February 28, 2007
— Ace Who could have seen this coming?
Well, pretty much everyone except for Washinton pundits with a weekly deadline to meet who decided to pretend that Barack Obama might not be "black" enough for black voters, and so couldn't necessarily count on their support.
Not black enough? Well, he's no Wesley "Always bet on black" Snipes, I admit, but he does seem blacker than, say, Dennis Kucinich.
Please. Was there ever any real doubt? Sure, blacks seem more attached to Hillary! in the early going -- she having been married to the first Black president and all -- but come on.
This is Hillary's problem, as many have noted. Her success depended almost entirely upon her perceived inevitability, and the idea (a quite crackpot one) that she was the most "electable" Democrat out there.
That notion would seem to conflate name recognition with electability. Her positive/negative differential was, is, and always shall be woeful. Even indendents don't like her -- they don't know much, but they know they don't like her.
So along comes this Obama guy. The media gushes. He seems, at first blush, like a normal kind of guy. Even I have trouble objecting to him on a purely gut-level, do-I-like-this-guy-or-hate-this-guy sort of way. He has no obvious weird psychological defects like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary!
And two major constituencies are going for him -- blacks and Hollywood -- and suddenly Hillary! isn't looking so inevitable as she once did.
And without Hillary's inEVITAbility, what is she? A stuffed suit -- well, a stuffed pantsuit, more accurately -- and nothing more. Not even her supporters actually like her. The left despises her, the liberal establishment disdains her, the center is creeped out by her, and the right loathes her (but, truly, our opinion hardly matters as far as the Dem nomination goes).
Without inEVITAbility, what, precisely, does Hillary! have going for her? A winning personality? Charm? A melodious, pleasant voice and inspiring speaking style? An interesting, innovative policy platform? "Maverick" positions that interest goo-goos (good government types)?
A real promise of healing this nation's partisan rifts?
So what does she have in her favor, then? What other than the gratitude Democrats have for her being a good little enabler and "standing by her man" during the Impeachment Wars?
Yes, she has the money; she has most of the big players in the Democratic permanent political establishment on her team. But what's gotten her that?
Only her inEVITAbility. What happens when she's no longer perceived as inEVITAble?
InEVITAbility only takes one so far. Basically, it takes you all the way to the point where people realize you're not inEVITAble. And then the ride stops abruptly.
I think she's toast; and I think that's too bad, because I consider her a much easier opponent than Barack Obama, who I think is now the actual frontrunner in the race.
Making it all the more crucial we nominate someone with electability and a bit of cross-over appeal ourselves. Which is a calculation many Republicans seem to be making:
In the Republican race, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who recently made clear his intentions to seek the presidency, has expanded his lead over Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Giuliani holds a 2 to 1 advantage over McCain among Republicans, according to the poll, more than tripling his margin of a month ago.
The principal reason was a shift among white evangelical Protestants, who now clearly favor Giuliani over McCain. Giuliani is doing well among this group of Americans despite his support of abortion rights and gay rights, two issues of great importance to religious conservatives. McCain opposes abortion rights.
He'd better get right on guns and immigration, though, unless he wants to blow his chances -- and ours -- for capturing the White House.
Romney Has High Unfavorables Despite A Low Name Recognition: I think he's getting a very bad rap, but the numbers don't lie. (Well, of course numbers lie. But, look, they're numbers.)
Is it the flip-flopper thing? The Mormon thing? That he governed Taxachusetts (even while he held down taxes)?
Who knows, maybe it's fallout from the Big Dig.
I don't know why an attractive, articulate (am I allowed to say that about a religious minority?), conservative (well, conservative recently) candidate is getting so little love from the GOP, but that seems to be the case.
I think Romney should be taken more seriously, but the fact is, at the moment, he's not being taken very seriously by too many people.
I think it's the rock star thing. George W. Bush was, believe it or not, a rock star when he ran for President. (Well, a lower-level rock star, like the guitarist from Foghat, but still a rock star.) I remember reading, way back in 1999, a reporter being surprised at how much he'd light up a room when he met supporters in their homes, and how he was perceived as having a "touch of Elvis" in him. The reporter concluded that while people who hadn't attended such intimate-setting fundraisers might not get the whole GWB thing, or attribute his appeal solely to name recognition, anyone who saw him in action could easily see why he was generating enthusiasm.
Barack Obama is a rock star.
Rudy Giuliani is a rock star.
John McCain was a rock star, but a rock star who fronted a band you never much liked, like the Jefferson Starship, and then really pissed you off when he changed the band to just "Starship" and recorded We Built This City (On Rock and Roll).
Mitt Romney isn't a rock star. He's solid, he's got some charisma, he says the right things. But rock star? No. Maybe a sessions keyboardist for Mister Mister.
This may seem like a silly analysis, but really, we're electing a President here, the most powerful man on the face of the earth, and it's hard to imagine most men assuming such a role. A candidate needs to be perceived as nearly a Superman of sorts in order for people to be comfortable putting our very lives in his hands. Some guys seem to have that; other guys seem to not have it.
Michael Dukakis was decidedly not a rock star, for example. Contra Mojo Nixon, it was Michael Dukakis who was actually the Anti-Elvis.
A hidden strength of Guiliani's, by the way, is his personal warmth. That may surprise people who know him, just from the papers, as the hard-charging, my-way-or-the-FDR-highway mayor of unruly NYC, but anyone who saw him speak at the RNC knows he has a warm, reassuring, avuncular manner about him. He seems like a cool, wise uncle, the one who made it big, and isn't unwilling to lend you a couple hundred bucks here or there as long as you promise you won't spend it on crack.
He also used to host a rightwing radio show in NYC. Well, it wasn't quite Rush Limbaugh, but it was a call in show where people got to complain to Mayor, and he was pretty engaging, and very even-tempered and likable, even while fielding phone calls from people calling him a fascist.
So he's not afraid of communicating with the public, and, like Reagan, seems to actually relish it. He likes arguing, but manages to not be disagreeable even while disagreeing.
Not just a mayor-- a rightwing talk show host.
Again, maybe not Rush Limbaugh, but how many public figures are willing to take tough questions from the public a couple of times a week?
Part of what will hurt the supposedly-inEVITAble Hillary! is the public's weariness from the partisan warfare of the past -- well, at least ten years now, right? True, these issues are important, and we can't paper over them just to have a "nicer" and "more civil" political culture. But I think the public wants to be tricked into thinking we can have a bit of that, and they may be so tricked by Giuliani's warm manner and his post-9/11 hero status.
And as Reagan proved, you can fight pretty hard as a partisan without the public really thinking you're a nasty partisan idealogue. Bush couldn't manage ithat trick, though Lord he tries (and many of us would like him to stop trying, as it buys him no goodwill); but maybe Giuliani can.
Obama is this election's John Edwards -- a useful bitch.
John Edwards is this election's Joe Lieberman.
Posted by: Bart at February 28, 2007 11:53 AM (rilMu)
Preach it, Brother.
Posted by: Retired Geezer at February 28, 2007 11:53 AM (8S3UG)
I like that.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 11:55 AM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Jake at February 28, 2007 11:57 AM (pKWt0)
Dennis Kucinich is this election's Alan Keyes.
Posted by: Bart at February 28, 2007 11:57 AM (rilMu)
Posted by: kyer at February 28, 2007 11:59 AM (guvxV)
Posted by: kyer at February 28, 2007 12:00 PM (guvxV)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2007 12:01 PM (pzen5)
Posted by: Jerry Lewis at February 28, 2007 12:04 PM (6GK9U)
Posted by: Sobek at February 28, 2007 12:07 PM (6GK9U)
Definately thanks for the giggle, that was quite good.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 12:07 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: spongeworthy at February 28, 2007 12:08 PM (uSomN)
It ain't fucking "macaca," I can tell you that!
Posted by: George Allen at February 28, 2007 12:09 PM (1tlBF)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2007 12:10 PM (wmgz8)
I say "Go Obama!!!!!"
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 28, 2007 12:11 PM (gZ/8m)
>>*"is black/white" not "is a black/white". What 's the proper PC term anyway?
Zebra? I got nothing.
Posted by: Tushar D at February 28, 2007 12:13 PM (h76y6)
Posted by: Shivv at February 28, 2007 12:14 PM (QhWHP)
And how about that Hillary? Is the country ready to go White Water rafting, again?
*plays piano and sings*
Hello my baby
Hello my darlin'
George Bush is regaining some popularity.
His dog Barney likes him!
Hello my baby
Hello my darlin'
Posted by: Mark Russell: funny-man at February 28, 2007 12:18 PM (rilMu)
Obama can't win cuz he's a nobody. Yeah "rockstar" yeah yeah yeah, but he won his senate seat after going through a very respectful direct campaign against ryan (jim? jack? the one who used to bang 7 of 9) only to be granted with the blessed fortune of having an insane lefty publication make a ridiculous court case to an insane and admittedly compromised lefty judge who released documents that noone has a right to have.
(really the judge fucking said that releasing the divorce documents will do nothing but harm to the child, good on you democrats)
Then the 'pubs had to throw in a token 'pub to be slaughtered by the only candidate left (obama) who had time to establish themselves.
The "possitive" biography was compelling back then, it ain't gonna work in a presidential campaign. Obama has not been tested.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 12:20 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Judd at February 28, 2007 12:23 PM (Ndirp)
Fortunately, by the time Hillary! is through for exposing Obama as the chain-smoking, heroin shooting, womanizing Islamofascist sympathizer he needs to be for her to win, the Republican candidate will be looking pretty good.
- Draft Lieberman - He's Beaten The Dems Once Already
Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 28, 2007 12:24 PM (Pkdqo)
1. play piano
2. tell a stupid awful unfunny joke
3. play piano and sing a classic song
Of course it helps if you're playing to the same crowd who finds Garrison Keiler funny.
Posted by: Mark Russell: funny-man at February 28, 2007 12:27 PM (rilMu)
Ask Robert Byrd.
Posted by: Uppity Hick at February 28, 2007 12:29 PM (tPOg8)
I never understood anti-semitism as I grew up, meaning I never viewed it, my introduction to joo's was history, and that alone makes me think even if their is something wrong with jews, then at this moment we are all pretty much fucking even.
I did see racism for myself. hating black people isn't that uncommon, but it was easily subdued, because even though there is hatred of blacks, there is always an account from all but the most insane racist about "the good ones" which is disgusting in and of itself but it allows for the fact that there is a goodness in blacks.
Anti-semitism is something so visceral and low, built on nothing at all sensible, that no jew will hold the presidency, nor will there be any real number of jews in the federal elected offices, for a long fucking time.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 12:30 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 12:32 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: nikkolai at February 28, 2007 12:42 PM (DyDYq)
He'd better get right on guns and immigration, though, unless he wants to blow his chances -- and ours --"
Sorry, but evangelicals still don't know a lot about Giuliani. Abortion and gay rights are going to blow up in his face. They're just as toxic as immigration and gun rights for the Mayor, and in combination they're super toxic, and I see no indication that he gets it. Its almost too painful too watch. Enjoy it now, Ace, because the wipe out is coming.
Posted by: at February 28, 2007 12:42 PM (w4Bx4)
Posted by: Jenny at February 28, 2007 12:45 PM (1Qzdb)
Well, to tell the family secret, my grandmother was Dutch.
Posted by: Black Barak at February 28, 2007 12:47 PM (1tlBF)
I'd put it like this: Reagan had his supporters from way back, before he ran for President in 1976. Obviously, when he was actually the frontrunner for the 1980 nomination, they got pretty psyched, right?
Well, I'm like one of those people who were carrying signs saying "Draft Reagan" in 1972. I supported Giuliani before he even ran for Mayor, just because he was going all Elliot Ness on the mob, throwing Frank Nitti off of buildings and shit.
So yeah -- when a guy I've always supported is actually making a credible (if... shaky) showing in the run for Republican nominee, yeah, I'm psyched.
Just so you know, I was a pretty strong supporter of GW Bush in 2000, too. Not one of those "best of a bad lot" deals. I actually, genuinely supported him.
(I also supported Clinton in 1992. When I was young and irresponsible...)
Anyway, just sayin' -- I'm a fair bellwether for candidates. I've backed the winner pretty much since 1988. In 1996 I didn't bother to vote because I knew Dole would lose... so that keeps the record kind of intact.)
(Oh: And I think I actually did vote for, um, Dukakis in 1988. BUT-- really, I wanted him to lose, and was pretty relieved on election night.)
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 12:47 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: Entropy at February 28, 2007 12:47 PM (m6c4H)
OT: Has anyone seen the latest Citgo commercials re: the free heating oil from the super-nice, super-cool Venezuelan govt.?
Sick slick stuff.
Posted by: kyer at February 28, 2007 12:48 PM (guvxV)
Posted by: Judd at February 28, 2007 12:49 PM (Ndirp)
and gay rights are going to blow up in his face. They're just as toxic
as immigration and gun rights for the Mayor, and in combination they're
super toxic, and I see no indication that he gets it. Its almost too
painful too watch. Enjoy it now, Ace, because the wipe out is coming.
It may come. I've said so myself. I have no idea if any of Giuliani's people read this blog (I imagine someone there does, just for the sake of keeping an eye on conventional wisdom), but I have repeatedly hit the panic button to warn Giuliani of the iceberg coming his way.
I have to consider the almost-incomprehensibly implausible possibility, however, that he is actually smarter than I am, and knows what he's doing.
I think he's actually blowing it, but so far, he's doing very well.
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 12:50 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 28, 2007 12:51 PM (t+mja)
He will show up at the debates in a flying car. He got that from the mind control signals from the good aliens.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 12:53 PM (QTv8u)
"Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.
A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil."
Posted by: Communism Happening Now in US at February 28, 2007 12:55 PM (AQj/2)
(not even drinking? why'm I giddy?)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 12:56 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 12:57 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Uppity Hick at February 28, 2007 01:01 PM (tPOg8)
I knew there was some Scandi in there somewhere.
Posted by: Judd at February 28, 2007 01:01 PM (Ndirp)
Posted by: S. Weasel at February 28, 2007 01:03 PM (MecJo)
A really skimpy corset?
Woah! It's in the dictionary WP. Coselet: A piece of body armour covering the trunk but usually not the arms or legs. or Corselette: a combination girdle and brassiere.
Anyhow, Hillary! has money, and money talks while dreamers finish 4th on the first ballet.
I hope Obama wins, because Hillary! is indeed the stronger, and much scarier candidate. Even if she runs as VP (which I think her pride would disallow) you can bet the Prez would 'catch a cold' within 3 months... the MSM wouldn't even notice the knife in his back.
Posted by: 5Cats at February 28, 2007 01:05 PM (cVijR)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:07 PM (QTv8u)
I still think you're wrong on Hill, it ain't gonna be a blowout. She's wanted that office for forever, and she'll fight like a caged animal for it.
Posted by: Sinistar at February 28, 2007 01:08 PM (oHd6r)
The conservative elements of the 40-70 year old crowd that determines the outcome of elections may not ever get past the abortion stance, much less his other non-socially conservative positions.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2007 01:10 PM (plsiE)
If he really is being smart, then I'm betting that what he is doing is holding off on concessions until they would make the biggest difference. He's probably waiting until a little closer to primary time for maximum impact.
But I bet he's not being smart. Still, Ace can comfort himself with the fact that the press of events may force Giuliani to do what he should do anyway--i.e., make some key conversions/ concessions/ compromises a little closer to the primaries.
My worst case scenario is that the GOP's apparent inability to nominate decent candidates means Giuliani becomes "inevitable" before he has to make significant concessions on guns/ gays/ God/ abortion/ immigration. My contrarian political belief is that this would weaken Giuliani in the general election. Significant portions of the Republican base would be fairly uncommitted to his candidacy and at that point making the concessions he would need to would hurt his campaign. But the damage to the GOP generally could be even more significant. Giuliani needs to do what he needs to do within the next year.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 01:11 PM (w4Bx4)
talking about Mormon temple garments as "magic underwear" is so Marcotte. Way hot.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 01:14 PM (w4Bx4)
talking about Mormon temple garments as "magic underwear" is so Marcotte. Way hot.
Personaly I don't care, but it is a pretty fucking odd practice.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:15 PM (QTv8u)
Italian Admiral: "But, Segnora Perón, it's an easy mistake. I'm still called an admiral, though I gave up the sea long ago."
Posted by: BrandonInBatonRouge at February 28, 2007 01:16 PM (cVg7U)
Slightly off topic but not really: Did anyone notice that Melissa Etheridge looked a lot like Hillary! at the Oscars?
Posted by: Big E at February 28, 2007 01:17 PM (uw1/g)
I realize that not everyone is a fan, but Ann Coulter nailed it in her Feb 14 column
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2007 01:18 PM (plsiE)
I wish. I see people on the intertubes talking about them that way all the time.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 01:19 PM (w4Bx4)
I don't think it's that odd. I mean, it's singular, but not odd in a "I can't believe these weirdos do this."
Is there any religion that doesn't have some odd rituals about sex?
Hell, is there anyone, religious or not, who doesn't have some odd rituals, beliefs, or taboos about sex?
What's that thing with Jewish women taking a mikvah after periods? Or putting out the conjugal sheets after consumation?
What's with me having to stick an Idaho potato up my ass to become sexually aroused anymore?
Anything involving religion is going to flunk the utilitarian/logic test. It's all faith.
And everything involving sex is going to similarly flunk any such test. Why the hell do we spend so much time thinking about and attempting to get something which lasts such a short period of t ime and leaves no lasting rewards (unless you're looking for a kid or an STD)?
Put them together, and you're going to have a lot of "oddness."
Nothing about either is terribly logical. One, because faith is beyond reason, the other, because instinct both underlies and overpowers reason.
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 01:23 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 01:26 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: Sid Vicious at February 28, 2007 01:27 PM (dHUp4)
Okay, I agree, It isn't singlularly odd, there are a lot of odd practices true, maybe the problem with the underwear thing, and the mormons in general is that they are such an insular culture.
I don't know, a good friend of mine had parents who were mormon, and went through all the rituals, and even this secular, promiscuous and indifferent person made a point of minimizing the whole burning thing, at least in details.
maybe the reason it seems so odd, is that it is more of a gnostic sort of practice. Only those initiated can understand common practices, (which is odd for such a missionary faith) I don't know.
Mormons give me the sphinchers.
I don't care about romney, he's a mainstreamed mormon, but still.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:28 PM (QTv8u)
But I still think this is 80% in your gut. And he doesn't feel -- at leat not yet -- like a weird liberal such as Gore or Kerry.
As Giuliani feels more conservative than he might be on paper, so Obama feels less liberal.
Part of this is his manner and such. Now, we shouldn't be voting for a mild-seeming manner -- we should all be looking at positions and such -- but that's not how most people really make up their minds.
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 01:28 PM (+u1X0)
In other issues- the overriding majority of social cons and evangelicals I run into are not necessarily thrilled by Rudy, but they regard Hillary as much more of a threat. More than a few have said to me that they are ready to trust Rudy, and would probably throw their hat firmly into his camp if he does a few things to make them comfortable- most of which would be to pick Gingrich as his running mate.
To make it abundantly clear- their attitude (and mine as well) is that neither Hillary nor Obama are acceptable to them, and Rudy is about as close as they're going to get to someone they feel will win and that might listen to anything they have to say.
Posted by: tmi3rd at February 28, 2007 01:29 PM (QzsVu)
Posted by: Sinistar at February 28, 2007 01:29 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:30 PM (QTv8u)
I worked in an environment where virtually everyone was mormon, my direct "superior" was a kid who just came back from mission.
MY experience with devout mormons is that unless you are a mormon you are a fucking worm. Casual and dictatorial statements offered to everyone, even customers, but it's done with a plastic smile.
They brought the arrogance of mission back and used it in the business world. Not a one of the practicing devout mormons was a "nice person" though you are right, they SEEMED like a nice person, unless you actually listened to what they said.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:33 PM (QTv8u)
I'm not sure what the temple garment has to do with sex. Its underclothing that has a few symbols on it that remind us of promises we've made God and that he has made us.
I've heard a couple of stories of Mormons who were going to do a little extramarital hanky-panky but when they got down to their underclothes were reminded of their promises and got ashamed and got dressed and left, but I always thought those were just urban legends. If they were true, that would have to do with sex, though.
Or else you may have heard the rumor going around that Mormons wear their temple garments during sex. This is also an urban legend, not sure how it got started. When I got married my bishop was talking to me about the underclothing and said something like "you may have heard a rumor that Mormons are supposed to wear 'em during sex. That's not true. But you can if you want to. If you're insane."
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 01:34 PM (w4Bx4)
Have you read any excerpts from his biography? He veers off into
Elridge Cleaver territory, thalking about always having to "play the
white man's game" and such. That, and the blow.
Posted by: Sean M. at February 28, 2007 01:35 PM (3bEwq)
those mormons I worked with in that case. I don't mean all. Most are normal people who believe that we are all one under god only awaiting enlightenment, however the attitudes of those I've dealt with closely weren't just waiting to grant me enlightenment, they felt as though only they themselves deserved it.
I apologize to the decent lds majority.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:37 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 01:37 PM (w4Bx4)
LDS or not, I probably should, I'm not allowed in the produce section anymore.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:39 PM (QTv8u)
You can call them whatever you want but if they are made out of cloth and put our fire, they are figgin magic. From a 60 Minutes interview with the head of the Mormon church:
Mike Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?
Willard Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm.
Mike Wallace: Really?
Willard Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire--boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned.
Mike Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments.
Willard Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed.
Steve Young, QB 49ers, same interview:
Mike Wallace: And do you think that the sacred undergarments have kept you from harm on the football field?
Steve Young: I actually take them off to play football. The sacred nature of them, I find that the nature of football, and the sweating and so forth, I actually take them off, and I think that's probably prevalent with athletics in the church.
Mike Wallace: Really?
Steve Young: But my teammates have enjoyed when, you know, you're getting dressed and you're putting your garments on. They, they think they're pretty cool, a lot of them. And they're, uh, "Hey, where'd you get those?" And I always tell them, "They're way too expensive."
Protect you from fire and cool enough for the Super Bowl champions? Magic I say.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 28, 2007 01:40 PM (t+mja)
I'm getting tired of being asked if I set my ass on fire, when I bend over.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:40 PM (QTv8u)
Like, do what I tell you.
P.S. Permission to dissemble granted.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream. at February 28, 2007 01:41 PM (w4Bx4)
I'm ignorant on the subject. I only know of it becasue Andrew Sullivan kept putting up pictures of the underwear. I assumed, wrongly it seems, it had something or other to do with chastiy or modesty.
Either way, I'm hardly bothered by it. You know damn well Clinton must have worn panties every once in a while*, and I'm supposed to get bothered by Mormons wearing underwear that looks a little like half-length longjohns?
* Bill, I mean, Hillary probably wears a jockstrap.
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 01:43 PM (+u1X0)
As cynical as I might be, I still refuse to believe that the American people would elect him simply because he now has name recognition and looks good while eloquently saying absoultely nothing.
At some point in the nomination process he's going to be required to take a stand on at least a few issues; without looking it up does anyone know what his stance is on... well, anything?
Chances are he'll go left of Hillary!, and that'll cost him with voters who might be disillusioned with the Iraq situation, but don't want the US to lose or surrender, either. In addition, the Dems wore out the class warfare bit 10 years ago; doesn't leave much room for him to really inspire support since he can't rely on the "Anybody But Bush" vote.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2007 01:44 PM (plsiE)
Hey, I just had a great idea. You'll love it. Stop calling them magic, its rude and disrespectful.
Posted by: at February 28, 2007 01:45 PM (w4Bx4)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:47 PM (QTv8u)
By the way, inside info here on Hillary. She used to wear a jockstrap but now she just goes with Bolton's Mustache. I had it straight from Charlie Weiss.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 01:48 PM (w4Bx4)
I can't remember if that was in the cool facts thread.
THATS FUCKING HILIARIOUS!
Pardon my language non-worm.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:50 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: at February 28, 2007 01:51 PM (w4Bx4)
I could give a fuck what you think. As someone who gets to hear that secular people are the cause of all evil and will burn in hell, every friggin day, I will feel free to poke fun at whoever and whatever I feel like. I also happen to be probably the biggest Romney supporter here so kindly eat the corn out of my shit.
If you don't have the balls to get a name then kindly go fuck yourself, ok?
Posted by: JackStraw at February 28, 2007 01:51 PM (t+mja)
I'm glad you see it that way, but there are a lot of people who don't. Granted it's more an issue on the left where Coulter, Malkin, etc are simply "evil" and therefore incapable of making a valid point no matter how well reasoned or factual.
I enjoy her columns, but understand that she's not out to change minds so much but rather preach to the choir while rattling the liberal cage with a sense of humor they're incapable of appreciating.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2007 01:53 PM (plsiE)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:53 PM (QTv8u)
By chance were you in a coma in the 80's?
Posted by: roc ingersol at February 28, 2007 01:55 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Sinistar at February 28, 2007 01:56 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 01:58 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 01:58 PM (w4Bx4)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 02:00 PM (w4Bx4)
The Clinton attack machine has not even begun to fling shit at Obama like the first rate character assasins that they are. You are going to see negatives and innuendo flung like never before. If all else fails, airplanes go down in flames and bodies show up in public parks. Remember who we are dealing with here. Hillary! will win the demo nomination hands down.
Bank on it.
Posted by: Log Cabin at February 28, 2007 02:04 PM (U+rNI)
I have NOTHING to do with that fucking bitch! Log Cabin.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at February 28, 2007 02:05 PM (QTv8u)
We LDS always refer to everyone else as worms, except for Buzz Aldrin. They should have told you that when you got baptized.
Whatever you do, don't make an exception for Dick Cheney. Only Dick Cheney makes exceptions.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 02:09 PM (w4Bx4)
Here's how this will play out:
Hillary will NOT lose to Obama. She will go negative through proxies initially, in person later in the pre-campaign. She'll force him to commit to positions that erode his aura of transcendence. The net result will be driving Obama's negatives up to the point that he is no longer seen as electable. The side effect will be even greater Hillary-fatigue than now exists and a reduced Clinton war chest.
Enter Al Gore. He has executive branch experience, he's developed a good self-deprecating shtick, his negatives are mostly known, and he is LOVED by the roots. He will steamroll a weakened Hillary.
Get ready for Gore v. Giuliani in 08.
Oh, and Richardson as VP is such a given that he should just start campaigning with "_________ and Richardson in '08" as his official slogan. He is definitely this year's Edwards.
Posted by: David at February 28, 2007 02:10 PM (Hj9yW)
Wasn't this HL Mencken's complaint about Warren G. Harding?
Who's going to force him to answer the tough questions, Hollowpoint?
Wedge issues -- issues that split a party's base, or split a party's base from independents -- are only fair game when they're used against Republicans.
Now, I'd kind of like to hear Obama grilled on affirmative action or even reparations. Pinned down until he offers some real specifics. Because the more specific he is, the more votes he loses. He'll either lose black votes or white votes, but either way, he's losing votes. His strategy, like every other pol's, is to keep all possible votes by being so vague as to make everyone believe you believe as they do.
But who's going to do that, Hollowpoint? The media sure the hell won't. They're rather doting on the feller.
Hillary? Well, she could... but she'd tank her own chances by breaching the Democratic etiquette on keeping all opinions about such hot-button issues secret from the public.
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 02:20 PM (+u1X0)
A couple of big things -- like drug use -- he already outed about himself, and the public doesn't care.
I'm sure there is some dirt here or there. But you guys seem to be assuming Hillary's got the dirt on him. What if she doesn't? What if almost all the juicy dirt is already out there?
And the guy doesn't have much of a record to criticize. Yeah, you can say he's inexperienced, but for God's sake, Hillary was a freakin' senator for seven years with no executive experience herself. Yes, she has more experience -- but not a whole lot herself.
Maybe she can campaign against him with the slogan, "He's Unqualified -- And, Being Unqualified Myself, I Should Know!"
And I do think that given an, um, "intellectually incurious" media, a charismatic fellow with no obvious disqualifying black marks on his record could just sort of sleepwalk to the nomination.
Which, by the way, Colin Powell probably could have done in 1996.
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 02:25 PM (+u1X0)
His father has no roots in black America, and only passed his 'blackness' to Obama by biology. Meanwhile, Obama was raised by a white woman and an oriental in Hawaii.
I'm blacker than Obama.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 28, 2007 02:39 PM (BrPYJ)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 02:41 PM (w4Bx4)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2007 02:41 PM (wmgz8)
Only in the summer.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 28, 2007 02:43 PM (BrPYJ)
Still, those who want it the most often come off that way -- and come off creepy because of it.
GWB got to be President partly on the strength of him never even thinking about it until a half year before he decided it might look pretty cool on his resume, like being captain of the ski team.
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 02:44 PM (+u1X0)
That point would be completely valid 15 years ago when liberals enjoyed a near monopoly on the media, but now?
Sure, CBS, ABC, NBC and the NYT will mostly treat him with kid gloves, but things have changed. Take the Swift Boaters and publicity of Kerry's anti-war activities after Vietnam. Once upon a time those attacks wouldn't have made it past talk radio or a few newspapers. Try though they did, the MSM was powerless to keep these questions out of the national discussion in 2004.
Again with Kerry, it didn't take the traditional MSM to make the "waffler" charge stick.
Similarly, the MSM wasn't able to cover up questions about Obama's past that few who didn't read his book would've known about otherwise.
Between the New Media and the insane amounts of money poured into political campaigns these days, if Obama doesn't take a stand on some issues he'll be skewered as a wishy-washy coward with no ideas for the country.
Of course whatever positions he does take- no matter how vague- he'll be skewered on too, but the point is that a candidate can't rely completely on canned answers to pre-determined questions anymore because there are too many entities demanding answers in the era of Drudge and a 24 hour news cycle.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2007 02:46 PM (plsiE)
political campaigns these days, if Obama doesn't take a stand on some
issues he'll be skewered as a wishy-washy coward with no ideas for the
Add to that the total dedication to the Clintons by those who run the MSM and their spokesmodels, like Katie, Anderson, Matt, Brian and he rest, who, once the word is given, will start roasting Obama like he's the main course at a Hawaiian luau.
Posted by: wiserbud at February 28, 2007 02:54 PM (56ssE)
Posted by: DJ Spartucus at February 28, 2007 02:56 PM (56ssE)
By chance were you in a coma in the 80's?
Really. The nuts freakin HATED Reagan. It was only after the Soviets collapsed and he died that they started liking him/
Posted by: JohnW at February 28, 2007 02:57 PM (Dc9q6)
I used to be one of those.
Ace, if you want to know what dirt Hillary has on Obama you're just gonna have to wait. She surely isn't going to let the good stuff out this early.
Posted by: The Real Steve at February 28, 2007 03:01 PM (n0lBX)
Thank you for demonstrating that the LDS church is not exclusive-- that even morons who follow the Ace of Spades Lifestyle (TM), like yourself, can be Mormons. Keep on preaching, amigo.
Your brother in funny underwear,
THE HOUSE OF PAYNE
Posted by: House of Payne at February 28, 2007 03:15 PM (LCuJO)
"Thank you for demonstrating that the LDS church is not exclusive-- that even morons who follow the Ace of Spades Lifestyle (TM), like yourself, can be Mormons."
Dude, strangling hobos is totally against the Word of Wisdom, unless they're drunk. Sorry.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 03:21 PM (w4Bx4)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2007 03:23 PM (wmgz8)
I think that's completely wrong. She's relying upon her inEVITAbility to make her, in fact, inevitable. Why would she leave Obama in the game to undermine that?
Posted by: ace at February 28, 2007 03:31 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: bmac at February 28, 2007 03:35 PM (fRpdK)
no shit sherlock.
Posted by: William Jefferson Clinton at February 28, 2007 03:37 PM (W5xJB)
and gay rights are going to blow up in his face. They're just as toxic
as immigration and gun rights for the Mayor, and in combination they're
super toxic, and I see no indication that he gets it. Its almost too
painful too watch. Enjoy it now, Ace, because the wipe out is coming.
But who else are they going to support?
Romney is a no-go for a lot of them because of the Mormon thing.
Many of them (except Falwell, who will bow and scrape to whoever kisses his ring) have not forgiven McCain for his anti-evangelical speech in 2000.
Hunter and Tancredo are also-rans.
If Thompson gets in the race, he's a possibility, but he will likely sit this one out, unless Rudy taps him for VP.
If Giuliani shows enough strength in the early primaries, a lot of evangelicals will cut their losses and go with him. He'll meet with them, make some reassurances and they'll support him for the general election.
If they don't, and he wins, evangelicals are shown to be unneeded for winning elections - goodbye power and access.
If they don't, and he loses, evangelicals are shunned by party for causing an electoral loss - goodbye power and access.
A lot of evangelicals are under the delusion that the only way the Republicans will realize how important they are is to sit out an election if they don't get their chosen candidate and let the Republicans lose. Such a scenario would only tick off Republican leaders, and guarantee that evangelical concerns are not taken seriously for generations.
Posted by: Slublog at February 28, 2007 03:42 PM (JrEqJ)
adulation more than the office. She knows the office has fairly limited
power but a supreme court judge controls 1/5th of the nation with a
Down side: It's a lifetime appointment, which would keep her away from her real desire, the continuing growth of the Rodham-Clinton coffers. But you do make a good point.
I'm just not sure if she would be happy with being just 1 out of 12, as opposed to becoming President, then appointing Bill to the UN, where he becomes Sec Gen. Then, they basically control the world.
Posted by: Black Barak at February 28, 2007 03:50 PM (56ssE)
After that, he became good old Johnny McInsane and will be President...............never.
Posted by: Enfant Perdu at February 28, 2007 03:54 PM (knxmJ)
If this election wasn't so important then I would say good. Then maybe we can start picking candidates on things that really matter for the job we are hiring them for.
If this was the private sector and talk of religion or skin color or gender even was hinted at, there would be a 6 figure lawsuit. But somehow we have gotten so twisted that the most important job in the free world has to overcome those issues before we even care about the person's competency for the jog. Bizarre.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 28, 2007 03:54 PM (t+mja)
Well, as someone who fits the evangelical label, I've got to tell you that I must be going to the wrong church because politics just aren't discussed.
Most of the folks I know don't take it as some holy mandate that we must "control" the government or America is doomed to hell. If some do think that, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping it quiet.
I don't expect to ever have a candidate that perfectly aligns with my beliefs and values, so I take a big picture/long-run point of view. I would have no problem voting for Romney even if he is *gasp* a Mormon. Why would that matter? Likewise, I would have no problem voting for Guliani because of the types of judges he would nominate to fill any SCOTUS vacancies, even though he isn't as socially conservative as I'd like. Heck, even GWB turned out not to be as conservative as everyone here in Texas though when he was governor, (must be the DC water treatment process) but I voted for him last time not because of the WoT, but exactly because Kerry's SCOTUS nominations would be disasterous for the country in the long term.
I dunno. Maybe the E-van-gel-icals everyone is talking about are not as sophisticated as I am, but I've got to tell you if you're using me as the standard you're not setting the bar very high.
Now can we get back to the real meat of this thread and talk some more about LDS underwear?
Posted by: some schlub at February 28, 2007 04:02 PM (QGY37)
One thing's for certain: Hillary is a hard, hard, hard, screaming red lefty. I wonder if she isn't relying on the conservative pundits and new media to broadcast that around the nation during the primaries to pull the radical leftists to her camp for a vote?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2007 04:05 PM (wmgz8)
Posted by: someone at February 28, 2007 04:32 PM (I/t4f)
Rudy/Newt '08: who needs womens' votes?
Posted by: someone at February 28, 2007 04:34 PM (I/t4f)
Posted by: someone at February 28, 2007 04:51 PM (I/t4f)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 28, 2007 05:47 PM (eGCIB)
Smaller than Dick Cheney's, but still a formadable weapon.
Posted by: at February 28, 2007 05:55 PM (Yn8HA)
Posted by: at February 28, 2007 05:56 PM (w4PmH)
No, as a matter of fact, these were mainly moms. Fiercely anti-abortion, and several belong to the local skeet club.
Bizarrely enough, some even call my TV station, and are delightful to talk to. Not sure I'm following your feelings on the women's vote there... what's on your mind?
And yeah, Jeb would have been a fun pick... but you and I both know that the electorate as a whole is pretty leery of dynastic politics. What say you?
Posted by: tmi3rd at February 28, 2007 06:39 PM (QzsVu)
Just Say No to Newt. Haley Barbour, now that's a guy.And yeah, Jeb would have been a fun pick... but you and I both know that the electorate as a whole is pretty leery of dynastic politics. What say you?I think we got the wrong brother.
I also think if Jeb had any other last name, he'd be the clear favorite.
Posted by: someone at February 28, 2007 07:14 PM (I/t4f)
But I hear you.
Posted by: tmi3rd at February 28, 2007 07:18 PM (QzsVu)
"Oh, crap, that bitch gave me LDS! How am I going to explain that when I get home??? I hope peniccillin can cure it!"
Or maybe something you did too much of when you were young during the sixties:
"Oh, man, I can hardly remember that Grateful Dead concert - I was doing LDS and I was stoned out of my head and seeing shit you wouldn't believe."
Posted by: Former Lurker at February 28, 2007 11:41 PM (Xm4xl)
Don't be hatin' on Lonesome Dave.
Posted by: David Gillies at March 01, 2007 05:39 AM (RC1AQ)
For those of you who don't have the "gut" reaction on Obama, allow me to shine some light in that blind spot for you with this lovely quote:
"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact."
- Senator Barak Obama in his memoir The Audacity of Hope.
Yeah... Nothing smacks of sensational emotionalism in "liberal arguments".
As for people who say Rudy is gonna get sunk by social cons... I'd take that bet. People have this idea that social cons are as a group rigid dictrinaire "litmus test" voters, but there is little evidence of that. Gulianni's popularity has many times been attributed to the ignorance of evangelicals, but perhaps people ought to consider that evangelicals have priorities too and for them "Killing Terrorists" could very well trump "Make sure Jonny and Bobby don't call each other husband."
Besides... all you people screeching about Rudy's "gun" issue ought to take a moment to reflect on the same kind of doctrinaire attitude you accuse the left of having about "Free Speech" to support Hezbullah, "Due Process" to free cannibals, and "Establishment Clause" to butcher public monuments. Gun restriction does not work as a policy, that's a given... but consider the fact that having a gun law in a city already besieged by crime gives law enforcement a good pretext for locking up a lot of street thugs and finding more meaningful charges to convict on.
Posted by: DoDoGuRu at March 01, 2007 05:52 AM (BXpVN)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 01, 2007 07:32 AM (w4Bx4)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 01, 2007 02:59 PM (wmgz8)
Posted by: DJ at December 04, 2008 04:41 PM (qLkGn)
Posted by: the north face jacket at October 14, 2010 10:07 PM (1Bvbk)
Posted by: the north face jacket at October 14, 2010 10:08 PM (1Bvbk)
Posted by: Mac Vob Converter at March 14, 2011 04:02 AM (xvk4K)
62 queries taking 1.0253 seconds, 367 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.