Which is okay, so long as she’s not getting Jesus all over everything.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Exactly. Wrong party for that.
I like Michelle Bachmann. But it is early in the race. I would frankly be more disturbed if Romney was leading there (and he is higher in the pols than Cain and T-Paw).
Didn’t Huckabee win the Iowa Caucuses last time around?
How’d that work out for him?
Good for her. I like her. She was on the forefront of the push back against out of control spending, which is what this election will almost certainly be about. My mom and I were discussing potential candidates- she seemed surprised I was good with a woman president but I told her, its about the right person for the office, as opposed to the gender (or color … ahem) of the person running. I don’t really have a preferred candidate right now – Bachman, Cain, Pawlenty, Palin, Perry- all viable in my mind.
Also, notice how practically every article about Romney in any of the more liberal newspapers calls him “Frontrunner” Mitt Romney? I’m sure there’s a portion of the press that knows Obama is likely hosed in 2012 and are angling for a republican candidate they can live with, like Romney.
If Romney doesn’t take Iowa or South Carolina (just assuming) we only need someone to sneak into the lead in New Hampshire and he’s looking at a far tougher path to the nomination.
Bachmann wins Iowa; Romney New Hampshire (of course). South Carolina will be a battle.
If Romney wins that we’ll see all the RobotRepublicans fall in line behind him, because that’s the way they’re programmed to roll – figuring him to be the Anointed Placeholder, to be handed the nomination because he’s been a good little Dole.
But this time there’s a Tea Party.
We might see temperatures reaching up into the higher, fondly, fahrenheits.
It’s July. When are the Iowa caucuses again?
Don’t make fun of us, Wolf. This is all some of us have… .
*Runs from room crying*
Then I shouldn’t point out the total lack of correlation between winning the Iowa caucuses and defeating a sitting president the following November, even assuming said Iowa winner even gets the nomination?
Sorry, my cranky feline. I’ll try to do better.
The truth is I don’t care about it that much, but I don’t like wasting a comedic opportunity, even a poor one.
Good for the breeder wife submissive of the ambiguously fabulous(!) husband.
confusio ad hostibus!
wow she’s definitely sitting pretty in the catbird seat there in Iowa
She can have my porn when she pries it from my cold, dead fingers.
oh. I’d missed about bachmann’s pledge to eradicate the pron [PDF]. Here’s that part…
oh. “children” = “innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy.” Ok that’s not loopy.
You have to wonder why Bachmann thinks banning the pron is such a high priority in jobless failshit America. It’s one of America’s most thrivingest exports.
I wish SBP would fix TrollHammer.
Michele also vowed never to let womens have a combat role cause of the enemy might capture them and fuck them with their penises
“oh. “children” = “innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy.” Ok that’s not loopy.”
yea every cupcake knows that the children come from cum splattered turds.
“never to let womens have a combat role cause of the enemy might capture them and fuck them with their penises”
yea because moe and his warriors never ever did such stuff
chump chump
oh. Right. These are nonchristian penises we’re talking about.
That’s probably Michele’s concern.
Republican Primaries new rules.
Obviously, ‘feets has his ideas on working in the various sex professions straight out of Pretty Woman.
winner take all contests suck ass why do they want to encourage that? I don’t understand.
winner take all contests suck ass why do they want to encourage that? I don’t understand.
Because winner take all is majoritarian. It promotes the formation of broad-based coalitions. At least compared to the alternative. Proportional delegation promotes fragmentation and special interest/identity politics pandering. The kind of thing your against –at least when it’s an interest or identity that you don’t suscribe to.
I don’t agree I think it only promotes broad-based coalitions if you happen to vote for the winner otherwise it just sucks ass
Then I guess you really don’t understand.
Think of parliamentary splits, ‘feets.
The Xs get 20% of the vote and the Ys get the rest of the plurality and that sudden and non-sensible coalition is suddenly the ruling party.
Whereas with us, there’s maybe two coalitions total. Maybe three tops for a short period.
no I don’t understand if Team R nominates another worthless coward like McCain a high delegate count isn’t gonna trick people into rallying-round-the-coward it’ll just give a terrific impetus to a third party
Think of that though. In that historically infrequent example, you’d still only have three groups. Which would probably quickly turn back into two groups with the upstart party either going away or taking over one of the two coalitions.
Now, compare that to the last funky Italian election.
bh I get that for one state but the primary season takes place over time and a big winner-takes-all person in early big states might very well implode by the time we get to the end
Yes, that’s problematic. You’re absolutely right.
But, when we entertain this new potential option, we need to entertain its conceivable problems.
I don’t know that its less worrisome.
Examples might be good? Did the McCain-Huckabee coalition in W.Va eat Romney alive in ’08? I think it did. To such an extent if I remember correctly that Giuliani who was going to push his people in Fl. towards Romney bailed in favor of McCain, cinching the deal for McC and effectively eliminating Romney from the rest of the primary season. Blech.
If delegates in ’08 had been awarded proportionally, you still would have been stuck with McCain, because Romney wasn’t about to throw his support to the guy who fucked him out of the nomination.
On the other hand, lifey doodles, christers, and godbotherers would wield a veto over the GOP nomination the same way that the NAGs and other assorted wymyns do over the Democrat. And you wouldn’t want that, would you?
I’d say the problem is less the nature of winner takes all state contests but the fact that some extremely idiosyncratic states come early and attract such attention.
This is and has been a major source of headaches to the likes of . . . well, me. But nuttin’s been done about it. We all are still tyrannized by the corn panderers. And the immigrants from Massachusetts and their various oddities.
sigh. That, my ignorant animated creature, is why the GOP is threatening to punish states who are tempted to front-load the schedule; diluting the impact of their primaries.
ok I’m convinced everyone should have their primary on the same day and done and done – besides Iowa is a creepy tard state you can tell cause of they keep electing Chuck Grassley and New Hampshire nobody ever even goes to
but whatever Team R will still fuck it up cause of they have a plethora of miserable candidates
Um, I think Fl. was the first “big” state on the list in ’08, if I remember right, and being winner take all, as I pointed out and presuming I have the history right, was effectively the end of Romney’s campaign. But Fl. wasn’t so much an early goer in ’08, as it was towards the beginning of the middle of the whole. Yet kablooey, Romney was done.
We all are still tyrannized by the corn panderers.
And who would tyrannize us if, say, Idaho and Missippi lead out?
This is a good question Ernst, one which I’m certain the professionals would be hard at work to calculate out, based more or less on their previous experiences in those states in the past, but with allowances figured in for the change in emphasis borne by the early go. So maybe, just maybe, switching things up season after season would throw tiny itsy-bitsy monkey wrenches into their works, who knows? Or, alternatively, not.
I’m going to go with the Big Potato and Big-I’m-Not-Sure-What’s-In-Missippi factions.
The Blues lobby?
here is a compelling new video inviting you to a stadium to pray with Rick Perry and his American Family Association friends for so Jesus will make the debt go away or something
Big Potato and Big Flood.
If we were smart, we’d ditch primaries and go back to a caucus-convention system.
Car parking will be $15 per vehicle.
Less direct democracy is always going to be ok with me, I’m afear’d. Cigar smoking corruptocrats look somehow appealing over against the clean-living folks that brought us Obama.
Surely we could do better than a system where farm subsidies and ethanol are basic electoral mandates though.
There will always be problems. I like the idea of screwing around with the various rent-seekers though so that they have to at least work a bit to find the sugar.
Lottery system? Same day?
I don’t know.
Honestly? I don’t disagree.
Stupid Wisconsin.
No problems with that around here. Just drive east to Lake Okeechobee, Moore Haven, Clewiston, Belle Glade, you can’t miss ’em.
when Rick Perry and the American family Association tell Jesus to get on the fucking stick things are gonna start happening very very quickly I bet
If I were to get my Lucius Cornelius Sulla on, I’d let Iowa and New Hampshire lead out in January as bellwethers. Then I’d divide the other 48 states into six regional primaries, and hold one regional primary every month between March and August. The order of the regional primaries would be determined at (semi-)random. First region would go last in the next cycle, no region could repeat as first until all regions had had a chance to go first.
As a cigar smoker, I take offense at that remark! And anyways, who says AFSCME, ACORN, SEIU and the rest are clean-living?
The cigar smokers in the back room were I think more cynical than corrupt. Outside of the big city machines, that is.
And the machines never went away. They just re-tooled.
Y’know feets, instead of trying to change the subject, maybe you should just shut up and try to learn something when you realize that you’re out of your depth.
hey Michele Bachmann was on The View today!
Death to the dictator, Sulla!
(Sorry, how often do I get to say that in a comment? It was my opportunity. I took it.)
‘Twarnt AFSCME, ACORN, etc. I was thinking of, but in any event the “clean-living” characterization was from their point of view, not mine. If anything, I’d describe them all as the most foul bunch of excuses of humanity to have lived in the last four hundred years, if not worse, given a bit longer to puzzle-pile the epithets.
Oh, and I’m one too, a cigar smoker that is. But again, we’re no-good-niks from the point of view of the directdemocracy gangs.
Mr. Schreiber if you want to maintain the establishment then winner take all primaries sound like a ducky way to go but if you’re rooting for an insurgent and your failshit little country is running out of time then maybe not so much.
Death to the (AFSCME, ACORN, SEIU) fasci!
(Yes, I’m seizing the day here. Feels good.)
Sulla’s my favorite dictator, bh. He’s the first (that I know of) who both surrendered power AND died in his sleep. That wouldn’t happen again for 2000 years (give or take a century).
What else feels good is a nice cold mint-julep, all crushedy-icedy. Sugar. Life. Mint. Bourbon. Glug.
Well, as a Bengals fan (just kidding), Ernst, I reserve that honor for Cincinnatus.
(I’m kidding towards Sulla and your usage, of course. Just fun to say “Death to the dictator!” because of the different common usages across time.)
speaking of things what supasseth happyfeet’s understanding here is an article looking at exactly how bumble’s rape of the strategic petroleum reserve is playing out
Just for historical fun, you’re referencing Washington as the next guy, right?
That’s really pretty cool. Far cooler than that whole cherry tree thing and the wooden teeth.
We should maybe mention that to school children once and awhile.
You have that exactly backwards. You’re problem is that you don’t like the existing establishment and want to replace it with one of your own devising. So I suggest you go and hang out with disaffected Democrats, because supplanting an old establishment with a new one is exactly what proportional representation got them.
On the other hand, if you want to defeat the blue-bloods and relegate them to the margins, then the way you do it is by crushing them in a winner-take-all system.
we’ll see how that plays out I guess
Sulla’s office, unlike Cinncinatus’s was extra-constitutional bh, so he was a dictator in the modern sense, i.e a tyrant.
And the next guy was Pinochet.
Here’s what we need to teach kids about George Washington.
1) Cincinnati is named after him, the second Cincinnatus.
2) It is said that, while in exile on St Helena, Napoleon used to remark incredulously, “they expected me to be another Washington.”
Ahhh.
Okay.
(And, that explains my mistaken Cincinnatus/Washington to Sulla/Pinochet problem as well. Which, the years didn’t add up anyways.)
It is always a little embarrassing when you run down the wrong path and accidentally equate Washington with Pinochet.
On the plus side, I’m pretty sure that’s the only time I’ve ever done that before.
isn’t this interesting Obama wants to start growing foozle in the places where deepwater oil might could be drilled
I like tasty fishes as much as anyone and I like aquaculture but still…
I don’t think you can trust these people.
I’m sure you remember, bh, that Washington was about to be invited by his fellow officers to become the original Napoleon (or Pinochet, what the hell) or be cast aside in favor of another, when he defused the nascent military coup by reminding them he become nearly blind in his country’s service.
Oh. One more thing about proportional representation: The reason we stuck with a front-loaded primary schedule is because of the many attempts by DEMOCRATS, to counteract the pernicious effects of their idiotic proportionality rules.
well that should make for an exciting electoral contest Mr. Ernst
I can’t wait to see who we pick!
Heh. Given my earlier confusion I’d say this is a very friendly way to introduce the fact.
Luckily, yes, I do believe I recall it.
Speaking of l’Établissement, it’s looking to me as though Dr. K is so incensed he may up a write a mid-week column the better to throw more inches of denouncement Obama’s way. Either that or throw a clot toward a stroke.
Let’s hope for the former.
How go the recalls bh? I haven’t gone in search of the news I confess, so choose the lazy man’s way out by asking.
we are stuck with a front-loaded primary schedule, not “we stuck with.” Because Democrats front-loaded it first and Republican more or less had to follow along out of a combination of convenience and logistical necessity on the part of the states.
Super Tuesday was originally an attempt by the Democrat parties in the southern states to prevent a looney liberal (or a northeasterner) from denying the nomination to a “moderate” or “centrist” Democrat, and avoid a repeat of the 1980 and 1984 shellackings.
I can’t remember now if it was Al Gore or Mikhail (stet) Dukakis who came out the better on the first Super Tuesday.
This cigar smoker will find it easy to finacially support & cast a ballot for Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Pawlenty- I just have to survive obamanomics in the short-term.
Think I’m predicting a split or something like it (±1), sdferr. Felt a bit better earlier but we missed getting on a winnable ballot and I’m not sure how the split election days will play.
Normally, we’d either pick the most viable rightward candidate who isn’t Mitt Romney, or we’d pick Romney because the rest of the field flopped, and it’s his turn. Normally that would mean, of the current batch, Pawlenty occupies the sweet spot; if the money’s there for him to outlast Cain/Bachmann/McCotter (sp?), that is. Paul isn’t viable and Huntsman is to the left of Romney. Palin, Christie or Perry could still get in it and out-compete Pawlenty for the sweet spot however.
On the other hand, this isn’t a normal cycle.
Okay, thanks for the fun and some education, guys.
Later.
As I dimly recollect the numbers situation, the Dems have to net three to tie? Or is it to get control of the Senate? But three, yes?
it doesn’t feel normal but I think Perry’s in in in or he wouldn’t be putting on his christerexploitationpalooza
Okay, this and then I have to hit the rack.
They pick up three and they’re the majority, 17-16.
The split I was talking about was just the net change, in case I wasn’t clear. I think it stays the same with equivalent new pick ups on each side or one side gains a single net seat (probably them at this point).
Yes, thanks bh. I was working my way through the 14D, 19R calculus and ended there. So, anyhow, for now, provisionally, no particular worries I guess.
If Perry’s in, then Perry becomes the focus of the anybody but Romney vote. Romney will need somebody to play Huckabee to his McCain if he’s going to do a Romney on Perry.
I know this is water way under the bridge, but I think New Hampshire’s open primary is more pernicious than Iowa’s King Corn Cauci. Not only should New Hampshire’s delegates be proportioned, but the actual returns should be weighted according to exit polls in order to alleviate the impact of mischevious “independents.”
Romney wants to be president something awful
Barry’s already got that covered.
Perhaps Romney could strive for “president merely mediocre”.
And if elected, that’s exactly the kind of president he would be.
For those here who are concerned about evangelical Christians I have one question:
What will cause you more professional and social harm –
(a) being accused of committing various blasphemies and sins, or
(b) being accused of racism, sexism, or homophobia?