The quality of candidates that the Republican Party is coming up with this election is frightening.

The quality of candidates that the Republican Party is coming up with this election is frightening.

The real issue is just how terrified the Republicans are of Romney.

One thing that strikes me watching all these candidates is just how religious they all are. If you are atheist, do you not stand a cat in hell's chance of ever becoming President? If you're atheist are you un-American?

One thing that strikes me watching all these candidates is just how religious they all are. If you are atheist, do you not stand a cat in hell's chance of ever becoming President? If you're atheist are you un-American?

One thing that strikes me watching all these candidates is just how religious they all are.

I'm an atheist and consider myself a true-blue American.

One thing that strikes me watching all these candidates is just how religious they all are. If you are atheist, do you not stand a cat in hell's chance of ever becoming President? If you're atheist are you un-American?

You seriously don't believe that those bozos are religious. Do you?

Op-Ed Columnist
Send in the Clueless
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 4, 2011

There are two crucial things you need to understand about the current state of American politics. First, given the still dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph. Second, the G.O.P. may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — because Herman Cain was not an accident.

Think about what it takes to be a viable Republican candidate today. You have to denounce Big Government and high taxes without alienating the older voters who were the key to G.O.P. victories last year — and who, even as they declare their hatred of government, will balk at any hint of cuts to Social Security and Medicare (death panels!).

And you also have to denounce President Obama, who enacted a Republican-designed health reform and killed Osama bin Laden, as a radical socialist who is undermining American security.

So what kind of politician can meet these basic G.O.P. requirements? There are only two ways to make the cut: to be totally cynical or to be totally clueless.

Mitt Romney embodies the first option. He’s not a stupid man; he knows perfectly well, to take a not incidental example, that the Obama health reform is identical in all important respects to the reform he himself introduced in Massachusetts — but that doesn’t stop him from denouncing the Obama plan as a vast government takeover that is nothing like what he did. He presumably knows how to read a budget, which means that he must know that defense spending has continued to rise under the current administration, but this doesn’t stop him from pledging to reverse Mr. Obama’s “massive defense cuts.”

Mr. Romney’s strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn’t a stupid man — but he seems to play one on TV.

Unfortunately from his point of view, however, his acting skills leave something to be desired, and his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party’s nomination must pretend to believe. Yet as I said, the only way to actually believe the modern G.O.P. catechism is to be completely clueless.

And that’s why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the pressure of his or her own cluelessness. Think in particular of Rick Perry, a conservative true believer who seemingly had everything it took to clinch the nomination — until he opened his mouth.

So will Newt Gingrich suffer the same fate? Not necessarily.

Many observers seem surprised that Mr. Gingrich’s, well, colorful personal history isn’t causing him more problems, but they shouldn’t be. If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, conservatives often seem inclined to accept that tribute, voting for candidates who publicly espouse conservative moral principles whatever their personal behavior. Did I mention that David Vitter is still in the Senate?

And Mr. Gingrich has some advantages none of the previous challengers had. He is by no means the deep thinker he imagines himself to be, but he’s a glib speaker, even when he has no idea what he’s talking about. And my sense is that he’s also very good at doublethink — that even when he knows what he’s saying isn’t true, he manages to believe it while he’s saying it. So he may not implode like his predecessors.

The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process.

Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed G.O.P. nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?

The Washington Post quotes an unnamed Republican adviser who compared what happened to Mr. Cain, when he suddenly found himself leading in the polls, to the proverbial tale of the dog who had better not catch that car he’s chasing. “Something great and awful happened, the dog caught the car. And of course, dogs don’t know how to drive cars. So he had no idea what to do with it.”

The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?

The New York Times

In case you weren't paying attention, in recent months around the country Republican state legislators have been very successful at what Politico in June called their “push to rig the 2012 presidential election” by passing a raft of voting restrictions that will serve to disenfranchise many groups that normally vote Democratic.

A report released this week by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law included these ominous findings:

• The new laws are likely to make it “significantly harder” for more than five million eligible voters — “mostly young, minority, and low-income voters as well as voters with disabilities” — to cast ballots in 2012. They point out that that number is “larger than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections.”

• “The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 — 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.”

• Most of the 2012 battleground states have either passed or are considering new restrictions. Some that have passed them are considering passing even more.

An example of the kind of voting restrictions that Republicans are passing are things like requiring a government-issued photo ID under the pretense of foiling voter fraud (which is negligible). It should come as no surprise that many poor people (who normally vote Democratic) don't have a driver's license or other government-issued photo ID. It's never been a problem before, but if the only way that you can win an election is to disenfranchise voters then that's what you gotta do!

The White House should be the Republicans’ for the taking. And it would look more likely if their current crop of front-runners weren’t so utterly inept and fallible.

I wonder what foreign leaders are thinking about the world's largest military power. Will they be glad or terrified that the next president will be Obambi redoux or some nutjob who will either be a danger or someone they can easily manipulate. Can you imagin Vladimir Putin or Hu Jintao negotiating with Michele Bachmann or any of the others? Should I laugh or cry ?

It could be worse, you could be living in Russia! Reports have been coming in of invisible ink being used at the ballot box, while election officials sit at their disks filling out ballot papers

So yes, it's still an unofficial requirement that you must be Christian to be president. But even Kennedy, a Catholic, was seriously scrutinized because he "might have allegiance to the Pope." So we don't only discriminate against Muslims and Jews. Romney and Huntsman are also downplaying their Mormonism.

The quality of candidates that the Republican Party is coming up with this election is frightening.

Your presidential elections are generally much more entertaining than our pariliamentary elections

They're always blaming Obama for not doing a thing about Iran.

Yeah, they set a nice example with Iraq.

Would Iran be another "unfunded" war which we would pay for by borrowing the money like they did for Iraq and Afghanistan? Or more likely, they'll want to pay for it with more cuts to domestic spending?

Why do we seem to think WE'RE the solution to the problems of the Middle East? We haven't done a fucking thing there that's benefited us or the people there in the long run.

Oh, I've gone off Newt now. Interesting piece on NBC Nightly News tonight about the goings on when he was Speaker. I never knew he was behind President Clinton's would-be impeachment or that he shut government down twice and had an affair with Callista! Shocking behaviour.

Looks like it's back to Romney for me. If I could vote.

Two reasons:
1. Oil (need I say more?)
2. Dominance in the world. Do you think that foreign aid is really about "aid"? It's about influence. During the Cold War it was a battle for dominance between the USA and the USSR. Today it's a three-way between the USA, China and Europe. However, Europe is faltering badly and it's summing up as a battle for influence (and dominance!) between the other two. This has been going on between powers since the end of WW1. Britain and France got knocked out of the running after WW2 (with the help of the US ).

Why do we seem to think WE'RE the solution to the problems of the Middle East? We haven't done a fucking thing there that's benefited us or the people there in the long run.

Oh, I've gone off Newt now. Interesting piece on NBC Nightly News tonight about the goings on when he was Speaker. I never knew he was behind President Clinton's would-be impeachment or that he shut government down twice and had an affair with Callista! Shocking behaviour.

I just don't get why people are still that fucking stupid, thinking that there are good reasons to go there, and that it has nothing to do with oil.

That's a somewhat debatable point. I think its unlikely that we'd be seeing an Arab spring if the Americans weren't quite so intrenched in the region.

It is however fair to say that the US (and the Western world in general) has gotten it wrong 95% of the time in the Middle East and has a habit of doing more harm than good in the region. In large part that's because the West still clings to this misguided notion that you can 'spread democracy' and you can't. Democracy and reform only really works when it comes from the people within a country and not people outside of it.

In his defence the Clinton impeachment wasn't entirely without merit.

Generally speaking the much bigger issue Gingrich will have is not his time as Speaker but his personal life. He's been divorced twice, cheated on at least two of his three wives and left his first wife whilst she was undergoing treatment for cancer with much dispute about exactly that first divorce came about. That more than anything else will be what sinks him because in truth the people that are put off by his time as Speaker (or at least the high profile 'issues') were unlikely to vote for him in the first place.

Dumping the tax burden on lower and middle income wage earners is not something that I would call "courageous".

I'm glad that you're entertained. They {the US presedential election} should be scaring the shit out of everybody

You live in the Midwest, in the "Heartland". You know what the mentality is out there. After all, your state put Michelle Bachman into Congress.

Not my STATE, just her district, and as I've said before, another district in my state is so far the ONLY one to elect a Muslim to Congress. So tone down your coastal pomposity just a smidge. Our two DEMOCRATIC senators are actually very, very good. And let's not forget, YOUR Senator, Ms. Clinton at the time, voted for the War in Iraq.

(Just breaking your balls, though--you know I love you.)

My recollection is that the Arab Spring got started without the Americans and we jumped on the bandwagon once we saw which way the wind was blowing (and after at first siding with Mubarak).

But in the scheme of things irrelevant...

Gingrich's surge in popularity in Iowa suggests that among right-wingers that is all in the past and he is forgiven. If he makes it to the general election then it may well become relevant.

I didn't suggest that America orchestrated the Arab Spring but that the fact that America (and the West in general in fact) has become so intrenched in the region made that possible. I certainly think we'd be seeing dramatically different outcomes if America weren't intrenched and invested in the Middle East.

I'm not convinced that's entirely true. Perhaps the force with which they went after it was somewhat over the top but I don't suppose there's a low key way in which you can attempt to impeach the President.

US elections are based mainly on 30-second or one-minute soundbites that for the most part contain misinformation, deceptions and outright lies.

Obama's war on religion?

Editorial
Race to the Bottom
Published: December 8, 2011

Campaign ads are often deceitful, offensive or infuriating, cynically exploiting religion or families and distorting an opponent’s record. The latest ones from the Republican primary, however, are so brazen and the politicians so unapologetic that it is only bound to get worse.

A new ad from Gov. Rick Perry, to use the latest example, will test anyone who thinks they can no longer be affronted by a political hustle. It begins with Mr. Perry telling the camera that he’s not ashamed to admit he’s a Christian. Are there Christian candidates who are ashamed of it? None come to mind. Perhaps, like some of his supporters, he’s trying to remind evangelical voters that he is not a Mormon, unlike two other Republican candidates. Or perhaps he’s referring to President Obama who does not parade his religious beliefs on a signboard.

Then his answer becomes clear: Raising a fist, he promises to fight “liberal attacks on our religious heritage.” And what are those supposed attacks? Letting gays serve openly in the military, and prohibiting children from openly celebrating Christmas. The first was one of Mr. Obama’s most significant civil rights accomplishments; the second is a right-wing fantasy that has nothing to do with the president or anyone else. Both are part of what he calls “Obama’s war on religion,” an outrageous lie.

Then there’s Mitt Romney, who released an ad this week that trumpets his fidelity to his wife and his family (an implicit contrast to Newt Gingrich), ending with a little routine he never tires of using: “I will never apologize for the United States of America.” That’s meant to suggest that Mr. Obama does when, in fact, he never has.

The suggestion is an attempt to fan invidious claims that Mr. Obama is not really part of mainstream American culture. Mr. Romney amplified that divisive charge on Wednesday at the Republican Jewish Coalition forum, saying of the president: “I don’t think he understands America.” It’s not quite Newt Gingrich’s saying Mr. Obama has a “Kenyan” worldview, but it’s close.

Last month, Mr. Romney approved an ad that quoted Mr. Obama in 2008, saying he would lose if he talked about the economy. Except the ad snipped off part of the quote, in which Mr. Obama was actually quoting an adviser to his opponent, John McCain.

As cheap a trick as that was, it was made even worse when a Romney adviser told The Times that it was perfectly fine. “It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context,” the adviser said. “All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”

There is a difference between manipulating and lying. Voters should be suspicious of any candidate who doesn’t see or respect that difference.

The New York Times

My point is that a similar situation in most European countries would have been swept under the rug as private and irrelevant.

But since it's the US the matter came under investigation by his enemies and since Clinton lied under oath the matter went to impeachment. Although perjury by a sitting president is a very serious matter presidents lie all the time, probably more often than not, just not under oath (they rarely find themselves in that situation anyway). There were far worse transgressions going on in government at the time (and today!) than to have Kenneth Starr titillate the nation with his Starr Report reporting comments like "That cigar tastes really good." (or something like that).
I'll admit, it was entertaining though. And since I never liked Clinton (either one!) I didn't have much sympathy for him.

Don't forget the WAR ON CHRISTMAS.

Do people realize that they won't and can't be arrested for saying "Merry Christmas," and that their kids CAN actually pray in schools? The only thing schools can't do is lead prayer. And if the town is small or homogenous enough, it doesn't really matter--I sang mostly sacred repertoire (largely just because it's the best) in high school choirs.

The view you have of the world outside of America can often times be absurd but this takes it to a new level. I can only hope that you don't honestly believe that a sitting President/Prime Minister having an affair with an intern (and then publicly lying about it) would be swept under the rug in most European countries. Do you honestly believe that the media and political opponents wouldn't have a field day with that story basically anywhere in the world?

And I'm sure if George Bush were to lie under oath you'd take the exact same laid back approach to the whole thing. It amazes me how some on the left still can't quite accept just how badly Clinton screwed up with this whole thing and want to demonise the right about it. He committed perjury which is a criminal offence. It is, whether you like it or not, a great deal more serious than simply writing it off as 'every President lies'.

This war on Christmas thing really disproportionately annoys me as in fact does the 'war on religion'. I'd be fine with both if they weren't so incredibly selective. Where were all these crusaders against the 'war on religion' when people are protesting against mosques? They're in the crowds protesting against the mosque.

France comes to mind as an example, a country where there is an understanding between politicians and the media that politicians' private lives are just that, private (so much so that we'll never know about all of the peccadillos that go on in politician's lives). Britain isn't exactly a "family values" oasis either.

Op-Ed Columnist
Feel Free to Ignore Iowa
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: December 28, 2011

Only days until the Iowa caucuses! Can you believe it? Less than 8,000 minutes to go!

Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that the Iowa caucuses are really ridiculous.

Not Iowa itself, which is a lovely place despite being the only state besides Mississippi to never have elected a woman as governor or a member of Congress. (See if you can get to work on that, Iowa.) It has many things to recommend, including the Iowa State Fair, which, in my opinion, really sets the planetary pace when it comes to butter sculptures.

And Iowans are extremely nice people. I still have fond memories of the hot dog salesman at an aluminum-siding factory in Grinnell who rescued me from the Steve Forbes for President bus during a snowstorm.

Iowa does have terrible winters. Which limits participation in the caucuses, where attendance is already restricted to registered voters who are prepared to show up for a neighborhood meeting at 7 p.m. on Jan. 3.

The Republicans, who are really the only game in town this year, hope to get more than 100,000 participants. That is approximately the number of people who go to Michigan Stadium to watch the Wolverines play football. However, the Wolverines’ fans do not get free cookies.

Maybe the Republicans will hit 150,000! That is about the same number of people in Pomona, Calif. Imagine your reaction to seeing a story saying that a plurality of people in Pomona, Calif., thought Newt Gingrich would be the best G.O.P. presidential candidate. Would you say, “Wow! I guess Newt is now the de facto front-runner?” Possibly not.

Iowa caucusgoers are supposed to be particularly committed citizens who can make informed choices because they’ve had an opportunity to personally meet and interact with the candidates. Some of that does happen. In 2008, at the Democratic caucus I attended in Des Moines, there was unusually high support for Bill Richardson, mostly from people who said he had been to their house.

“Caucuses tend to foster more grass-roots participation,” said Caroline Tolbert, a professor at the University of Iowa and author of “Why Iowa?” — a question we should all be asking ourselves.

But, this year, the major candidates haven’t even spent all that much time in Iowa. Until recently, Gingrich only showed up for book signings and the occasional brain science lecture. And Iowa is actually not very good at picking the ultimate winner. The theory is that its caucuses winnow the field, that if you can’t manage to come in at least fourth, you are presidential toast. (John McCain came in fourth in 2008, with the support of 15,500 Iowans. This is approximately the number of people who live on my block.)

It’s that fourth-place goal that has Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry staggering around the state trying to visit all 99 counties and eat at least one meal a day at a Pizza Ranch outlet. (Pizza Ranch is a Christian-based, Iowa-based chain that has found success in the conviction that pizza tastes best in a cowboy-themed setting.)

“We have a good plan, and people like us,” Santorum told The Des Moines Register this week. “I hear this all the time. They say, ‘We really like you. You are on my list. You are No. 2 or No. 3 or No. 1,’ and that is a good place to be.”

People, if you had spent the last year doing virtually nothing but visiting with small clumps of voters across the state of Iowa, would you be energized when somebody told you he had you No. 3 on the list? At this point, polls suggest that Santorum could come in anywhere from first to fifth. But he’s still like a kid who so desperately lusts after the most popular girl in the class that he is thrilled by being told he will be permitted to drive said girl and her date to the prom.

On Tuesday, our Iowa voters will go off to 1,774 local caucuses, most of which will be held somewhere other than the normal neighborhood polling place. Those who figure out where to go will have to sit and listen to speeches on behalf of all the candidates. Scratch anybody who was hoping to dash out of work during a coffee break.

History suggests that in some rural districts, the entire caucus will consist of one guy named Earl. History also suggests that the majority of the caucusgoers will be social conservatives, which is perhaps a clue as to why Rick Perry discovered this week that he was actually against abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

To summarize: On Tuesday, there will be a contest to select the preferred candidate of a small group of people who are older, wealthier and whiter than American voters in general, and more politically extreme than the average Iowa Republican. The whole world will be watching. The cookies will be excellent.

The New York Times

As for the CNN reporter, Gloria Borger, who badgered Ron Paul, I have already reported on her background:

Well, well, it turns out hit job specialist Gloria Borger is married to Lance Morgan. Morgan is according to the web site of his employer, Powell Tate,"chief communications strategist at Powell Tate in Washington, D.C. He specializes in developing and executing communications strategies for public policy debates, crisis communications and media training."

So who might be the clients of Powell Tate, where Borger's husband is "chief communications strategist and crisis communications" adviser?

Just about every part of the military industrial-complex that Ron Paul wants to shrink or shutdown. According to the Powell Tate web site, they provide strategic communications for among others:

The U.S. Army

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

The U.S Agency for International Development

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

and, I'm not joking, The National Pork Board.

Bottom line Gloria Borger's husband is as inside Washington DC as you can get.


CNN is just the type of organization you would expect to go after Ron Paul, they are at the very core of elitist, establishment, hypocritical, Washington D.C.