go. Their words are never designed to help you, they are to help them destroy you. That is why they are called enemies not friends.
“As someone who is not on your side”
damn you national review
The only reason I do posts like this is because I’m all pissy that Ace gets linked. I know this because that’s what I’ve been told. All my talk about memetics and “narrative” is “just dressing.”
Nevermind all that talk about “intent”.
I mean, why pay any attention whatsoever to your clearly stated (and exhaustively reiterated) reasons for posts like these. What the hell do you know of your own damned intent, Mister Utterer? They’ll decide what you actually mean, thank you very much!
—
With an idiotic Right like we’ve got, the Left has already won the only battle that matters. Everything else is just window-dressing.
—
Growing up, I always wanted to be Spock. Later in life, I chose conservatism as the closest thing to my ideal of reason-based Enlightenment politics of the Founders (hadn’t heard the term “classical liberal” yet). Completely rejected the emotional “think of the children!”-style politics of the Left.
You can imagine my annoyance and disillusionment to discover that the Conservative New Media is (largely) little more than a cliqueish, gossipy gaggle of high-school girls, doing exactly the same MSM bullshit “let’s take a statement out of context and then beat the hell out of our newly created strawman” hit pieces about everyone who isn’t “their guy”.
At least on the topic of the GOP race, I don’t trust the people on “our side” any more than I’d trust the NYT or the WaPo, at this stage.
[…] — as Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack calls it, “clearing the browser tabs.”Jeff Goldstein has a long post in which he talks about “offending some with my use of the word ‘incestuous’ [to […]
Enemies will only tell you that which will move your thoughts and actions in the direction they want them to go. Their words are never designed to help you, they are to help them destroy you. That is why they are called enemies not friends.
Well, then let’s probe a little. What did I say precisely? Romney is the most likely candidate. Perry and Cain are out. Christie and Palin would have been a stronger ticket. I’m merely pointing out what your side already knows. What direction am i trying to “move” you in, GeoffB? To support Romney? To not support Romney? You can do either one you want, because I don’t think that any of the Republicans left standing can beat Obama in 2012.
I’ve seen people here claiming that if Romney is the nominee, they’ll write in Palin’s name or vote third-party. As your enemy, i honestly recommend not doing that. Hold your nose and vote for Mittens.
#48, Res ipsa loquitur.
And, quod erat demonstrandum.
Thus becoming my enemies.
“It is an approved maxim in war, never to do what the enemy wishes you to do, for this reason alone, that he desires it.”
Napoleon, of course, cribbed the underlying principle from Sun Tzu.
So, Mr. McGehee — in November, if your choices are Obama-D, Romney-R, or to vote third-party, you will refuse to vote for Romney because i suggested it? Go right ahead, my man. Go right ahead. I’m fine with that. Just fine.
I will refuse to vote for Romney because it’s what I decided to do before you first poked your pointy little head in here.
Now put it up your ass again, where it’s obviously more comfortable.
…not that I desire you to do that, of course.
Ryan. You want four more years of Obama?
You really are quite insane.
This isn’t about my side and your side anymore. It’s not about repubes verses derats. It’s about individual sovereignty, free markets, and inalienable rights verses sovereignty over the individual, and sprinting down the road to fascism.
Romney is really little different than Obama when you look from that perspective.
Man, the doom and gloom around here is pretty overwhelming ever since Christie, Palin, and Cain took themselves out of the running. Any discussion of the question “will you vote for Romney or Gingrich?” ends up with a lot of “Both! Neither! Screw you for asking! What are you implying, sir? There’s no hope anymore! Fascism! The sun will never rise again!” Settle down, you guys. I’m going to let you in on a little secret — neither Christie, nor Cain, nor Palin could have turned this country in the direction you want it to go.
“I’m going to let you in on a little secret — neither Christie, nor Cain, nor Palin could have turned this country in the direction you want it to go.”
That’s no secret, and you’re probably right.
However they at least would have tried(though I don’t think anyone here is a big Christie fan).
Now there is no one willing to do even that.
No reason for gloom though, right?
RyanPorkchops sure is useful for telling us things we knew before he was born.
What was said: As someone who is not on your side, I don’t see any way that you guys are getting anyone except Romney at this point.
What was said shortly thereafter: Well, then let’s probe a little. What did I say precisely? Romney is the most likely candidate.
Precisely? That’s what you call a precise description of the comment you left just a few hours earlier? That’s not just imprecise — it’s a lie, and you’re a liar. You didn’t say Romney was most likely; you said he was inevitable. You added your voice to the chorus of voices on the Left and the Establishment Right, saying that we really have no choice but to bend over and let the Establishment continue banging away on us.
You are not merely a liar and a propagandist for my enemies — you are a clumsy liar and an inept propagandist. And while I appreciate your willingness to run your idiocy up the flagpole for all to see, making your allies look foolish by association, I can’t help but be a little bit insulted that you believe we don’t all see right through you.
Go back to class, and come back when you have something to offer. I’m always up for a good challenge in rhetoric, but I’m afraid you fall well short. Maybe put “develop competent rhetorical skills” could go on your list of resolutions for 2012. Maybe study some basic economics while you’re at it.
We’re in a runaway bus heading for a cliff at 80 mph. A third of the passengers think everything’s fine, because the driver and his buddies have told them as much. Another third of the passengers want to put their leader in the driver’s seat, promising that he’ll set the cruise control for 70. The remainder of us are busy tearing each other to shreds, fighter over whether it’s better to turn to wheel, or just slam on the brakes.
Me? I’m in the back, trying to get the emergency door open so I can get the hell out of here.
That’s going to leave a mark.
There’s that word again. RyanHamhocks has bought into His Inevitableness’s inevitableness what is inevitable.
It worked so well for Hillary in 2008, too.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. – Voltaire
“We’re in a runaway bus heading for a cliff at 80 mph.”
Keanu Reeves/Sandra Bullock 2012!!
Keanu: “Woah!”
Squid,
What is this emergency door you speak of? Moving to Canada?
I’m no liar, you’re just splitting the thinnest of hairs. Romney is inevitable, Romney is most likely, I don’t believe, personally, that anyone will beat Romney for the Republican nomination given the way the field looks now. They’re separated by mere degrees, so you can take your pick. For you to come in an bluster that there’s some massive difference between me being 90% certain and 100% certain is some smoking gun of malfeasance or deception is pretty laughable.
Rather than hurling insults, I would challenge you to outline, in the plainest of terms, a scenario in which a non-Romney candidate can win the nomination. (Barring any sudden sudden scandals or heart attacks.) I will concede that Newt Gingrich has a slight chance — maybe 20% at best. Ron Paul will not win. Perry and Bachmann are longshots, but still technically possible. But Romney is clearly in the pole position. You can say that “no one has cast any votes yet,” and while that is true, fundraising dollars, endorsements, and poll numbers are the best we have at this point. No one else is entering the race at this point.
So, go ahead. Outline the scenario you think will happen, or at the very least, the scenario that you want to happen in the next six months, if the winds happen to blow entirely in your favor. Make me feel it.
Piss off, BaconRind. Go make your demands of people stupid enough to value your opinion.
That’s a crime in most states. Besides, I don’t know where your hand’s been.
I don’t see any way that you guys are getting anyone except Romney at this point.
Those are your exact words. I think it’s quite fair to translate them as “I think Romney is inevitable.” I’ll grant that you couched it in terms of your perspective, rather than as an objective fact, but I’ll let you split hairs in that regard.
Rather than hurling insults, I would challenge you to outline, in the plainest of terms, a scenario in which a non-Romney candidate can win the nomination.
Bachmann’s focus on her ground game in Iowa, coupled with her being a native Iowan, leads her to do surprisingly well in the primary. This reignites enthusiasm in her campaign, as other clear-headed classical liberals realize that they’re not alone in wanting somebody outside the establishment, and that the press and the GOP have been lying for months with their assertions that Mittenz is The Only Choice. Romney gets 40-45% of the delegates (representing the Old Guard who desperately want to retain power), and Bachmann emerges with the nomination after a drawn-out, acrimonious convention that will be described on every channel as representing the implosion of the GOP.
I assure you that for as little as you value my assertions above, it’s still more than I value your assertions upthread.
Moving to Canada?
Rural Wisconsin, actually. If you’re looking for a community that can support itself and function without Washington holding its hand, you could do a lot worse than the US 8/US 53 area. St. Paul, on the other hand, will be in flames. We’ve seen the future, and it is the Occupiers.
[*]
That’s a very useful comment you’ve got there, geoff. The race pretty much can’t be decided before the end of April, but that’s not going to stop all manner of people from pushing the “well, the race is all-but-over, now it’s time for everyone to come together and support (whomever). Team GOP!” by the end of January. *
Something to bear in mind.
—
* Hell, there’s no shortage of people saying as much now.
The race won’t really be over until the MSM goes from daily stories about the inevitability of a Romney nomination to daily stories about the unsuitability of Romney. And yet the Charlie Browns of the GOP insist that the MSM will surely let them kick the football this time.
I don’t think they’ll do the big Narrative Switch until, oh, 30 seconds after Romney’s acceptance speech at the convention. Wouldn’t want to “give it away” whilst the GOP could still do something about it.
Not that the “my god, Romney’s worse than Hitler” stories will prove to be any surprise to a sentient being, and not that the GOP would do anything differently even if they ‘knew’ Mitt will be destroyed by the MSM in the general.
I’m convinced that the GOP is deliberately planning to lose this election, so as not to be the ones left holding the bag when the shit and the fan do that thing they do… I don’t see any way that doesn’t happen during the next term.
Hence their insistence on nominating a guy that even Republicans don’t want to vote for. A guy who has a popular winning issue (repeal O’care) available, and takes it off the table.
@71
link
i note this:
link
link
followed
link
Squid,
Now that is a good scenario. Bachmann would, of course, lose to Obama in a landslide, but that’s hardly my concern. So it looks like your finalists are Romney, Gingrich, and Bachmann. This is going to be fun to watch.
You also have to watch for Ron Paul possibly acting as a spoiler with a third-party run. He’s been building a much larger ground game than last time, and he might want to put it to good use.
“Bachmann would, of course, lose to Obama in a landslide”
why would a gop 1st woman candidate lose to the scoamf 1st incumbent elected black candidate? go ahead and try that.
Hmmmm. That’s a stumper. First off, because the vast majority of normal, real Americans tend to view Bachmann with skepticism or suspicion. She doesn’t have a terrific legislative record, and is well-known for suicidal ideological stands, the most recent of which is “let’s just have the US default on its debt to see what happens.” And then there is her habit of spewing falsehoods about vaccines and such. She’s also overly religious and hostile towards gay people. On top of everything else, her crazy-eyed appearance and shrill voice turn a lot of people off, as does her *ahem* husband. Let’s just say that he doesn’t exactly cut a masculine figure. She only appeals to the 20% of the country who is hard right, but polls very poorly with everyone else. People on the far right don’t have the ability to comprehend that their fringe candidates have limited appeal with normal folk. Me, I like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank, but I don’t suffer the delusion that they could defeat a mainstream Republican like a Romney or a Bush — just as I love obscure horror films but realize that my family at large doesn’t want to sit down and watch one over Christmas.
I don’t think that she’ll get the nomination, but if she does, she will lose to Obama. Now that i will classify as “inevitable, 100% certain.”
“First off, because the vast majority of normal, real Americans tend to view Bachmann with skepticism or suspicion.”
says you
“the most recent of which is “let’s just have the US default on its debt to see what happens.” ”
citation needed.
“And then there is her habit of spewing falsehoods about vaccines and such”
yea she could be demonrat.
“. People on the far right don’t have the ability to comprehend that their fringe candidates have limited appeal with normal folk. Me, I like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank”
thank allan idiots out themselves. oh and merry christmas darling
“On top of everything else, her crazy-eyed appearance and shrill voice turn a lot of people off, as does her *ahem* husband. ”
yea fat ass michelle with 2 ll has a big butt
RyanBacon, how are you defining “normal people”?
Just about everyone will define themselves as a “normal person”, but they can point to others who are “abnormal” and those people are in turn pointing right back at them as the “abnormal” people.
I find it amusing when people call the GOP anti-gay when the majority of GOP candidates hold the same views towards gay marriage as does Obama.
link
RyanBacon, how are you defining “normal people”?
People who are neither Communists nor Teabaggers. You know, Joe Sixpack and Eddie Punchclock, and Soccer Mom Sue, the kind of good old folk that Palin liked to talk about.
Everyman then? I’ll go along with that.
“RyanBacon, how are you defining “normal people”?
People who are neither Communists nor Teabaggers”
that is the choice idiot.
additionally bacon ain’t kosher in islam. allan ackbar dude.
“Communists nor Teabaggers. You know, Joe Sixpack and Eddie Punchclock, and Soccer Mom Sue, the kind of good old folk that Palin liked to talk about.”
so much stupid so little interest.
That’s pretty harsh, nr.
And bacon is by definition not kosher.
link
you know the idiot arabs used to do the spice monopoly. we go around it. time to go around their energy gig. just saying.
effin idiot
Romney on ‘O’Reilly’: Obama is not a socialist
no commie mfer ahole
Here is a story for Ryan.
Enjoy!
“People who are neither Communists nor Teabaggers.”
eff moron idiots. nice underwear.
hey glenn beck your underwear stinks. go stuff it.
seriously @glennbeck hunstsman/romney ain’t george washington nor fred sanford.
People on the far right don’t have the ability to comprehend that their fringe candidates have limited appeal with normal folk.
I’m guessing Ryan doesn’t have any mirrors in his house.
you know who doesn’t have mirrors is vampires
Please don’t run this
idiotguy off. His insights are quiteentertainingenlightening.Well, apart from Mr. Squid’s Bachmann-from-behind scenario, I’m not hearing many other avenues for a non-Romney to get the nomination. If Bachmann is your Plan Z at this point, we’ll just have to wait a few months and see how that all pans out. My prediction? Romney beats Bachmann soundly. Time will tell which one of us is right.
And ‘feets — shhh! Don’t tell them I’m a vampire. The meat isn’t supposed to know.
Wow, you’re a real riverboat gambler, predicting Romney!
Buzz off. You’re tiresome and you haven’t said a single thing that is remotely interesting. Ever.
I admit that Romney isn’t terribly interesting, but it’s like looking at a roulette wheel with 36 black numbers and maybe 2 red ones. The safe money is on black. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Romney any more than you do. After all, he has the best chance of defeating Obama. I was much happier when it looked like Cain or Gingrich had a real shot. I sort of knew that Cain was doomed, but I had some high hopes for Gingrich, which are sadly slipping away before our very eyes.
Meanwhile Trump looks to go third party.
layers within layers
I would be more worried about Ron Paul or Sarah Palin running on a third-party ticket. Trump is a sideshow, but a Paul or Palin bid would basically hand it to Obama. He could spend the entire campaign season drinking beer in his boxer shorts and still win. You know, statistically.
Judging by Trumps political associates in this exploratory third party gambit, it’s an Obama Operation anyway.
No kidding, BT.
What will save Obama’s bacon is if his buddies at SEIU can hire up all the owwies at basically the same amount they would get on the unemployment roles paid for by mystery grants and SuperPAC funding and that lowers unemployment to about 7.5 % I hear they are hiring.
Wouldn’t that be something.
“And [yaleelifoot] — shhh!”
What else is new? An NBC employee gaming the GOP primary? It’s always seemed obvious to me.
I am so loved that I even get hate mail on Xmas eve from conservative libertarian bloggers who’ve been around as long as I have. That it was based on his misunderstanding matters little; why bother writing me with your concerns when you can just drop a note telling me to fuck off without giving me the benefit of the doubt?
It’s glorious, I tell you! — to be hated by both the blogging founders and the new conservative feedback loop who controls much of the narrative of contemporary conservatism that’s found its way into the mainstream press.
Not to mention, it takes a certain amount of skill to pull off. Which I evidently have.
I’m quite bitchin’.
that’s not very chrsitmassy
*christmassy* I mean
No, it isn’t.
10 years was a good run I think.
20 would be even better … it took like 25 before they let madonna play at the superbowl and it took almost 50 years before Mr. Tolkien got to see a decent movie made out of his books, except for him being dead and all, and it took like 230 some odd years for our little country to run aground on an unforgiving shoal of debt and fail
I’ve been having a wonderful time with a family that loves me, completely divorced from online interaction. On Thursday, I saw ultrasound pictures of my second son (we hadn’t know the baby’s sex until this week) — and I got to watch my first boy find out he’s going to be a big brother to a little baby brother. It was awesome.
And yet now I’m up on Xmas eve stewing because somebody misread something I wrote days ago and emailed me a bit of nastiness in response — a guy who after reading me for nearly 10 years not only couldn’t find it in himself to give me the benefit of the doubt but who decided that Christmas Eve was the time to take some shots at me.
I think I’ve found perspective.
little brothers are pretty awesome
Woke to an apology. Feel much better. All a silly misunderstanding/
[…] mentality of the big boys and girls attempting to force their will on lesser blockers. This didn’t go over well with others, especially Ace who debated the matter with Goldstein on Twitter and Joy McCann. Which is […]