Okay. You want to be the President of the United States of America, Michelle? You want to be the Commander in Chief? You want to be the leader of the free (?) world? Um, if you can’t see an ambush coming from Jimmy Flipping Fallon, who is a former SNL cast member (after the Phil Hartman era which is when SNL stopped being funny), and thus, by definition, a flaming liberal with no class who is wholly reliant on adolescent gutter humor, do you really think that you’re qualified to be the CiC? I’m serious. If you and your staff aren’t smart enough or self-aware enough to figure out that you don’t go walking into obvious set-ups with slack-jawed TV talk show hosts, then do you REALLY think you are going to be able to go up against Putin or the ChiComs? Hon, if you get rolled by JIMMY FALLON, then you won’t stand a chance against Hu Jintao.
But then, the very fact that the gateway to the Oval Office is now kept by the likes of undignified flotsam like Jimmy Fallon and these other TV carney hacks is just more proof that this country is officially, totally and irrevocably screwed.
h/t EBD
Bang on.
Was SNL ever funny? If so it must have been during the time I refused to watch it. As for clueless candidates for Pres. it would be hard to decide which is more clueless, Obambam or Michelle.
Did you read further down her site Kate? Check out her reasons for closing up her brokerage shop. Great read. Probably worth an entry in the “It’s probably nothing” series?
I lost all respect for whatever chance Bachmann had, when she made her terribly ill-advised (unadvised) comment regarding vaccination and retardation.
It was a terribly stupid comment, and she’s been backpedalling ever since.
And yeah, Fallon and his ‘band’ are complete schmucks, that goes without saying.
Hannity sticks up for her, but he’s following Reagan’s quote regarding non-criticism of fellow conservatives. It’s valiant, but she’s over her head.
Now this lady is some one you should pay attention to. I believe she could hold her own in any sort of confrontation.
Ann Barnhart that is.
All I can say ‘Ann Barnhart’ you are very forthright with an opinion!. Very refreshing to hear some others out there call a spade ‘a spade’.
Boy she sure gets to the point.
Bachmann came through that experience unscathed. She handled the interview well, and later in the news cycle was seen as a dignified politician warranting an apology. Where was Barnhardt’s brilliance when Bachmann stood up to the establishment Republicans in July and was prepared to shut down parts of the federal government rather than “deepen the abyss” of the debt limit. Is an irritating late night show appearance on an increasingly obscure network a better litmus test than the most pressing issue facing the entire economy of the planet?
Bachmann is an attention freak like what’s her name from Alaska. The rest of the Republican wannabe’s look like Walking Zombies except for Ron Paul and Nasty Newt with his railcar full of baggage. So far none of them have laid a glove on the glass jaw of the Diversity President “0”. It will be a miracle if any of them can heave the Diversity President onto the dung heap of history.
Some are lost in reality, Bachmann should have protected herself…The MSM have to be seen as the enemy.
“Hit the road Jack” plays well for ALL serious Republicans dealing with the MSM. The MSM with only a possible 18% Audience Share (Far Left whack jobs) will be quickly flat-Lined.
MSNBC is already DOA and should be avoided…
Perfectly put Kate. By what standard do you go on such a non-descript show and compound the folly by issuing the customary peck on the check along with a hug? I was under the impression that the aspiration for CiC called for a higher leel of discourse.
C’mon people, lay off Bachmann. Really, I wonder what the reaction of everyone — liberal and conservative — would’ve been had candidate Obama been introduced on a conservative talk show with a song called “Lyin’ Ass N****r”.
No doubt he, his team and his party would have handled THAT with complete aplomb…
I’d say it was a pretty big win for Bachman. Fallon and the network had to apologize. They were exposed as being biased and rush got into the fray and landed a couple of punches on Obama and the media in her behalf.
Ms. Bachman got a ton of publicity and sympathy – mission accomplished.
Still has about as much chance at winning the nom as I do…
Kate, thanks for the link to Barnhardt, that’s a keeper.
Like John G says, read the rest of her blog. It’s like WOW!!! The best summation of the Obama kleptocracy I’ve read!
All the Republican candidates have a lot of baggage—that’s life!
But let’s remember that the radical progressive and Liar-in-Chief, Obama, has more and worse than any of them. Just dipping our feet into the shallow end of his ugly to treasonous associations: the Zero is a close friend and/or supporter of terrorists (Black Panthers, Bill Ayers, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.), criminals (Tony Rezko, etc.), Communists (Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Frank Davis, etc.) . . . the list goes on.
The idea of the Teleprompter Kid facing off with Newt Gingrich in a series of debates gives me the greatest pleasure.
The Republican candidates are far from perfect. But any one of them would be better than the impostor who now holds the office of Commander in Chief.
What I find disturbing about this bunch of Republican Croppers except for Newt is they have all formed a circle and are shooting inward. Instead of attacking the record of the Rat Clawed, Diversity President “0”.
I don’t know if this is really right or not. Bachman got disrespected for sure, but then she stood in the fire and took it. Now she looks virtuous and a major media network looks like a bunch of monkeys. Monkeys on Obama’s payroll no less.
I don’t see where demanding fair play in the United States is a fault. Whinging about it would be, but she’s not doing that.
On balance, win to Bachman.
Nice rant though. 🙂
She believes gay people can be cured. This was sort of a pre-disqualification for me.
Jason M, when did that get said? I’ve not heard that one. Not saying you’re wrong, just never heard it.
Don’t have a dog in the hunt, but I do know that no matter who gets to be president, they won’t bed getting any breaks, from anyone.
The choice is going to be for that individual to stand up to the special interests, or cave.
The US has one big problem, that of a massive debt, the choice is to cut and get rid of the root of the problem or hit up the tax payer.
The outcome of one is increased pressure from the myrad special interests, the other is capital flight.
The question for the voter is which outcome is preferable and which candidate is most likely to deliver which.
Yeah I linked to that Barnhart link’s, link to that “Joe Citizen” radio show….
I actually found that very entertaining, can’t say I disagree with their opinions….but as they themselves admit they are strident…OK they’re allowed….free speech and all that.
The lions would not stand a chance against them thar Christians…..I don’t care who you are…that there’s funny….HEE HEE.
Hopefully the Dhimi’s will tune in to be offended and instead get enlightened….they are after all terribly impressionable….
This shouldn’t DQ her she didn’t handle that so badly. She should be DQ’d for being crazy. Like ‘vaccines cause retardation/gays can be cured’ crazy.
Is this a feature or a bug?
Well, I’m with John Chittick in considering her the best candidate for the urgency she consistently demonstrates. For example, no candidate more consistently and urgently calls for the complete reversal of ObamaCare; nor does any candidate sound as hawkish on debt.
Does New Gingrich or Romney display this urgency?
Write this down: Gingrich will be the same old, same old, as will Romney. Clinton likes Gingrinch!!! Ann Barnhardt should reflect on that! Do not be fooled by Gingrinch’s glib cleverness and debating acumen. It amounts to nothing! Take that celebrated comment about the OWS nuts getting a job after taking a bath: what political risk did he take in making that statement? How many votes did he risk in making that allegedly courageous remark?
NONE.
I commented the other day that Bachmann was dumb to go on that show just as it was dumb for her to ascribe mental retardation to a vaccine.
However, I think Ann Barnhardt’s conclusion is a tad hysterical. These flubs DO NOT disqualify her as a serious candidate.
Before this thread, I read Barnhardt’s piece about closing down her brokerage. I have to wonder a bit about that. That sounded a bit too pure for my cynical ears.
Finally, Bachmann’s “dumb” views about gays being curable, are not germane. There is no risk of these socially conservative views becoming public policy.
Adding:
I don’t share Bachmann’s views on homosexuality as a curable illness.
HOWEVER, I’d sooner vote for her than for a candidate who wants to do “outreach to islamists”. The former is probably silly; the latter DEADLY.
It’s nice Bachmann is in the political stadium,she adds to the whole experience,just like some of the college students who cheerlead for the football teams.
But,she’s not a serious candidate,and I expect she’ll fall by the wayside fairly soon.
Obama is a formidable foe,make no mistake about it. The MSM and the Hollywood narcissists are still supporting him, as are a good percentage of the young voters.
He’s a f***up in our opnions,but he’s still “The President”, and like the heavyweight champion in boxing,to defeat him,you have to decisively win every round.
The Republicans have presented us with candidates who are a mix of “business as usual” types,an “insane” doctor, a pretty face, and one highly accomplished black businessman who made a “suggestive” remark thirty years ago.
I know who I’d vote for out of that mix. I guess we’ll see if the Republicans can nominate the right duo to beat the current “champ”, or go down swinging feebly while we watch the Great Pretender reign for four more disastrous years.
Post by: dmorris
I think that’s about the best summary I’ve read.
“I don’t share Bachmann’s views on homosexuality as a curable illness.”
But what is someone wants a cure??
They will cut off someones package and call it a cure but they don’t seem to want to work with someones head. I knew a married guy who was basically told to eff off by a psychiatrist when he sought a “cure” for his queerness.
So what if Bachmann thinks homosexuals can be cured. (I actually know one who has been: she’s happily married now, to a man! And she regrets her previous, dissolute lifestyle—as do many married heterosexuals.)
This opinion of Bachmann’s (as MND notes, it will never become policy) is far more benign than those of homosexual activists about heterosexuality and the “natural”—as in Green, maybe?—family and the appetites/needs of children. In fact, the demeaning, morally depraved, and gutter language opinions of homosexual activists about all kinds of normal and natural things are so repugnant—with mental, moral, spiritual, and emotional rubber gloves, read their publication, Xtra—they’re under the radar. Read Xtra and consider how much of the aberrant behaviour homosexual activists champion has, in fact, become PROTECTED by public policy. (I’d be scared of that, not Michele Bachmann.)
Bachmann’s honest opinions are expressed, up front, in reasonable, respectful language. So, lots of people know about them. Then, people may agree or disagree—about what she’s actually saying.
Not so with homosexual activists: in Canada, before SUN News, what they want and what the average citizen knows about their radically sexualized and debauched agenda is expressed in language and images so foul, almost no one sees them. In fairness, the activists make their dastardly designs very clear. But then, their progressive buddies in the media and every lefty institution in the country—which is most of them—cover for them and sugar coat their vile message, as if it were simply about reasonable rights. Too many useful idiots fall for this smoke and mirrors ruse.
If radical homosexual activists were held to the same standards as social conservatives, the moral mess we’re now in—up to our elbows*—might not have happened. (*If you dare, check out what “fisting” means.)
Kyrie eleison.
lookout – what a perfect description of Obama: the Teleprompter Kid.
And I’d certainly like to see Gingrich vs Obama in a debate. Gingrich wouldn’t mince words; he’d call out Obama’s misinformation (aka lies), his manipulation, his blatant ‘appeals-to-race’ etc.
And – he knows his data; he’d cream Obama.
BUT – even though all of this – can he develop policies and programs? We know that Obama doesn’t; he leaves all of that to the irrelevant backroom underdogs whom he, sometimes, will wave to. Obama is focused only around his own power. I think Gingrich has, slightly, more integrity but I’m concerned about his baggage, his Fannie/Freddie contacts and etc.
As for Bachmann, if she flings out, yet once more, her “I’ve fostered 23 children’, I think I’ll sling my TV muffins at her. What’s her point? Are we citizens to be deemed her potential foster children if she became POTUS?
Romney is slick; almost too slick; he seems like the political version of Ken of Barbie fame. But, he’s experienced in economics, and governing, and, he can debate Obama.
Perry – well, I like his policies – even when he can’t articulate them. I’ve rarely seen a politician as tongue-tied and inarticulate as Perry and am reduced to considering his policies. He couldn’t debate Obama.
Now, is this election going to hinge JUST on the debates? That’s a key question; how important are they? We seem to be moving into the Roman political era where debates were key political activities. Or are the debates not that important? Do we select a candidate who can debate Obama the Manipulator, or someone who has a deep commitment to conservative policies? Is it either-or or can we get both?
dmorris: Your comment about Bachmann not being “a serious candidate”.
Perhaps Bachmann is a serious candidate for an unserious country!
To wit: The supercommittee. $1 trillion is (faux baseline) “savings” against 40 Trillion in spending over the next decade. This is profound unseriousness.
Only if you consider the efforts of that supercommittee serious will I concede that Michelle Bachmann is not a serious candidate.
John McCain, a putatively serious candidate last time out [who I believe threw the match], is against automatic cuts, even the unserious ones the supercommittee came up with.
ET: Chuckling over your TV muffins! Yeah, she should back off the foster children and talk more about her post-doctorate studies in tax law.
dmorris: One last thing. It might be fair to say she has no serious chance of winning. But that is very, very different from saying she’s not a serious candidate.
Thank you for reading my bold statement.
ET, all very good points. I appreciate your input.
Elections and politicians are now so plastic coated, it’s scary. But Obama’s plastic image is what got such an impostor—and worse, a traitor, IMO—elected, so one has to, unfortunately, play the game.
Therefore, the debates, as outward and visible signs—or sound bites—of a candidate’s “worthiness” are, like it or not, important. Yes, it’s political theatre, but, in that forum, a Gingrich would make absolute mincemeat of Obama. The thought is sweet! The shredding of Obama’s (non-existent) gravitas would be a joy to behold. (I have to admit, I’ve not watched the debates: maybe Romney could also do “the emperor has no clothes” routine with Obama. I know for sure that Newt could.)
MND, I shall explain,in regular type. I don’t think she is a serious CONTENDER,certainly she is a serious candidate,as is every player in every venue when they start out.
Elizabeth May was a serious contender for Prime Minister of Canada,at least she said so. The Toronto Maple Leafs are serious contenders for the Stanley Cup,at the start of every NHL season,and like Michelle Bachmann,their chances of winning are slim to none.
Howzat?
lookout – I’ve watched the debates.
Romney could debate Obama; he’s slick and he knows his facts. Obama is also slick but he doesn’t know anything – factual or otherwise.
Gingrich is perfect as a debater. He knows his facts and above all, he confronts. He simply slices through the political bafflegab and takes hold of the issue and shakes it in your face. Ahh, to see that happen to Obama. As you say, such sweetness, such delight.
BUT – he’s got a lot of baggage. The Democrats would, in the campaign, which is extremely important outside of the debates, swamp the airwaves with ads about his baggage. They’d show him as corrupt, an opportunist, a…
This can’t be ignored because the mass media campaign isn’t just the debates but the ads and the articles and the pundits.
I’d wish that Perry were more articulate. I like his conservativism, I like his refrain to get govt out of your life. As I said, I’ve rarely seen someone so seemingly capable and yet so inarticulate to express his policies and programs. After all, he developed them and yet, he takes their ‘meat’ for granted and doesn’t explain them.
His in-state tuition fees for illegals was, in my view, a correct policy but he couldn’t articulate why it was.
Equally, his rejection of a wall in Texas was correct – because the Rio Grande River is a large part of the border and you can’t wall off a river. But he didn’t say this!
So, I’m albeit a bit reluctanctly, opting for Romney. Now, if he included people like Gingrich, Cain, Pawlenty, Rubio, etc in his cabinet, well, that would be a great team.
This is a different election than the 2008, which was simple in its theme: Not Bush. And not pre-2008. So, Hillary was pre-2008 and the people were mesmerized into thinking that they not only could but should, drop their magnificent history..and be, as Obama insisted, ‘just one of the world’s gang of nations’. Heh.
This election is about ideology. Economic ideology: authoritarian statism vs free market capitalism. It’s a crucial election because the powers that have developed within the creeping US statism, such as the public service unions and the entitlement population, aren’t going to give up their ideology easily.
There’s no ‘meat’, no money to fund their ideology but heck, these people live within words anyway. So far, the trillions in debt have enabled them to live within words. But reality, which exists outside of words, is hitting hard. That’s the Tea Party; it alone recognizes reality.
Now, which candidates have the courage to talk about reality rather than utopian words? Can Romney confront Obama’s Words?
ET, excellent points. I’m glad you think Romney could confront Obama and give him a run for his money.
I agree that the Republicans have a very good line up, cabinet-wise. (Nothing could be worse than Obama’s and his multitude of totalitarian czars.) I’d be interested in your thoughts re Cain as VP candidate. Do you think that would undermine the “Obama all the way” black and squishy, PC, independent vote?
The ideal Republican candidate would have:
** Bachman’s commitment to Israel
** Paul’s resolve to cut spending
** Gingrich’s knowledge of foreign affairs
** Cain’s sense of innovation
** Santorem’s views on global warming (fraud)
** Huntsman’s contacts in China
** Perry’s accent
** Romney’s looks
so that would be basically me, y’all.
Put this on a post-it note on the fridge:
Obama won’t be shredded in any debate.
He won’t put himself in this position and won’t be put in it either. He’s a serious thug, a super-smart marxist criminal operator. Don’t for one minute think he’s gonna agree to a series of debates with Gingrinch when everyone knows he’d be slaughtered.
To wit: he didn’t get shredded for his 20-year membership in “pastor” Wright’s “church” nor for his chuminess with the terrorist Ayers.
dmorris: Thanks for the semantical exercise.
Problem is: Gingrinch wasn’t a serious candidate or contender only a few weeks ago, what? And Cain wasn’t a serious contender before he became the leader before flaming out playing the race card in his pimp hat.
Reminder: Nov 2012 is fully one year away. A week is a long time in politics.
ET said: “As for Bachmann, if she flings out, yet once more, her “I’ve fostered 23 children’, I think I’ll sling my TV muffins at her. What’s her point?”
Bwaha! Good one. ~:)
I think it means she can ride herd on all the crybaby tantrum throwers in the Republican caucus. Of whom there are many, we must admit.
MND, “Obama won’t be shredded in any debate. He won’t put himself in this position and won’t be put in it either. He’s a serious thug, a super-smart marxist criminal operator. Don’t for one minute think he’s gonna agree to a series of debates with Gingrinch when everyone knows he’d be slaughtered.”
Good point. That’s a very real possibility I stupidly hadn’t even thought of. If Obama should spurn debates, like everything else about him, it’ll be a treasonous nightmare. One can only hope that his weaselling out of debates would put Americans on red (apropos pun!) alert. Who knows?
lookout – no, I don’t see Cain as VP.
I can see him in cabinet, in something to do with small and medium businesses. I think he’d be superb there and would also do a great service to helping the black community move out of its Democrat-induced victimhood.
I don’t think the black vote in the majority is for skin colour but, unpleasant as it is to say, it’s for assurances of a continuation of the welfare state programs for blacks.
The Democrats and the Black Caucus have built up a mindset over the past decades among US blacks as victims entitled to permanent reparations for whatever happened to their ancestors or even, for the ancestors of others. The notion of having the power, as a free individual, to better oneself (rather than living off entitlements) is rejected. Therefore, this Set of black people would reject Cain because he rejects victimhood in every respect (health, financial, political).
I think that someone like Rubio would be a better choice, but, the choice should be for a fiscal and constitutional conservative. I think these two axioms are important. Romney has, like it or not, the image of a flipper, and he needs to make a statement with his VP choice; that statement should be to endorse fiscal and constitutional conservativism.
Then, he should also, if he’s the nominee, gather around him, suggesting that they’d be in his cabinet, such people as Cain, Pawlenty, Rubio, Ryan etc etc. Fiscal and constitutional conservatives. By selecting them, Romney will show his commitment to conservative principles; his history of ‘slithering’ tends to weaken such commitment.
MND and lookout; that’s an interesting scenario – that Obama would try to get out of the debates. Hmm.
I don’t see it as feasible. What would be his excuse?
Instead, I can see the Democrats downplaying debates. And if Gingrich is the nominee, [and I think this would be an error as he has too much cronyist baggage] – then, the Democrats would ‘set the stage’ for the debates by tons of pre-debate TV ads that defined Gingrich as just that: A Wall Street Crony, hand in glove with Fannie and Freddie.
Then Obama’s remarks in the debates would be coloured by frequent mocking references to Gingrich as a crook and crony, with Obama reminding everyone of various ‘things Gingrich did’….
Sure, Gingrich could counter by telling Obama to ‘stop with the names, stop with the false allusions’ and talk about the issues. Obama would laugh and continue.
In a genuine debate on issues, Gingrich would win. Easily. But, my concern is that the Democrats would set the stage for the debates by setting Gingrich up as a ‘corrupt crony’ and have Obama constantly remind the viewers in the debate about this. Gingrich could handle it but could the viewers?
That’s why I’m tending, with a certain sigh, to Romney. But he’s got to openly surround himself with the fiscal and constitutional conservatives that his history shows is his weakness.
At first, I liked Pawlenty. And still do, but he doesn’t have the ‘Power of Will’ that is needed to overthrow a messianic demagogue type such as Obama. Then I went for Perry but am worried about his inarticulate nature. You shouldn’t have to be a TV host to be a POTUS but with an Obama, you almost have to be. You have to be able to ‘talk the talk’. Perry is about action not talk; Obama is about talk and no action. That’s the reality that has to be confronted.
So, now I’m tending to Romney because he is economically smart, can talk and confront and has govt experience. BUT, he’s got to surround himself with a firm ‘skin’ of fiscal and constitutional conservatives. Together, they might be able to deal with the demagogue.
Even if you overlook the record of Romney as a progressive, the media favours him for a reason. IHO, he is another Stockwell Day (without being as conservative) with the media all stocked-up on character destroying amunition to attack him with as soon as he gets the nomination. In Stockwell’s case it was his belief in man walking with Dinosaurs. With Mitt, I can almost guarantee that Time, Newsweek et al already have feature stories in the can on his Mormonism. The Talk shows hosts will be wisecracking about super-power underwear, Is Mormonism a cult?, Teenage brides of polygomysts etc. And Mormonism being another Christian church, unlike Islam, is fair game in the PC multi-culti world.
The debates so far have meant little in what happens in the Primaries. The Tea Parties, who, according to the MSM are now virtually non-existent will have a fair amount of say in how candidates fare.
Cain had a pretty good run but between a lack of interest in foreign affairs and a “perception” of a history of workplace-inappropriate behavior, I think he’s fading.
Gingrich may come across as a master debater, but his history of opportunism in the area of policy and fidelity makes him simply another entertaining yet “progressive” conservative.
That leaves either Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann to run as conservatives against Romney. Ron Paul will unfortunately max out at 10 to 20% over most of the states. If the Tea Parties support Bachmann, assuming the above is valid, the libertarians that supported Paul all the way may play a pivotal role in choosing between a progressive and a social conservative in the end. Bachmann may have to reiterate what actions as a POTUS or lack thereof could be expected from the social side of her beliefs.
As to the vulnerability of Obama, the last thing the GOP needs to do is put a progressive up against him. He ran against the history of one progressive, Bush, and another progressive named McCain. Many Americans won’t vote for those types of GOP candidates.
john chittick – I’m unsure of the conclusion of your post.
Are you saying that you support Bachmann?
First, I agree with you about Gingrich and Cain. You don’t mention Perry.
I think Ron Paul has marginalized himself as someone who is resolute, specific and delineated on all issues to the point of settled concrete. That is, he can’t adapt to contextual realities.
As for Bachmann, I think she is totally unsuitable. It’s not merely her 23 foster children, or her astonishing correlation of vaccinations to retardation. It’s her total lack of experience outside of the heady committee rooms filled with words. Words, words, words. That’s the signature trait of Obama, another person who lives only within words.
Same with Bachmann. She’s been on committees and more committees. That’s the world of words. But she’s never had to make the hard decisions where words have to meet context, have to give way to the reality of different economies, interests, power blocs and time scales.
So, I totally reject her. I think that the US needs, most certainly, a fiscal and constitutional conservative. But this person, who can be made up of several people (Romney, Cain, Gingrich, Rubio, Ryan, Cantor) has to be someone who lives in the real world. Not the world of words.
As for Romney’s Mormonism – I’d say: piffle. Who cares. I don’t think it’s an issue.
Well, Bachmann does mention starting a business, but admittedly we don’t hear much about the particulars of this business. But ET, I don’t get your meaning about the “world of words”. What world does Gingrich inhabit but the “world of words”. Most politicans are lawyers: wordsmiths, word-twisters.
ET / lookout:
The debate cycle will be managed in much the same way as the 08 campaign was managed by the MSM/Dem PR machine to suppress all info about Obama’s extensive list of radical marxist associations.
Think about Obama’s news conferences. They’re tightly managed. We never really get to see him “think on his feet” (‘cos he can’t).
The format will be the subject of extensive negotiations between the parties and will definitely not permit Gingrich to fully demonstrate his prowess against the ignoramus.
ALSO, let’s face it. The Repubs and Dems are merely branches of the same progressive movement: Coke and Pepsi. A certain civility will be observed concerning Obama; we saw that with McCain and his ridiculous reference to Obama’s “nice family”. You can see this delicate politeness day in and day out with the Repub elite labelling Obama a liberal instead of a radical socialist. I mean, really, in the final analysis he’s one of them. No Republican will just say it: Obama’s anti-American.
This election is about ideology. Economic ideology: authoritarian statism vs free market capitalism.
Not yet it isn’t. If Romney or even Gingrich gets the nod, it’s about who best and how best to maintain the Total State. As a matter of fact, Romney is more dangerous than Obama because the GOP is guaranteed to oppose the latter not so much the former. Gingrich’s ‘intellect’ is more puffed up and shallow than Avatar.
labelling Obama a liberal instead of a radical socialist
There’s not a radical bone in the Obama policy prescription. His policies are the definition of Status Quo Center-statism. ‘Respectable consensus’ with Krugman and Friedman and Frumm all nodding solemnly, bickering over details, along with a very large chunk if not most of the American people.
ET, you write, “Then Obama’s remarks in the debates would be coloured by frequent mocking references to Gingrich as a crook and crony, with Obama reminding everyone of various ‘things Gingrich did’….
“Sure, Gingrich could counter by telling Obama to ‘stop with the names, stop with the false allusions’ and talk about the issues. Obama would laugh and continue. . .”
But, ET (and MND), Obama actually HAS had the support of Wall Street, BIG time, and is connected with serious Marxist and criminal cronies. That’s the scenario that needs to be exposed. I think we’re in very different territory from 2008: I don’t think that the Democrats and MSM have the same clout, re Obama, that they did then. If they do, as you suggest, we’re royally scr*wed.
As it stands right now there is no Republican candidate I could vote for. I would vote for any of them if they were running against Obambam but that is kind of like voting for Joe Clark because I don’t like Pierre Trudeau.